O'Dwyer's Blog: Covering PR, public affairs, marketing and the world of communications.

Super Bowl Advertisers Deserve Makegoods

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:49:42 -0500

Super Bowl advertisers shelled out $2.5M for 30-second spots during last night's big game, a contest that finally lived up to its billing as the upstart New Orleans Saints knocked off the Indianapolis Colts in a hard-fought battle that went down to the wire.

Unlike past blowouts, the audience remained glued to the tube, knowing Colts quarterback Peyton Manning's knack of pulling it out in the final minutes.

Advertisers should be happy with the final numbers, but ...

Part of the rationale of paying such an enormous sum for a 30-second spot (other than pure corporate ego) is to be part of the after-game buzz. That's where CBS went wrong.

The Tiffany Network's decision to air a brilliant 15-second plug for Dave Letterman's show — featuring arch rival Jay Leno and Oprah Winfrey as peacemaker — upstaged anything put on the tube by paying customers Denny's, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo's Frito-Lay, Anheuser-Busch, Bridgestone, E*Trade, Snickers, Honda, Intel, Audi, Levi Strauss and GoDaddy.com [GoDaddy got noticed as women at the Super Bowl party that I attended cried sexism over the spot.]

Some of my fellow party-goers were 100 percent sure that Letterman, Winfrey and Leno were filmed separately and then spliced together. "Haven't you heard of Photoshop?" a Saints fan asked. Look for Dave to milk the peace treaty with Leno for all it's worth tonight, tomorrow and the next day.

The New York Times ran an entertaining piece today about how the Letterman ad was shot in total secret with Leno being ushered into the Ed Sullivan Theater (Letterman's studio) in New York disguised in hoodie, glasses and fake mustache.

In contrast, the NYT failed to report if the guy in the Doritos commercial, who was zapped by an electric dog collar, suffered any injury. The Letterman promo was reportedly shot because Dave thought it would be funny and entertaining to the audience. He scored on that point -- much to the detriment of Super Bowl advertisers. CBS brass should have thought more about who was paying the bill for the Super Bowl.

Another gripe: Katie Couric's interview with President Obama. Any president would jump at the chance to reach such a vast viewing audience. Obama used his time to float the idea of a mini, mini, mini televised TV summit with Republican adversaries on healthcare. "What's Obama doing on TV, are we in another war," a friend wanted to know.

The host muted the president. The majority of people in the political right leaning group cheered and then passed the dip. This blogger is a fan of Obama, but was hard-pressed to defend against those who felt the president was trying to steal the show.

A couple of words from Obama about why he was rooting for the Saints would have been much more appropriate than using the Couric interview to set up a political ambush for his opponents. Just imagine how many political points Obama would have scored had he told Couric, "Katie, no more of the political stuff, let's talk about the game."

He'd be as big of a winner today as Saints quarterback Drew Brees.

IT Specialists Move in for the Kill

greg@odwyerpr.com (Jack O'Dwyer) — Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:31:41 -0500

Information technology specialist Andrew Muns, (pictured) publisher of Software Test & Performance magazine, is promoting a seminar on social media April 20-23 at the San Mateo Marriott at a cost of $1,495.

IT nerds (brainy but unsociable) sense that PR people are lining up like sheep to be driven into social media pens.

However, it could be that the great bulk of PR pros are not falling for the social media hype.

The NewComm Collaborative that Muns heads last week offered discounts of up to $700 for those registering early for his three-day seminar.

So we don’t think demand is all that strong for SM in spite of all the hype.

According to the NewComm flyers, SM is going to “change the way business is done” and you’d better get on this bandwagon.

PR pros and others are being asked to take charter memberships in the NewComm Collaborative at $195 each.

SM is a small part of the internet and is not going to replace the main job the internet does—making an immense body of facts, knowledge and history available to the masses that cannot be controlled by any organization.

Coke, Pepsi Are Examples

Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo are examples of companies putting lots of effort into social media, touting themselves as public servants and do-gooders.

Coke is helping the Boys and Girls Clubs and PepsiCo will donate to favorite charities picked by users. But the public is also going to search out the two parent companies on the web.

What will they find? That the main products of both companies contribute heavily to obesity, a condition afflicting an estimated two-thirds of Americans.

Adam Bordes, nutritionist author of "Lighten Up! Daily Reminders to Having a Lighter, Happier, Healthier Life", says the high fructose corn syrup in sodas doesn't increase blood sugar like "real" food and results in people staying hungry and eating more.

Coke is being excoriated on the web for allegedly blocking a Canadian TV segment on its activities in Colombia. Activists in that nation refer to "Killer Coke" for its alleged union-busting. They demonstrated at Coke h.q. in Atlanta in November.

Hewlett-Packard, a featured company at the Business Development Institute's SM seminar Jan. 13, is slammed on the web for the astronomical cost of its ink.

Almost all of what we read about SM is about process and techniques—almost nothing about subject matter. Difficult subjects are simply avoided, as though that is the solution to the problem.

SM Is Fake Socializing

SM occupies many of the new generation in rapping with each other electronically during the day.

Real socializing, the previous norm in PR, involved PR and press couples socializing at evening events or even weekends. PR pros were among the most gracious and entertaining of hosts and hostesses.

Washington, D.C.'s Bob Gray typified the socially skilled PR pro.

Crimping PR pros' style in recent years has been the removal of their expense accounts.

Instead of rapping with reporters in person and sharing knowledge while building social skills, PR pros today are turned into customer service reps who handle consumer complaints one-on-one in SM.

Quality of National Dialogue Is Issue

At issue is the quality of national dialogue. Organizations need to present themselves for questioning on a public stage.
A lot of PR brainpower is being expended on measurement and SM rather than on fostering open discussion, which PR prof Tim Penning has described as the heart and soul of PR (link, sub req'd). Significantly, this essay is not on the NANA (PR Society) website although his other essays are.

The ad world used to accept that "half of our ads are wasted but we don't know which half." They knew that exact measurement was impossible but that at least they were supporting the media which would be there not only for their ads but for their PR releases.

