Cartoon Network bombs a publicity stunt

On January 30, 2007, cable news networks interrupted regular programming with bulletins that bombs had reportedly been planted “ all over Boston.” Bomb squads were called in. Bridges and highways were shut down.

As it turned out, the more than three dozen devices around the city were harmless, blinking electronic boards depicting a boxy cartoon character, the star of the Cartoon Network’s new Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The faux bomb scare was intended as a harmless publicity stunt.

http://www.bostonhassle.com

But Boston authorities weren’t laughing. The police immediately arrested the two nitwits who planted the devices.

As a public relations director for Cartoon Network, I would have never allowed this type of publicity stunt to go on. I believe that if any thought had went into the campaign, the agency could have anticipated this reaction. Because of the 9/11 attacks in Washington D.C., you can be detained for having using a laser pointer, for Pete’s sake.

I cannot believe that Cartoon Network did not foresee the major problem with this plan. Instead of plating bombs they could have created statues of the character, approved by the city first of course. What advertising agency wouldn’t think to mention to officials that they would be planting devices around the city?

This type of public relations disaster is unacceptable. The stunt made Turner Broadcasting look ignorant, and the $2 million compensation for planting the devices surely set back the agency. Not to mention the overall annoyance of those who lived in Boston who were unable to move around their own city.

However, I am glad that Turner Broadcasting and its advertising agency agreed to pay the compensation fee for shutting down the whole city. This was a good reaction after the disaster. In addition, two days after that, the president of Cartoon Network, a 13-year veteran of the company, tendered his resignation, saying, in part, “ I feel compelled to step down . . . in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch and to put this chapter behind us.”

This was another good reaction, but it probably did nothing to remedy the situation. I’m sure everyone was still busy talking about the fake bombs rather than the rightful resignation.

I believe that both Cartoon Network and Turner Broadcasting could also have made formal apologies to both officials and the city. 

Domino's Pizza Dilemma

In the spring of 2009, Domino’s Pizza became the target of a gross video made by two employees at a store in Conover, North Carolina. They filmed them selves doing gross things to the ingredients they were serving to their customers, which they then posted to YouTube. By the next day, the video had gone viral and hit a million views. 

I think Domino’s handed the public relations fallout correctly, by initiating contact with those talking about the video through the social media outlets they were using. It would have been a poor choice for them to have responded through their own website or through print or news media. But they had the right idea addressing consumers concerns and issues directly and through their own blogs, was the right decision. However, Domino’s should have taken the time to listen to every type of discussion about the video. Creating an account on NetVibes.com or a similar social media listening dashboard would have been an easy way for them to keep track of the many different mediums being used to discuss the video.

Besides ignoring the importance of Twitter, I think Domino’s had a good plan for dealing with issue, because giving too much attention to a video before it becomes viral will only elevate the amount of discussion about it. If however, they had seen how the video was blowing up on Twitter then they might have been able to respond to those comments individually and stopped the video from spreading further.

Once they finally did see the importance of Twitter they did exactly what one would hope. They started their own account and started tweeting articles about the incident and responding to customers.

I think that there probably won’t be any long-term impact on the Dominos brand, although people might think twice about who’s delivering their pizza. But in all reality, Domino’s customers will probably forget and let it go. After all, it was only two employees that created the video. So although it looks bad for the company, I would assume that most customers would not hold them responsible. 

Larry Craig's tap shoes.

In June 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested for suggesting to an under cover police officer for disorderly conduct. The officer stated that Craig had peeked through the bathroom stall and tapped his foot to suggest that he wanted to engage in “lewd conduct.” When he was charged he signed a guilty plea and later attempt to reverse it.

From a public relations standpoint, it was too late. The damage had been done. Once he pled guilty it changed the way that the public—and the senate—perceived the situation. I would explain that removing the guilty plea would solely be for legal purposes, and that if he did remove the plea he would be going back on his word. He would seem wishy-washy and the public would assume that he was a liar. You can’t plead guilty and then take it back without the public assuming that you were guilty in the first place. 

I do understand that there are reasons why someone might plead guilty even if they weren’t, but a Senator should know better.

