|
Realist (7/26):
Let's not oversell PR nor the excellent Edelman firm. What
actually, can this or any other PR firm do to help a client
"avoid grief"?
Ron
Levy responds to Realist (7/26):
Here's some of the "avoid grief" work Edelman
has done--and several other great PR firms also have such
achievements.
NATIONAL SWIMMING POOL INSTITUTE yearned for fewer lawsuits.
People would cause accidents--as by ordering smooth tiles
for around the pool--then blame the swimming pool companies
(and sue) when the tiles got wet and people slipped. What
Edelman did via the media was one of the great pool safety
campaigns that got the public to use more sense in ordering
and using pools. Results: fewer accidents, fewer lawsuits
and more sales because each release would lead with how
to more fully enjoy the delights of owning a pool.
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN had grief because Colonel Sanders,
the corporate founder and symbol, was getting increasingly
old and unpredictable in what he'd say--sometimes criticizing
the product! Edelman did not try much media training because
Colonel Sanders resented being "told what to do."
Instead, Edelman formed a team of "minders" who
went everywhere with the Colonel. Once, when Colonel Sanders
said today's chicken is "awful," a sweet minder
chimed in that the refusal of Colonel Sanders to ever be
satisfied is what inspired KFC to make better and better
chicken year after year--and then she recited how many KFC
stores there were and how much KFC chicken Americans enjoyed
each month. A PR negative was turned into a positive.
THE WINE INSTITUTE, like many accounts, knew that if the
product was misused--as by drinking too much of it --results
could be bad for consumers and resulting headlines would
be bad for wineries. So Edelman did a public information
on the GOOD of drinking wine--such as health benefits. Wine
was presented as a drink of moderation --and again the public
was presented with a numerical endorsement, quantification
of how much wine Americans enjoyed each month.
PUBLIC POLICY ACCOUNTS -- Some corporate executives, when
facing unduly restrictive regulation or a need for supportive
government action in the public interest, figured "nothing
can be done." But if a client does nothing, it continues
to bear the pain. If the client goes too far in offering
campaign contributions, it can seem like attempted bribery
that grossly offends legislators and may bring scandalous
headlines. Either way--grief!
Edelman developed one of the three great early public policy
PR experts, Dick Aurelio. (The other two were Morrie Lee,
the "L" in MS&L, plus Hill& Knowlton's
legendary Frank Mankiewicz.) Aurelio taught clients two
realities: 1. You CAN safely ask the government for help,
and your "right to petition the government" is
actually written into the Constitution, but you have to
petition prudently. Neither a patsy nor a payoff guy be.
2. The hand that grasps your hand warmly--the legislator's
hand--is not the hand that writes the laws, which are commonly
prepared by Legislative Aides. So make your case not just
to the title holders but to the bill writers.
One Edelman account after another got government help (and
less grief) thanks to Aurelio. By the time he was hired
away by a cable TV company that made him their president,
Edelman had brought in many more Aurelios, some perhaps
better. The expression, "what you see is what you get,"
is not always correct. Sometimes what you GET from PR is
what is NOT seen--a reduction in public acceptance of untruths
and half truths that cause a client grief but that PR can
reduce or stamp out.
Another PRGuy (7/25):
Wal-Mart did this exact dance with FH a few years ago. I guess
it didn't work. These guys could cure cancer and labor would
still hate them.
When will they get
it?? (7/24):
Wal-Mart just keeps hirin' and spendin' and hirin' and spendin
. . . . on people to 'fix' its image. It still hasn't sunk
in -- change the way you do business, and the reputation will
follow.
Ron Levy replies
to comments below (7/24):
Not only does Wal-Mart pay a "living" wage but it's
a wage on which employees are living much BETTER than if they
didn't have their Wal-Mart jobs.
Common sense tells us that in a free country, people work
where they can get the best available compensation. If Wal-Mart
paid more and charged more, some of the 1.5 million employees
would benefit but many of the 100 million+ customers (some
of them short of money, struggling to live) would lose. And
if higher prices caused Wal-Mart to lose customers to Target
and K-Mart, can we doubt that marginal Wal-Mart stores would
close and some Wal-Mart employees would lose jobs they need
and deserve?
Common sense also tells us that Edelman has two good reasons
not to enforce a non-solicitation clause.
One, Edelman may make a lot more money on Wal-Mart with Dach
running their PR. Dach knows, as few do, how much more benefit
Wal-Mart could get by using Edelman for marketing support
and health PR. Can we doubt that Wal-Mart could be getting
a lot more business from pharmacy work, wheel chairs and such,
and from clothing and shoe lines that win awards from American
consumer groups and in Paris? Or that the Edelman firm knows
how to make this happen?
Two, Edelman and that whole management team got where they
are not by suing clients but by helping clients. They deserve
credit not only for achievements we know about but also--much
less well known and almost not known at all--for the grief
and cost Edelman has helped clients to head off and AVOID.
When Richard Edelman takes a client to eat at the Harvard
Club, there's something about the place that makes clients
realize they're in a special place--and in the presence of
someone special--and they LISTEN.
If you God forbid get a terrible illness, you might pray
to find doctors who can do medically what Edelman can do informationally
and via counsel, and firms like this don't sue their clients.
Good
old Wal-Mart responds to Ron Levy (7/26):
Yes, it's true. Wal-Mart employees are living better working
for very low pay than no pay at all. That's called slavery
and it was abolished. I would not want to have to live on
their wages.
Chicago PR Guy (7/24):
Maybe I'm dumb, but how does bringing in-house the architect
of Wal-Mart's disinformation campaign enhance their credibility?
And, since Dach was running the Wal-Mart account at Edelman,
how was Wal-Mart able to get around the non-solicitation clause
that was inevitably in its contract? Could it be the promise
of even more spending in the years ahead?
New
York PR Guy responds to Chicago PR Guy (7/24):
A non-solicitation clause can be almost impossible to enforce
if the departing employee has a good law firm and is honest
enough not to try walking off with the employer's computer,
lists or programs.
Dan Edelman himself got his start by leaving the Byoir
PR firm to start his own – taking the big Toni account
with him. If a restaurant manager moves to a differet restaurant,
you're allowed to eat there and the restaurant is allowed
to serve you (if the restaurant manager has a good law firm)
no matter who signed what.
If you go after an account or job that everyone else in
America has a right to go after, ask any good lawyer whether
the old employer can yell, threaten and even sue but whether
the 14th Amendment of America's Constitution protects you
(as it protected Dan Edelman and thousands of other PR people
who've left to start their own shops or take a job with
the client).
Arnie Huberman
(7/26):
"And, since
Dach was running the Wal-Mart account at Edelman, how was
Wal-Mart able to get around the non-solicitation clause
that was inevitably in its contract? Could it be the promise
of even more spending in the years ahead?"
That makes it sound far more evil than it probably is -
I suspect Wal-Mart asked permission to speak to Leslie,
and Richard is nothing if not pragmatic - so he can waive
it if he wants, and it seems like this is a win-win for
all involved.
[ed note: A statement about Dach by Richard Edelman
has
been posted on Edelman's blog.]
No Living Wage (7/24):
If Wal-mart paid its poorly paid workers a living wage, there
would be no need to spend large sums of money to bolster its
image.
|