Marketers Like Direct Response Ads

The marketers who hold the reins now do not have such a benevolent attitude. If they put ads somewhere, they want sales or traffic or something. They’re into measurement.

They impose exacting tests on media and not unexpectedly, most media fail them. This is one reason for the collapse of so many newspapers and the troubles national media are having like Time, Newsweek, Business Week, Forbes, etc.

Many individuals and companies have cut back on subscribing to trade publications. In PR, this has resulted in eight PR publications folding, morphing into websites or reducing frequency in the past few years—PR Reporter and PR Quarterly each folding in their 50th year of publication; Reputation Management magazine of Paul Holmes folding and his weekly Inside PR NL converting to web distribution; Ragan Communications dropping PR Intelligence Report and PR Journal and converting the weekly Ragan Report to web, and PR Week/U.S., a publication of Haymarket, the U.K.'s biggest private publisher, converting to monthly last June (paid/requested circulation 6,100 after ten years).

NANA Shuns Public Discussion

A example of refusal to take part in public discussion is the National Assn. of Not Availables (nee PRSA). We don’t use its claimed name because of its information withholding practices.

NANA says it has a "Business Case for PR" but how can it promote something it doesn't practice?

Its Assembly Nov. 7, 2009 was a travesty because a large part of what was said by the delegates could not be heard by other delegates. Leaders refused to audiocast the Assembly live which would have been both cheap and easy.

Instead of being given the stage, where leaders spoke, nearly 100 delegates had to use mikes in the aisles and often did not speak "on the mike." Forced to "address the chair," they presented the backs of their heads to about half the room of some 280 people.

Leaders have misinterpreted Robert’s Rules of Orders (RONR) on this. Delegates must “address” the chair but they do not have to physically "face" it. They have the right, under RONR, to mount the stage and use the same mikes as the leaders, addressing fellow delegates "through the chair."

NANA has an audiotape of the 5.5 hours spent on the bylaws but won't supply it to delegates or the press. This year, for the first time in memory, it won’t even make a transcript of the tape.

Gary McCormick, 2010 chair, is refusing to answer any of our questions on this and other matters and we’re not surprised.

HGTV Blew Up Housing Balloon

We’d also like to question him on the role that his employer, HGTV (House/Garden), played in the housing boom and bust.

HGTV is one of the favorite programs of our spouse and we have watched it dozens of times as people shopped for, sold or redecorated houses.

Time mag accused HGTV of “pumping air into the real estate froth by teaching us how to extract value from our homes.” (link, sub req'd)

HGTV programs include "Designed to Sell," "House Hunters," and "My House is Worth What?" Even worse were TV shows called "Flip That House" (TLC) and "Flip This House" (A&E).

Never once did HGTV tell us what buyers were putting down on these houses or details of the financing.

With the number of homes "under water" heading towards 5.5 million and higher, it's no wonder McCormick does not want to talk to us either about HGTV or NANA.

We want assurances from McCormick that NANA will obey the law and provide us with a suitable device so we can hear everything said at the 2010 Assembly. He should also insure that delegates and all members can hear every word (via a live audiocast).

The 2010 "Leadership Rally" set for June 4-5 at a cost about $100K should instead be a spring Assembly that could right the numerous wrongs done at the 2009 Assembly.

McCormick and the Knoxville Center of the Deaf, of which he is a director, should be fighting for the availability of low-cost hearing aids.

Instead, they are silent.

Census Touts PR Value of Super Bowl Ad Buy

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:29:40 -0500

In justifying its $2.5M Super Bowl advertising spend, the U.S. Census Bureau schools critics about the value of PR.

Sen. John McCain is among those ripping the Bureau for that ad buy, calling it an example of the federal government being "completely out of touch with what's going on out there in the real world." He blasts Census bureaucrats providing grist for the "tea party" crowd.

It is McCain who is out of touch with how the communication world works.

The Bureau is fighting back. Paraphrasing Willie Sutton's line about robbing banks because that's where the money is, the Bureau says it's spending for the Super Bowl because that's where its audience is. The ad is expected to be viewed by 45 percent of adults over the age of 18.

In comparison, a 30-second spot on top-rated "American Idol" costs $450,000 but attracts only 9.5 percent of adults. CBS, which is broadcasting the Super Bowl, also threw in two 30-second spots during the pre-game show as a sweetener.

["Payton Schlewitt" (aka Ed Begley Jr.) stars in this "behind-the-scenes" video about the spot.]

The Bureau lauds the PR value of the package noting Super Bowl advertisers are mentioned in the run-up to the Game (e.g., John McCain's attack) and in the annual post-game rankings of the ads. "Therefore, airing once in the Super Bowl creates significant buzz leading to additional viewing potential," notes the Bureau’s blog.

The Bureau also is guaranteed online plugs by CBS talent. In its package deal, the network promised explicit online census mentions by pregame show anchor James Brown. "We believe the message delivered by James Brown, who is the host of the day, will carry great weight with viewers," the Bureau noted. Brown will deliver at least two 12-second promotions.

The Bureau also notes that Super Bowl advertisers enjoy a "significant lift in Internet searches, which is a great opportunity for the Census to drive traffic to 2010census.gov to further educate viewers on the Census. "

It sounds like a bargain.

Weber Shandwick handles PR for the big count.

W.H. Should Reconsider Opposition to 'Question Time'

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:17:16 -0500

White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton today shot down the idea of slating a regular "Question Time" period, where President Obama could field queries from Republicans.

"Impractical," said Burton.

"Too bad," responds this blogger.

The White House frets that a regularly scheduled time period would kill the spontaneity that was evident in last week's Baltimore showdown with Republicans.

Spontaneity should not be the issue. Straight talk is the issue. The Baltimore was riveting and informative viewing. Obama has been unfairly demonized by Tea Bag partiers and their echo chamber at Fox News.

Things have gotten so out of whack, a good chunk of self-identified GOPers peg Obama as a racist, socialist, terrorist-loving non-U.S. citizen, according to a poll released this week by the left-leaning DailyKos. An incredible 63 percent of responders consider Obama a socialist. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of those polled say the President "wants the terrorists to win." Another third aren’t sure. Obama used the Baltimore forum to criticize Republican extremists who call healthcare reform a "Bolshevik plot."

