A United Press International (UPI) headline recently caught my eye, “Big oil starts big public relations push.” Sounded like an interesting article since oil companies could certainly benefit from improved two-way communication with their publics. Particularly when gas in Toronto has risen to $1.35/litre.

Then I started to read the article: 

“U.S. oil companies have begun a national public relations campaign meant to counter their negative image, an industry lobby group said. The American Petroleum Institute didn’t disclose a precise figure but said it would spend less than $100 million on advertisements per year…”

Huh? Here’s more:

“The public relations push has provoked a negative reaction of its own among consumer groups. “It’s basically deceptive advertising that dulls the natural and proper reaction of the public,” said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America…”

Double huh? It seems UPI doesn’t know the basic definitions of PR and advertising. To me, this is like confusing apples with oranges.

With advertising, you pay big dollars to have your messages or images printed and broadcast to your audiences. There is few filters. Your audience is left to decide if they like you or believe you.

With public relations, you are talking with your audiences. It is about explaining your perspective but also listening to their side. Sometimes it is through a moderator (often the media) who gathers up other sides of the story. Other times, it is more direct with community events, websites, blogs, town hall meetings.  

Okay, I know the definitions go deeper. There is the contrast between publics and markets. There is the issue of public good. But at the end of the day - ads and PR are different. So how could UPI confuse the two? Is this just a case of reporter/editor ignorance? Or are we still struggling to define our profession with the wider public?

When I spotted the story yesterday about the Tim Hortons’ store employee fired for giving away a 16-cent timbit to a kid, I wondered how fast the doughnut store giant would react.

As it turns out, very quickly. The company recognized that you can’t let things fester in a 24 hour news cycle. Especially, when your company is a Canadian icon (although sadly now owned by an American firm).

It was only a few hours later that I saw another story pop up on my RSS reader that the company had apologized and rehired the employee. On the Tim Hortons’ website, the apology is front and centre on the front page of their website.

A quick statement reads, “Unfortunately the action of the manager of this location was not appropriate nor grounds for dismissal. With an apology from management Ms. Lilliman has been rehired by the franchisee. We sincerely apologize to our customers for this unfortunate incident.”

Nice work for something that the head office could have passed off as a local franchise issue. Nor did they get into the history of the employee or the manager. Nor did they get delayed in legal and labour issues.

They just quickly said it was a poor decision, apoligized and corrected it immediately. End of story - they hope.

I’ve become a big fan of parsing lately — thanks to Jack Flack’s Spin Blog in Conde Nast’s Portfolio.com.

What is it? Well, parsing is technically a computer science term for “analyzing a sequence of tokens to determine grammatical structure.”

But Jack has adopted it as a PR assessment tool. For him, parsing is cutting through the doublespeak and buzzwords that fill corporate media releases and press statements. And he does it with wit and brutal honesty that makes it gold-level reading.

As PR professionals, it is our duty to communicate with our publics about issues and events using plain language. No deception. No hiding from the truth.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. That’s why we need to parse ourselves (that almost sounds dirty). After we write something and get a zillion edits and approvals, we need to look at the draft and ask ourselves if some parsing is needed before we go public. Obviously, we need to take a serious approach on parsing, while Jack’s assessments are focused on humour.

Cause if we don’t, Jack or someone else may do the parsing for us. Here is a sample of him dissecting a Microsoft media release:

Microsoft: Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) today issued the following statement in response to the announcement by Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) that its Board of Directors has rejected Microsoft’s previously announced proposal to acquire Yahoo!:

JF Translation: Hear ye the words of the Emperor!

Microsoft: It is unfortunate that Yahoo!…

JF Translation: We are speaking in the passive voice to avoid castigating those we are still hoping to woo… at least for a few more days.

Microsoft:…has not embraced our full and fair proposal…

JF Translation: They’ve decided to be greedy, rejecting an offer that should be well within the lower range of acceptable valuations. Why aren’t they listening to Goldman?

Microsoft:…to combine our companies.

JF Translation: This isn’t really a takeover. It’s a “combination.” In fact, we’re just forming a really profitable commune.

Microsoft: Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of all parties.

JF Translation: We’ve talked to Yahoo’s biggest institutional holders — who just happen to also own our stock — and we all agree that $36 would be optimal.

Microsoft: We are offering shareholders superior value and the opportunity to participate in the upside of the combined company.