I believe that Craig should have considered the repercussions far before pleading guilty. But after he had pled guilty I would have advised that he move onto the case and get it over with as quickly as possible, to minimize the time that his name spent in the headlines.

If I was Craig’s lawyer however, I would have advised a completely different plan. If Craig was solely considering this from a legal standpoint, it would be better to go ahead and plead not guilty and give the jury and judge the ability to decide.

I believe than the mistake that was made here was the guilty plea. If he could have avoided this then the sex sting might not have been so harsh and the appeal wouldn’t have made Craig look as indecisive. All around, I think the best decision for him would have been to go the way that he had been going in the beginning. When he announced plans to resign in September and not finish his third term.  Regardless of sexual orientation, the unsolicited conduct that occurred in an airport bathroom was not the sort for any senator. And the right thing to do, to earn the most respect, would be to have backed down and admitted wrong doing. 

Hillary's double crossed again

          In the spring of 2008, Democratic presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton’s chief advisor, Mark Penn, was involved in a heated controversy that landed him in the media’s spotlight. The Colombian government hired his public relations counseling firm to help them pass a free-trade pact. This was in direct conflict with Clinton’s stance—which opposed the pact. And when Clinton’s competitors saw the chance, they jumped on it.

         Penn should have quickly seen the conflict of interest and refused to work on the Colombian account. He was working against himself, trying to oppose the pact and confirm the pact at the same time. It not only made him look like a hypocrite, but his clients as well. Although having both of these large accounts could be very tempting, if you are CEO of a public relations agency you should know that it is important to keep affiliations separate, and that devotion to your clients is extremely important.

         I have always been a strong believer that you should admire the company that you work for. If you don’t agree with what your organization or clients are saying or doing and don’t think that you could stand behind their morals, then that’s not the right place for you. Particularly from a public relations standpoint where you have to show your clients in their best light and champion them to public, you have to be honest about who they are and what they are about. And if you don’t believe in them, then you will have to be dishonest. And in PR, honesty is key.

         Penn’s decision to juggle both a public relations firm and a political candidate campaign was probably not the best choice, because political candidates are notoriously black-and-white on many key issues. The odds of all of your firm’s clients and the candidate’s interests not overlapping would be very slim. In order to represent both without conflict or inattention would be a very difficult job to manage. 

Public Relations in a black turtleneck

In the fall of 2007, a new iPhone was released to the public. Two months later they reduced the price by $200. Now I’m not sure about you, but if I had the choice to wait two months to save $200 for a new phone, I absolutely would. And loyal apple customers were right to be infuriated when they found out about this extreme price cut.

Apple is one of those companies that has cult-like devoted customers. Apple fans are extreme die-hard fans. I know because I am one. Just the thought of opening Word Processor on a PC makes my head hurt. This intense group of customers that wait outside of stores until the big release of the latest Apple product create a buzz. The excitement and extra publicity created by this group can persuade others who maybe like Apple, but haven’t taken that leap of faith yet, to buy from Apple. And it would be a horrible mistake to upset the most loyal of your customers, in order to sell more iPhones.

Apple probably lowered the price in order to encourage more neutral people to buy the iPhone. This was a good strategy—if they had waited more than two months. But they didn’t and it was a huge mistake that left iPhone owners feeling betrayed. The price-cut could have cost them their most loyal enthusiasts.

But, no surprise here, Steve Jobs saved the day…again.

The greatest decision on Jobs’ part was his quick response to the outcry. Luckily, Apple does attempt to keep up with their consumers’ opinions and receive feedback from them, which is an essential part of public relations today. If you fail to listen to your consumers, they’ll find someone else that does. This situation reminds me of a similar one with Bank of America. They decided to start charging their customers $5 for making a debit transaction, and their consumers pushed back. Unlike Apple, Bank of America ignored their customers and created a lot of bad PR before finally retracting their decision. They should have taken a lesson from Jobs and noticed that as soon as you know you’ve made a mistake apologize and reconcile the situation.

Congratulations to the late Steve Jobs for being a master of both technology and public relations! Due to his attention to customer feedback, his sympathy towards Apple devotees, and his quick and apologetic response Jobs turned a negative into a positive. And Apple continued to sell a record-breaking amount of iPhones—no surprise to this Apple lover—I can’t imagine a day at school without mine.