Future Q&A sessions could be used to dismantle other loony claims.

Obama has gotten off his knees. The newly reveived President was at his best in Baltimore. It got to the point at which Fox News couldn’t take it anymore, pulling the plug on the forum because the President was on the verge of scoring a knock-out. It should now be apparent to all that "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide" are meaningless Fox chestnuts.

If conspiracy pushers and scandal-mongers (e.g., ACORN “stole” the election, Obama is a proud son of Kenya) knew that they were going to face the President in an open forum, they wouldn’t be deal in such verbal trash.

Q&A events may even encourage bipartisanship or at the very least give some spine to spineless Democrats who apparently are content to fritter away gains in healthcare, energy and financial regulation because the Republicans picked up a single seat in the Senate, giving them 41 seats.

A Village Voice headline neatly summed up the Democrats reaction to the GOP win in the Bay State with the the snide headline, “Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority.”

This blogger hopes the White House reconsiders Q&As, sessions that ultimately could restore some civility (and rationality) to the political discourse.

Root Canal Lobby: Obama Put Foot in Mouth

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:31:08 -0500

The new feisty President Obama had a very good line during his State of the Union Address when he said the only thing uniting Republicans and Democrats in Congress is that everybody hated the bank bailout. "I hated it. You hated. It was as popular as a root canal," said the president to cheers on both sides of the aisle.

Scorn, however, could be felt in Obama's hometown.

Obama's remarks triggered a mini-firestorm of opposition that was lost in the millions of words devoted to ripping or praising the SOTU. It seems that even root canals have their own constituency. According to the 7,200-member strong American Association of Endodontists, the president took a cheap shot.

"Obama unintentionally reinforced a myth and outdated misconception about the 'unpopular' nature of root canal procedures," says a release put out last week by the AAE.

The AAE screams "Balderdash" to those Americans who equate a root canal with the 1976 classic film, "Marathon Man" and the powerful scene in which Dustin Hoffman is strapped to a dentist chair and drilled by a fugitive Nazi played by Sir Lawrence Olivier who asks, "Is it Safe?" The AAE maintains that Hoffman -- had he had a root canal procedure done by an endodontist -- would not only respond "Yes" to Olivier, but would add "Pretty painless, too." Perhaps the AAE should update the Hoffman/Olivier encounter in the its promotional campaign.

The Chicago-based group says a survey shows that patients who have root canals performed by endodontists are six times more likely to describe it as painless than those who never had the procedure. Of course, those that never had a root canal don’t know what they are in for. Many fear the return appearance of Olivier's sadistic Christian Szell.

In light of Obama's remark, expect to hear more from the root canal people, After all, March 29 is right around the corner. That's the kick-off date of "Root Canal Awareness Week." The president's put down provides a good hook for the celebratory week that is bound to highlight the fact that 17M natural teeth are saved each year via root canals.

Pain, however, is in the mind (or mouth) of the beholder.

(Image via)

'Spooks' for Sale to Highest PR Bidder

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:20:34 -0500

Is your PR firm looking to bolster its intelligence capability? Look no further. Focus your sights on CIA's Langley headquarters. That's where the action is.

According to a forthcoming book by Eamon Javers called "Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage," The Agency allows its spies to moonlight in the private sector in order to to pick up some cash.

The CIA rationalizes its moonlighting policy as a way to fend off a brain drain from the service. It knows intelligence officers could easily double or triple their salaries in the private world.

Financial firms and hedge funds are most active in recruiting CIA talent, but why can't some big global PR firms step into the picture. Picking the brains of a freelancing CIA officer is the kind of cost efficiency that is loved by bean-counters at corporate headquarters such as WPP. And what better way to spice up an RFP pitch then to include a couple of case officers on the executive team. It's pure gold.

Active duty officers have been moonlighting, offering expertise in areas like "deception detection, the art of telling when executives may be lying based on clues in a conversation," wrote Javers in an excerpt from his book that ran on Politico today.

They also are skilled in "Tactical Behavior Assessment." Imagine how competitors would tremble if word got out that WPP chief Sir Martin Sorrell had a cadre of CIA officers helping him to plot strategy in his effort to rule the communications world roost. Surely, archrival Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Levy would need to respond.

Perhaps the Frenchman already has consulting pacts with the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure, France's equivalent of the CIA. That would be quite a coup since the French spy service warned the CIA that allegations that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa was bogus. U.S. firms should throw some French spooks into the mix and add a couple of Britain's MI6 guys for a more global outlook.

The addition of CIA personnel is the patriotic thing to do. Firms could crow about keeping intelligence talent on the federal payroll at a time when the CIA needs all the manpower it needs to meet the demand for agents in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Yemen and wherever else President Obama chooses to fight the war on terror or radical extremism or whatever else the Administration decides to call it.

You have to act fast. HarperCollins is publishing Javers' book on Feb. 9. It will be a seller's market once "Broker, Trader" generates buzz.

The book may also trigger a backlash against selling American intelligence talent to the highest corporate bidder.

(Image via)

'Social Media' Needs Safeguards

greg@odwyerpr.com (Jack O'Dwyer) — Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:27:11 -0500

PR's madcap love affair with "social media" is in full gear with the $1,195 session at Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta Feb. 22-24 "sold out" (600). Live auditing is available at $1,095 for the Third Annual Ragan Communications Social Media Conference (link, PDF).

Sponsor with top billing is Coke itself. Third billing goes to the National Association of Not Availables, the name we give to the PR Society of America because of its information-blocking policies not only with the press but members.

NANA COO Bill Murray will make a rare public appearance, speaking (symptomatically) about how "traditional media outlets are shrinking while social media channels seem to multiply daily."

Murray, in three years as COO has never appeared before the New York chapter nor any New York PR group, nor addressed the PR press.

Attendees are told that they will be able to "revolutionize" their "traditional PR strategies."

Lead-off speaker is Clyde Tuggle, (pictured) senior VP of global PA and communications of Coke. Also keynoters are New York Times tech columnist David Pogue and Brian Solis of FutureWorks.