JF Translation: If this deal doesn’t happen, any other offer will come from a weaker partner bringing less cash. And if you don’t get another deal, you will watch your investment shrivel to nothing in just a couple of short years…

 

Congratulations to PraxisPR and DDB Public Relations for winning the top two awards at the 2008 Canadian Public Relations Society Toronto ACE Awards.

DDB’s Bosch Home Appliances submission was the overall winner, while PraxisPR’s Manulife Investments Income Plus campaign took home the top creative campaign award. These aren’t exactly the sexiest products to build two-way communication around; so a great deal of credit goes to the PR folks who worked hard to make the campaigns successful.

Congrats also to some good friends who were recognized with individual awards:

- Kristen Marano, PR Student of the Year
- John Challinor II, APR, Volunteer of the Year
- Daniel Torchia, APR, PR Mentor of the Year
- Christina Marshall, APR, PR Professional of the Year

It struck me a few weeks ago at a Canadian Public Relations Society event that I’d forgotten to get a new set of business cards. 

I think I’ve gone through 3-4 versions over the past three years. The version currently sitting in my desk drawer has a old job title and the old Ontario government logo. I guess they will still work in a pinch since the email and name are correct. But there they sit — collecting dust.

My first thought was to get a new set of 500 printed up. But then I began to think about why business cards are still used?

If I meet someone at a meeting, event or party, I usually remember at least their name. And then days later it is a few quick taps at the keyboard and I can pull up their info. If they are a public servant, they can be found in the government directory. If they are a CPRS member, I can look them up through the society’s website. If the first two options don’t work, Goggle or another search engine usually does the job. I assume other people will do the same instead of going in search of my card.

In fact, if I put in just a few more minutes of work, I can get much more than a person’s phone number and email address. Through company profiles, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and other online hot spots, I can often get an interesting snapshot of their life and career. No more hiding behind a fancy job title. And an important reminder to stay in control of my online image.

But what about the old rolodex? Don’t people need business cards of their top contacts to easily flip to find? It seems that’s pretty rare these days. Most people carry Blackberries or cell phones that hold all that info 24/7. 

So after thinking through it - why do we still hand business cards out? Is it just tradition? Or is it a nice way of saying goodbye?

I have a passion for travel (backpacking to be more specific). For many years, my top resource has been Lonely Planet (LP). But I now see a contender on the horizon - Wikitravel.

LP built its success on the idea of community participation. They pay veteran travellers a few coins to do the heavy lifting, then update the information with contributions from thousands of loyal readers. These individuals normally get recognized on the back pages of the next updated book.

Now Wikitravel has hit the scene. It is also built, as wikis are, on the concept of community participation. The big difference is that the bias from LP’s paid contributors is removed, creating more collective reflections of destinations and transpiration options.

Another big different of course is the medium. LP charges me around $40 per book plus offers some okay free online resources. Its message board Thorn Tree is likely the best of the online tools. My LP book felt like gold when I arrived in Beijing the middle of the night, but more often it felt like 40 pounds hauling it around the streets of La Paz, Bolivia or Gracias, Honduras.

With Internet cafes popping up in every traveller town, I’m starting to think the online option is better. I can update a notebook every week during this summer’s journey in Africa, rather than cart around a 812-page Southern Africa LP book when I only need to reference a half dozen pages on any given day.

Another advantage for Wikitravel - I save $40. Yes, I’m cheap.

For all the potential, Wikitravel isn’t quite there yet. Information for some cities is excellent, while detail is lacking for others. But I see that it is up for a Webby award this year - a positive sign. And the site keeps growing.

I intent to add my own travel knowledge to this wiki. And if enough people do the same, it won’t be long until LP faces a serious threat to its travel guide dynasty.

In the battle for public opinion, the Toronto transit union made a critical error in striking Friday night without giving the public enough notice or considering their safety.

The union voted Friday afternoon on a new collective agreement. Two-thirds of workers turned it down and by the stroke of midnight the buses, subways and streetcars were gone. Tens of thousands of Torontonians were left scattered around the city without a way to get home. Reporters interviewed dozens of furious people who were taken by surprise. Many were concerned about their safety walking home, drunk drivers and taking rides with strangers.

The safety issue was also raised by the union - but for their workers not the public. A union media release distributed at 11pm quoted president Bob Kinnear, “We have assessed the situation and decided that we will not expose our members to the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public.”

If the union was worried about safety, why did it need to take action immediately? How can they expect to retain public support in their labour negotiation when they put the safety of their members above the safety of their riders? Why couldn’t they get everyone home safe on Friday night and then shut down service on Saturday morning if they were concerned about the safety of their employees?