With Coke taking such a lead in the social media "revolution," we have looked at Coke's extensive (three pages) "Online Social Media Principles."

Main Principle Is Buried

The main advice needed for bloggers getting payment of any kind is in the Coke "Principles" but it's buried.

Only on the third page, under ten "Expectations for Online Spokespeople," do we find (under No. 4), the words, "State your relationship with the Company from the outset, e.g., 'Hi, I'm John and I work for the Coca-Cola Co.'"

This should be the first sentence in the Coke principles.

Lawyer Michael Lasky of Davis & Gilbert told NANA/New York last week that the FTC requires identification of anyone making an endorsement or testimonial on the web. Such participants are considered "advertisers" by the Federal Trade Commission and must state that relationship. (link, sub req'd)

That reflects our view. PR pros, who are professional communicators, should deal with other professionals, namely journalists or other knowledgeable or expert sources tapped by journalists.

PR people can communicate directly with consumers, and more of this is taking place as traditional media shrink, but such communications are legally advertising and are subject to extensive rules about endorsements and how endorsements are disclosed.

Punishment can include "cease and desist" orders but the worst punishment is public disclosure. Lasky noted the huge publicity that surrounded broadcaster Armstrong Williams and the Dept. of Education when it was revealed in 2006 that Williams was paid by the DoE to speak well of "No Child Left Behind."

A side issue here is Coke and Pepsi promoting themselves as public-spirited companies when many of their products contribute to obesity, As much as 64% of the U.S. population is overweight and it is a particular problem among youth. It is not only a factor in heart disease, diabetes and other diseases but has resulted in many overweight adults having to get new knees and hips. Fat people have a harder time finding a mate.

Coke in Bed with NANA?!

We wonder where Coke's sensitivities were when it got into bed with NANA.

Coke in 2000 paid $192.5 million to settle charges of racial discrimination. African-American salaried employees claimed Coke discriminated against them in pay, promotions and evaluations.

The 2010 NANA board, despite attempts by a noted African-American to join it, remains all-white. Ofield Dukes, described by 2009 NANA chair Mike Cherenson as a "legend," was turned down when he sought a seat on the 2010 NANA board. Instead, he was "sent to the back of the bus" as a non-voting member.

The NAACP and the law firm of Mehri & Skalet, which won the case against Coke and similar cases against Texaco and Ford, have surveyed the ad/PR industries and found that black executives are only 10% as likely as white counterparts to hold a post paying $100K+.

NAACP and M&S have talked about a possible class action lawsuit but nothing has yet been filed.

Coke's Crockett Sat on NANA Board

Ray Crockett, (pictured) head of North American PR for Coke, sat on the 2007 NANA board as a non-voting member after being appointed by 2007 chair Rhoda Weiss. NANA/Georgia is the second biggest chapter with nearly 1,000 members in its area.

Crockett's presence on the board in effect gave Coke's approval to the numerous noxious practices of NANA/national including withholding the transcripts of the Assemblies from 2005-2008 and refusing even to make a transcript of the Nov. 7, 2009 Assembly. That meeting was heralded as the most important in the history of NANA since bylaws were completely re-written.

Almost three months after the Assembly, NANA has yet to publish the minutes of it. Names of Assembly delegates are available only to delegates and they have to make a request for this.

Multicultural Section Dissolved

NANA, in the last two weeks of 2009, dissolved the Multicultural section claiming the 73 members were below the quota of 200.

Despite protests by leaders of the section, who say they were not adequately warned of such an action, there has been no move to re-instate the section.

Coke executive Frank Stansberry expressed outrage in 1994 when the NANA nominating committee rejected African-American Debra Miller for treasurer, which would have made her the 50th anniversary president in 1997.

The nomcom instead picked Janice Newman, whose firm name, "Newman, Newman & Jones," was found to be misleading. The second Newman and the Jones were not "real people" but represented her "talents." When asked if she had any experience in managing the finances of a big organization, she replied, "My own retirement fund."

Miller, who had a Ph.D. in education, was responsible for managing the $2 million budget for the Journalism & Mass Communications Dept. at Florida International University.

Miller Was Shafted and Ignored

Miller was seen as a maverick because she was only the second person in the history of NANA to oppose an official candidate. Frank Wylie in 1973 had opposed James Fox for vice chairman and lost.

Although NANA had never talked about the 50th anniversary being in any year but 1997, even seeking a stamp saying “1947-1997,” the board decided that the 50th anniversary would be celebrated in 1998 because the New York State charter arrived at h.q. in March of 1948. Miller was cheated out of being the anniversary president.

Continuing her role as maverick, she disclosed the 1996 financial report in February of 1997, not making members wait until May or June for the “audit.” She conducted a survey of member opinions (the last such published survey), and also urged h.q. to employ a number of PR professionals.
After her term, NANA went back to releasing financials around mid-year and continued its policy of minimal PR staff at h.q.

Huggins Quits NANA Board

The resignation of NANA board member Catherine Huggins (link, sub req'd) puts the spotlight on the dysfunctional governance of NANA. It is out of step with the major professional groups such as those for lawyers, doctors, CPAs and psychologists.

All the above get their direction from bodies similar to the Assembly.

They boss the board around and not vice versa as at NANA.

Directors of those groups carry out policy that is set by their delegates who meet at least twice a year (vs. once a year for the NANA Assembly).

Huggins, who answered 13 questions we put to her when she ran for the board in 2008 (link, sub req'd), was able to talk to us last week since she is no longer a director of NANA. She told us of her new job and of the many things she had been doing for NANA including working on advocacy and getting PR recognized by business schools.

There is no need whatever for her to quit since there are 16 other directors to share the workload.

Every time a NANA director quits the only reason given is “work load.” Does anyone believe that?

If they have so much “work” to do it's because they allow the paid ($5.4M) staff to virtually bar PR pros from working at h.q. It's a hospital without doctors that has to depend on volunteers.

The current board lacks even one PR person of national stature.

'Social Media' Needs Safeguards

greg@odwyerpr.com (Jack O'Dwyer) — Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:27:11 -0500

PR's madcap love affair with social media is in full gear with the $1,195 session at Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta Feb. 22-24 "sold out" (600). Live auditing is available at $1,095 for the Third Annual Ragan Communications Social Media Conference (link, PDF).

Sponsor with top billing is Coke itself. Third billing goes to the National Association of Not Availables, the name we give to the PR Society of America because of its information-blocking policies not only with the press but members.

NANA COO Bill Murray will make a rare public appearance, speaking (symptomatically) about how "traditional media outlets are shrinking while social media channels seem to multiply daily."

Murray, in three years as COO has never appeared before the New York chapter nor any New York PR group, nor addressed the PR press.

Attendees are told that they will be able to "revolutionize" their "traditional PR strategies."

Lead-off speaker is Clyde Tuggle, (pictured) senior VP of global PA and communications of Coke. Also keynoters are New York Times tech columnist David Pogue and Brian Solis of FutureWorks.

With Coke taking such a lead in the social media "revolution," we have looked at Coke's extensive (three pages) "Online Social Media Principles."

Main Principle Is Buried

The main advice needed for bloggers getting payment of any kind is in the Coke "Principles" but it's buried.

Only on the third page, under ten "Expectations for Online Spokespeople," do we find (under No. 4), the words, "State your relationship with the Company from the outset, e.g., 'Hi, I'm John and I work for the Coca-Cola Co.'"

This should be the first sentence in the Coke principles.

Lawyer Michael Lasky of Davis & Gilbert told NANA/New York last week that the FTC requires identification of anyone making an endorsement or testimonial on the web. Such participants are considered "advertisers" by the Federal Trade Commission and must state that relationship. (link, sub req'd)

That reflects our view. PR pros, who are professional communicators, should deal with other professionals, namely journalists or other knowledgeable or expert sources tapped by journalists.

PR people can communicate directly with consumers, and more of this is taking place as traditional media shrink, but such communications are legally advertising and are subject to extensive rules about endorsements and how endorsements are disclosed.

Punishment can include "cease and desist" orders but the worst punishment is public disclosure. Lasky noted the huge publicity that surrounded broadcaster Armstrong Williams and the Dept. of Education when it was revealed in 2006 that Williams was paid by the DoE to speak well of "No Child Left Behind."

A side issue here is Coke and Pepsi promoting themselves as public-spirited companies when many of their products contribute to obesity, As much as 64% of the U.S. population is overweight and it is a particular problem among youth. It is not only a factor in heart disease, diabetes and other diseases but has resulted in many overweight adults having to get new knees and hips. Fat people have a harder time finding a mate.

Coke in Bed with NANA?!

We wonder where Coke's sensitivities were when it got into bed with NANA.

Coke in 2000 paid $192.5 million to settle charges of racial discrimination. African-American salaried employees claimed Coke discriminated against them in pay, promotions and evaluations.

The 2010 NANA board, despite attempts by a noted African-American to join it, remains all-white. Ofield Dukes, described by 2009 NANA chair Mike Cherenson as a "legend," was turned down when he sought a seat on the 2010 NANA board. Instead, he was "sent to the back of the bus" as a non-voting member.

The NAACP and the law firm of Mehri & Skalet, which won the case against Coke and similar cases against Texaco and Ford, have surveyed the ad/PR industries and found that black executives are only 10% as likely as white counterparts to hold a post paying $100K+.

NAACP and M&S have talked about a possible class action lawsuit but nothing has yet been filed.

Coke's Crockett Sat on NANA Board

Ray Crockett, (pictured) head of North American PR for Coke, sat on the 2007 NANA board as a non-voting member after being appointed by 2007 chair Rhoda Weiss. NANA/Georgia is the second biggest chapter with nearly 1,000 members in its area.

Crockett's presence on the board in effect gave Coke's approval to the numerous noxious practices of NANA/national including withholding the transcripts of the Assemblies from 2005-2008 and refusing even to make a transcript of the Nov. 7, 2009 Assembly. That meeting was heralded as the most important in the history of NANA since bylaws were completely re-written.

Almost three months after the Assembly, NANA has yet to publish the minutes of it. Names of Assembly delegates are available only to delegates and they have to make a request for this.

Multicultural Section Dissolved

NANA, in the last two weeks of 2009, dissolved the Multicultural section claiming the 73 members were below the quota of 200.

Despite protests by leaders of the section, who say they were not adequately warned of such an action, there has been no move to re-instate the section.

Coke executive Frank Stansberry expressed outrage in 1994 when the NANA nominating committee rejected African-American Debra Miller for treasurer, which would have made her the 50th anniversary president in 1997.

The nomcom instead picked Janice Newman, whose firm name, "Newman, Newman & Jones," was found to be misleading. The second Newman and the Jones were not "real people" but represented her "talents." When asked if she had any experience in managing the finances of a big organization, she replied, "My own retirement fund."

Miller, who had a Ph.D. in education, was responsible for managing the $2 million budget for the Journalism & Mass Communications Dept. at Florida International University.

Miller Was Shafted and Ignored

Miller was seen as a maverick because she was only the second person in the history of NANA to oppose an official candidate. Frank Wylie in 1973 had opposed James Fox for vice chairman and lost.

Although NANA had never talked about the 50th anniversary being in any year but 1997, even seeking a stamp saying “1947-1997,” the board decided that the 50th anniversary would be celebrated in 1998 because the New York State charter arrived at h.q. in March of 1948. Miller was cheated out of being the anniversary president.

Continuing her role as maverick, she disclosed the 1996 financial report in February of 1997, not making members wait until May or June for the “audit.” She conducted a survey of member opinions (the last such published survey), and also urged h.q. to employ a number of PR professionals.
After her term, NANA went back to releasing financials around mid-year and continued its policy of minimal PR staff at h.q.

Huggins Quits NANA Board

The resignation of NANA board member Catherine Huggins (link, sub req'd) puts the spotlight on the dysfunctional governance of NANA. It is out of step with the major professional groups such as those for lawyers, doctors, CPAs and psychologists.

All the above get their direction from bodies similar to the Assembly.

They boss the board around and not vice versa as at NANA.