People who respected their labour battle, now realize the union doesn’t respect them back. Left-leaning politicans including Toronto’s mayor David Miller and TTC chair Adam Giambrone are fuming.

By not thinking about the safety of everyone, the union has left itself with damaged public relations and a worse bargaining position.

When you make a mistake, admit it and live with the consequences. Aer Lingus recently sold 700 first class airline tickets worth $2,800 for $7 by accident. Opps. A $2 million error.

The Irish airline went public with the mistake. A good first step for a publicly traded company. You don’t want to sweep a mistake like that under the rug.

But then they made a bigger error by refusing to deal with the consequences. They cancelled all of the tickets — arguing any customer that bought the deep discount ticket knew they were taking advantage of a company messup.

That’s a tough argument to make when other airlines have held crazy promotions. Ryanair and go! (a Hawaiian airline) have sold tickets for $1. Virgin airlines has offered free companion tickets.

Customers and politicians were outraged. The story hit the European headlines for a few days. By blaming the consumer and refusing to honour completed deals, the airline was cast as the villian.

It took the airline two days to realize that they had crashed into a PR disaster. So wisely they partly reversed their decision and honoured the tickets in economy class.

In a press statement, the company apologized and stated “…following a full investigation of the booking error undertaken yesterday evening by the company, it appears that some customers may have genuinely believed that they were making a booking in economy class.”

But the damage was done. Hopefully a big lesson was learned. Never call your customer a thief, when you are the one that made the mistake.

Thanks to the Wired blog for flagging this story.

I’ve turned to the power of social media to help support a wonderful Malawi orphanage. We’ll be volunteering with the Friends of Mulanje Orphans this summer during our three month journey through Africa. But more important, we want to raise funds so they can afford the food, medication and clean drinking water the kids need to survive and thrive.

To donate to my Malawi orphanage campaign, visit http://www.givemeaning.com/project/project42

The campaign is called Project 42. Before I run 42km in the Ottawa marathon (May 25), we’re searching for 100 people to donate $42. That adds up to $4,200. My wife and I will also be volunteering at least 42 hours of labour at the orphanage. To add a strange twist, I just discovered that ‘42′ is the meaning of life according to Douglas Adams.

The first online tool I selected was www.givemeaning.com. It allows you to set up a webpage, covers all credit card charges (so 100 percent of donations go to the charity) and helps you ’spread the word’ and bookmarks/tag. The founder is Canadian Tom Williams, a teenage computer genius who became a philanthropic millionaire. Check out his interview with Strombo on the CBC’s The Hour.

Second, I started a Facebook group. In only 48 hours, we have 25 members already.

Third, I’m posting about my charity drive on my blog (obviously cause you are reading this).

Fourth, I’m not sure. I’m not yet up and running on Twitter. Any suggestions out there??

Web 2.0 hasn’t been the only route to raising awareness and funds. Emails have proven to be critical to reaching many friends and family who are still living in Web 1.0 land. And certainly talking it up with coworkers and friends has helped.

Thanks to Dave Fleet, a fellow runner and blogger, who planted the seed for this idea in a similar campaign he did to support cancer research.

UPDATE: We’ve raised our first $1,000 within a week. A good start.

Earlier this month, more than 400 girls were removed from the Texas polygamist cult compound over allegations they were being held against their will and sexually assaulted.

Now the very private sect is opening itself up in the hope of getting their children back.

According to the Associated Press, “From newspaper stories to appearances on morning network television, Larry King Live and Oprah, FLDS women are speaking publicly about the heartbreak of being separated from their children and sharing some details of their life. ‘This was just such a heinous thing that the normal rules didn’t apply,’ said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City lawyer serving as a spokesman for the church. ‘What we were trying to do was inject a human element into what was happening here. Put names to faces and not just think of these people as being so different.’ “

While this is better than staying silent, I’m doubtful that sect leaders and wives will be able to shift public opinion and get their children back.

After decades hiding from the media, they can’t expect the general public’s outrage to evaporate overnight with a little PR work. Most people have already presumed them guilty, and no politican or judge in their right mind is going to go easy on them. Even in Utah, arguably the most tolerant state on polygamy issues, 62 per cent felt the authorities were justified.

Perhaps if the sect had been more open to the public in the past, they might have benefited from a little more public compassion now. But then again, if they had been more open in the past, these children may have been freed much sooner.