Directors of those groups carry out policy that is set by their delegates who meet at least twice a year (vs. once a year for the NANA Assembly).

Huggins, who answered 13 questions we put to her when she ran for the board in 2008 (link, sub req'd), was able to talk to us last week since she is no longer a director of NANA. She told us of her new job and of the many things she had been doing for NANA including working on advocacy and getting PR recognized by business schools.

There is no need whatever for her to quit since there are 16 other directors to share the workload.

Every time a NANA director quits the only reason given is “work load.” Does anyone believe that?

If they have so much “work” to do it's because they allow the paid ($5.4M) staff to virtually bar PR pros from working at h.q. It's a hospital without doctors that has to depend on volunteers.

The current board lacks even one PR person of national stature.

NYC EconDev Corp. Goes Overboard on PR

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:52:34 -0500

Things are tough in the Big Apple these days, but c'mon. The New York City Economic Development Corp., Mayor Michael Bloomberg's development arm, issued a press release earlier today trumpeting its latest achievement.

Did the NYCEDC lure a corporate headquarters like metro Washington snagging Northrop Grumman and Hilton Hotels? No.

Was the news about a batch of corporate leases for One World Trade Center (the former Freedom Tower), which is supposed to be open for business in 2013? Nada.

Are the Los Angeles Dodgers returning to Brooklyn in a new stadium to be built in the vicinity of the Atlantic Yards project , which is the future home of the Jersey Nets? Nope.

Okay, at the very least have the Mets finally signed the front-line pitcher that desperately need to challenge the Phillies and Braves in the National League East. Not a chance.

Did the NYCEDC announce plans for an Au Bon Pain coffee and pastry shop slated for the St. George Ferry Terminal in Staten Island? Bingo.

Today's ribbon-cutting included a gaggle of politicos, including Rep. Michael McMahon (NYC's only "Blue Dog" Democrat who may soon find himself a one-term wonder), Borough President James Molinaro, State Senator Diane Savino, Assemblyman Matthew Titone, Councilman Deborah Rose, NYCEDC president Seth Pinsky and Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

McMahon, who voted against President Obama's healthcare reform bill, said the 1,120 sq. ft. café is opening "thanks in part to the economic recovery funds secured for our district." Thirty-one Staten Islanders will be serving coffee, sandwiches, soups and salads to the 65,000 people who pass through the terminal once the $1M investment opens its doors in a few months. Sadik-Khan hails the fast-food eatery as an "important milestone" to "enhance the ferry commuter experience with the kind of amenities that Staten Islanders deserve." The Commish must really like Au Bon Pain's signature artisan breads.

There is more good news ahead. Au Bon Pain will soon have some company. Island Pretzel, Fresh Juice & Ice Cream Delight and Statue of Island Deli plan to put down roots at St. George. High-level negotiations are underway with a national sandwich chain (Subway, Blimpie's, Quiznos?) and "a well-known local food retailer from Brooklyn," crows the release. The suspense builds.

The NYCEDC press shop is going to be very busy. Congressman McMahon may even gain a couple of pounds.

PRSA Board Ducks Press

greg@odwyerpr.com (Jack O'Dwyer) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:37:07 -0500

The 2010 board of the association we have dubbed the "Not Availables" (because they're unavailable either to the press or members) is meeting today in New York.

None of the 17 directors, including 2010 chair Gary McCormick of Scripps, has time to meet with O'Dwyer's editors so we have e-mailed McCormick and the other directors as follows:

Hi Gary:

I've tried to get you to meet with O'Dwyer's editor Kevin McCauley and me with no success. It looks like another year of Society leaders running from the press and members.

I think this sets a very bad example for the PR industry at a time when America needs an increased flow of information.

PRSA board (L-R from top row): Gary McCormick, chair; Rosanna Fiske, chair-elect; Philip Tate, treasurer; Gerard Corbett, secretary; Michael Cherenson, immediate past-chair; directors Lynn Appelbaum, Kathy Nelson Barbour, Robert Frause, Steven Lewis Grant, Donald Krichoffner, Blake Lewis, Gail Liebl, Mickey Nall, Deborah Silverman, Barbara Whitman, Gail Winslow-Pine ...

... and non-voting "senior counsels" Ofield Dukes and Wynonna Redmond.
The Society should be setting new records in providing information rather than withholding it. Lack of information is at the root of the current economic malaise.

Members Are Passive

It seems that as long as few or even no members complain about your "not available" policies you're not going to meet with us, let me or an O'Dwyer staffer join, release financials now or at least in Feb. (as 1997 president Debra Miller did), and your going to continue to withhold the minutes of the 2009 Assembly which was almost three months ago, refuse to make any written arrangements to accommodate my hearing problem at the next Assembly, and refuse to provide a list of 2009 Assembly delegates to the general membership, among other undemocratic and anti-information practices.

As long as no one but me complains you feel it's o.k. and you can get away with it.

Where Is Assembly on Website?

Members tell me they can't find anything about the Assembly on the website. Apparently it's been designed out unless you’re a member of the Assembly.

You refuse to answer any of my questions such as what was the paid membership as of Dec. 31, 2009?
I would also like the list of chapter member counts that the Society used to give me.

Just confirming--you are not going to make a transcript of the Assembly for the first time in many years. If it's not necessary for creating the minutes, why did the Society prepare transcripts all those years?

The minutes, according to Robert's, are supposed to provide a tally of every single vote that was taken in the Assembly since minutes are a record of actions taken and votes are actions take (that's what Robert's experts tell me).

I understand that only 30 showed up for the social media conference today and yesterday in D.C.
There are numerous other conferences on social media that are in competition with yours, which cost $899 for members and $999 for non-members.

I don't think you should be competing with private companies at all since you're playing with tax-free dollars.

If you want to ignore all of the above, that's up to you. It is not a pretty picture--Society leaders not only evading me but members.

Not once in 2009 did the bylaws committee face a chapter in person about the bylaws. If you think you're setting a good example for the industry, I'd sure like to know the reasoning.

Cordially,

Jack

Obama Has Better Day than Apple's Jobs

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:49:21 -0500

President Barack Obama had a much better day than Steve Jobs on Thursday.

During the State of the Union address, the president showed fight and spunk. Where has that guy been for the past year? Obama nailed it when telling spineless Democrats: "I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills."

The message: Quit whining and buck up because I am in the game. It's about time. "No Drama Obama" needs to step up to the plate and take a swing at job creation and healthcare reform. He has been in the dugout for far too long.

To Republican leadership, Obama said, now that Massachusetts wunderkind Scott Brown is on board: the "responsibility to govern is now yours as well." The New York Times called the SOTU "a bid to recapture the magic, a dose of reality."

We can do with less magic and more reality surrounding the daily lives of millions of Americans who are jobless and suffering with healthcare relief just inches from their grasp. No more pixie dust. Obama has got to close a healthcare deal ASAP, and then move on.

The Apple CEO, meanwhile, is a victim of the company's own hype. Alas, Steve Jobs, a master showman and design genius, is no Superman.

The much-anticipated Apple tablet computer was pitched by the media as the potential savior of the newspaper industry. One recent item told how Jobs is a champion of the free press, and a firm believer that the collapse of "mainstream media" is a threat to America's democracy. Apple's secretive PR squad did nothing to cool the hype. Drumroll please, welcome to the iPad.

The iPad looks like a bigger version of the iPod Touch. During the great unveiling, it appeared that Jobs got a jumbo iPod Touch as a reward for being CEO of his "personal mobility company." A song popped into my head. It was the 1969 classic >"Is That All There Is" by Peggy Lee.

My family loves the performance and reliability of Apple's line-up. We have a Mac mothership, two laptops, three iPods, an iTouch and an iPhone. One questions where the iPad fits in the grand scheme of Apple's product roster. Some say the iPad is a killer of Kindle, Amazon's e-reader. That raises the question: will Americans shell out $500 for the cheapest iPad when they can pick up a Kindle for $259 and use Apple laptops and iPod Touches for everything else an iPad can do?

Time will tell. One thing is certain: never underestimate Jobs. The iPhone was considered a dud when it was introduced. Early critics were proven to be very, very wrong. Keep an eye on the iPad.

Down in Davos, Up with Clinton

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:04:50 -0500

The masters of finance and globalization plan to keep low profiles this week as the World Economic Forum celebration of capitalization promises to be a much more somber affair than previous blowouts, reflective of its 2010 "Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild" theme.

In other words, the financial geniuses who pushed the Humpty Dumpty world economy off the wall will try to figure out how to put it back together.

Davos organizers point out that this year’s session will have as many labor leaders as central bankers. Haiti relief/reconstruction is high on the agenda. The getaway day features a discussion of "Being Responsible for the Future" led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The 40th Davos confab sounds a lot like the do-gooders over at the Clinton Global Initiative, which in today's environment is pretty good thing. A Jan. 25 survey from Weber Shandwick's Voiceboxx offering, which deals with executive speaking engagements, finds that Clinton's September meeting in New York, according to CEOs and C-level execs, has toppled Davos as the prime speaking spot.

WS believes Davos' decline is tied to the severe economic downturn that began at the beginning of 2009 when the WEF was held. Davos, in fact, now ranks behind the Chief Executives’ Club of Boston and the Wall Street Journal CEO Council.

The CGI issued its own release Jan. 26 to express pleasure with the WS survey. "We are honored that Weber Shandwick recognizes the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting as the No. 1 conference for CEOs," said Robert S. Harrison, CEO of CGI in the statement.

The release noted that former President Bill Clinton believes the "private sector plays a critical role in solving some of the critical issues of our time, from improving global health and education, fighting climate change, and increasing economic empowerment worldwide." He's grateful "these CEOs are proving through the Clinton Global Initiative that businesses can do well by doing good.”

Clinton deserves all the kudos he gets for his work with CGI. But truth be told, he would rather be back in the Oval Office. Clinton famously told a November conference in Istanbul that if he had his druthers he would still be in the White House: "It's good that we have a (term) limit. Otherwise I would have stayed until I was carried away in a coffin. Or defeated in an election." "I loved doing the job," he said, according to Reuters.

Many Americans wish Bill was back on the job.

Tough-Talking Emanuel Speechless in Video-Ops

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:34:36 -0500

Tough-talking White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is the only member of President Barack Obama's Cabinet, other than Vice President Joe Biden, who did not shoot a video "report card" of his/her accomplishments during the first year in office.

Released today, the video snippets run about a minute. They are accessed by clicking on your favorite Cabinet member in a group shot. The curious can find out what Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan have been up to.

Power hitters -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder -- are front and center in the picture.

Embattled Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also gets front row placement. In his video, Geithner takes credit for reviving an economy that was "falling off the cliff" and heading for a replay of the Great Depression. He pointedly says the big banks have paid back the "vast bulk of assistance that was provided by the Bush Administration."

Here's a prediction: pushed by populist outrage Geithner will be the first Cabinet member to walk the plank.

It's a shame that shy Rahm doesn't have his say. His video absence comes on the day the Wall Street Journal runs an item headlined "Chief of Staff Draws Fire from Left as Obama Falters" on its front page. Cenk Uygur, the lefty talk radio host, had the ultimate put down of Emanuel, calling the former Chicago Congressman "Barack Obama's Dick Cheney."

The WSJ piece reports that salty tongued Emanuel didn't win many friends in the liberal wing of the Democratic party when he told a group of them that their idea to air ads attacking Blue Dogs for opposing healthcare reform was "f….ing retarded."

A colleague at O'Dwyer's speculated that Rahm did make a video, but it had to be bleeped out. My guess is that Rahm's list of accomplishments would be embarrassingly short.

The cabinet video report cards are pretty cool, but a mere warm-up to the ultimate report card tomorrow -- Obama's State of the Union.

SCOTUS Decision Silences Democracy's 'Voice'

jon.gingerich@odwyerpr.com (Jon Gingerich) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:26:57 -0500

Democracy took a dive on Thursday after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling that corporations may now spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose the Congressional or Presidential candidates of their choosing.

The Court's 5-4 decision, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removes any limits on independent expenditures that advocate the defeat or support of a political candidate, as long as it remains independent of a candidate's campaign. In doing so, it effectively overturns the historic campaign finance laws of McCain-Feingold and vastly increases the influence corporate money has in the election process.

The ruling applies equally to corporations, unions, trade associations and non-profits. It still prohibits corporations or unions from directly contributing to a political candidate, and the old disclosures remain: the name and address of the group responsible for a political ad must be included if the ad isn’t authorized by the candidate depicted; and the company must file with the Federal Election Commission the names of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

There's no doubt this is a great advancement for the ad and marketing industries. Election seasons will now become an advertising battleground of corporate logos and the politicians they endorse. Expect business to boom. It’s my opinion, however, that this decision comes at a greater price. Namely, it undermines the electoral process by co-opting public policy, it opens the door for back-alley corporate collusion, bribery and corruption, and it serves as nothing less than an affront to democracy because it partitions consensus solely to those bodies with the privilege to afford it.

Congress has enforced limitations on campaign spending by corporations in one form or another since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907. And for good reason. By the 1850’s, when U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures instead of the popular vote, election bribery was standard fare; noted instances were exposed in Colorado, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia. Ulysses S. Grant was essentially indebted to donors, giving kickbacks in the form of federal subsidies to his coffers in the railroad industry. No matter how and when the deals were made, you can bet the results have always been the same two-pronged pattern: politicians often resorted to extortion in return for corporate campaign money, and corporations hungry to influence policy spent historic sums to derail elections that interfered with their interests, as the Bank of the United States attempted with Andrew Jackson.

Fast forward to last week when, in a moment that can only be described as manufactured naïveté, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following in the majority opinion of the case:

“This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

Granted, the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t allow corporations to buy votes or contribute directly to a campaign. But there’s a difference – a huge one, in fact – between Bill Gates firing off a million dollars to his Presidential hopeful and Microsoft telling you who to vote for during November prime time. Now that corporations can spend directly from their corporate treasuries, their employees, shareholders, and customers are now essentially beholden to support that corporation’s candidate simply by working for or buying the company’s product. You can see where this is going. Bought an Apple computer? You just sent money to the Barack Obama reelection committee! Bought a Ford? You just supported the election campaign of Jeb Bush!

It’s a marketer’s dream, but a short-lived one. When brand image becomes intertwined in the political spectrum, the conversation moves away from the initial narrative surrounding the brand and instead threatens to subsume or be usurped by its associative surrogate in which it has little control. In the long run, this decision could prove disastrous for corporate branding because, by design, it is no longer anchored to any centralized meaning.

Corporations already have plenty of opportunities to participate in the electoral process. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about campaign contributions from corporate employees, owners or their board of directors, either from their own pockets or their political action committee. This is the influence of people, not bodies that may or may not represent their employees, customers or union members, the same people who vote in our general elections, a privilege that corporations do not share.

Thankfully, there are already a number of bills in varying states opposing this measure. Congressman Alan Grayson (D- FL) has introduced no fewer than five bills to fight the influence of corporate money in politics (with such apt names as “The End Political Kickbacks Act” and “The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act”). On January 21, Leonard Boswell (D-IA) introduced a Constitutional amendment to restrict corporate political spending. Finally, there’s the Fair Elections Now act, a bi-partisan bill introduced by John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-NC), which would prohibit candidates running for office to accept large contributions or lobbyist donations, making them rely instead on raising a large number of small contributions that later qualify them for Fair Elections funding to pays for a portion of their primary and general election campaigns.

The ongoing healthcare debate in Congress and its resulting scorched-earth advertising landscape is proof that the Supreme Court’s ruling will open the floodgates for even more corporate influence in modern politics, if that’s even possible. Election seasons could surpass the Super Bowl for its orgy of marketing metrics, a virtual Times Square of corporate sloganeering for the politicians they incidentally endorse, our democratic process reduced to a NASCAR auto-racing event, its star politicians emblazoned in corporate messages for mass adulation.

The political future could resemble that of a David Foster Wallace novel, where the calendar years are replaced with names like “The Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment.”

The sky’s the limit. What’s next? Wal-Mart for Senator? Coca-Cola for President?

Media Have Come Long Way Since Brink of Nuke War

kevin@odwyerpr.com (Kevin McCauley) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:51:19 -0500

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. stood at the brink of nuclear war. President Kennedy took to the air in October of that year to tell the nation what he could about the stand-off with the Cubans/Russians. The Big Three broadcasters covered Kennedy's speech. They then returned to regular programming, according to historian Michael Beschloss in the Jan. 25 issue of The New Yorker.

[This blogger was a little too young to understand the missile crisis, but he did wonder about all those "duck and cover" drills the nuns were running in the aftermath of the showdown. Air raid sirens are another fond memory.]

Flash forward 48 years. Try to compare the missile crisis airtime with the wall-to-wall media coverage of last week's "Massachusetts Massacre," in which Republican Scott Brown knocked off the dreary Martha Coakley. Days have been spent analyzing Brown's victory in thousands of different ways.

President Obama's agenda is said to be in jeopardy due to the temporary loss of a Senate seat in the Bay State, leaving the spineless Democrats with only a 59 to 41 majority. Imagine the wall-to-wall coverage if a couple of nukes are uncovered in Fidel's backyard next week.

The New Yorker piece, written by Ken Auletta, reminds readers of another interesting tidbit. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter weren't around when George W. Bush was wrapping up his first term. Would social media have played a role in heading off the invasion of Iraq?

Doubt it. The Bush Administration suckered us in on that one. Could social media have spurred the election of John Kerry as President? Perhaps.

As President Obama prepares his "State of the Union," the "always on" media world is poised to pounce. Watch out, Barack. Auletta nailed it. He writes: "the transformation of media has not only undermined the imperial institution of the mainstream media; it has undermined the imperial Presidency."

More woes for our weary president, who probably thinks a return to Chicago is looking pretty good these days.

As for Cuba, social media are bound to play a huge role in the political development of that country, once Fidel and Ramon bite the dust.

(Image via)