Seasoned JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater made headlines around the globe last week when he lost his cool, cursed out a passenger and exited an aircraft by deploying its escape slide – with a beverage cart beer in hand. 

It seemed everyone wanted to share their POV on the “take this job and shove it” moment. News reports included comment from Slater, the self-proclaimed “bag Nazi,” his ex-wife, passengers on Flight 1052. Even Nancy Grace had an opinion on the dramatic job exit. But I haven’t heard much from JetBlue.  

A post on Blue Tales from August 11 states:

While we can’t discuss the details of what is an ongoing investigation, plenty of others have already formed opinions on the matter. Like, the entire Internet. (The reason we’re not commenting is that we respect the privacy of the individual. People can speak on their own behalf; we won’t do it for them.)

This is understandable. But JetBlue is a company with a strong social media presence. Perhaps the co-tweeters could send messages other than stating they can’t comment on ongoing investigations? Maybe something a little more creative, like: “Our emergency slides are tested regularly” with a link to relevant news coverage?  Though, this is probably easier said than done, as legal issues are undoubtedly at play.

The buzz surrounding the Slater incident is huge. This could be carpe diem moment for JetBlue. The company could embrace the Slater-related publicity and remind the public why JetBlue has hundreds of thousands of brand ambassadors -including great customer service, an engaging online presence, the most leg room in coach, and an outstanding safety record.

In the past, JetBlue has been a company with personality and strong customer interactions. Just because Slater left everyone wondering WTH, JetBlue corporate shouldn’t do the same.

The new season of AMC’s hit TV series Mad Men started off with a bang (pardon the pun), with a peek into the bedroom of creative director and new bachelor Don Draper.  It also revealed the tensions inherent in the pursuit of new business at fledgling ad agency Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.

I confess I’m a “Mad-dict,” in part because I’ve worked at a few advertising agencies in my career and many of the situations hit home for me. 

In my experience, some clients view advertising as the golden child and public relations as the bastard at the proverbial family reunion. PR can be an after-thought, while creative gets the lion’s share of the attention.  After all, how do you quantify something you can’t storyboard or plot into a media plan?

The season premiere of Mad Men, entitled “Public Relations,” opened with Don being interviewed by an Advertising Age reporter.  Don’s lackluster responses and subsequent dismissal of the interview as a waste of his time reminded me of a few clients’ view of doing media interviews.

When the article showcases Don in a less than favorable light, he’s called onto the carpet by his agency partner Roger Sterling:

Don:  He never asked me that. Did he check any of the facts?

Roger:  You didn’t give him any facts. He had to make some assumptions.

Don:  My job is to write ads, not go around talking about who I am.

Roger:  Who knows who you are? This was supposed to be an advertisement for the firm…this is a missed opportunity.

By the end of the episode, Don has an “aha” moment when he realizes the value of PR as a tool to tell the agency’s story the way he wants it to be told.  During his interview later on with the Wall Street Journal, it’s obvious Don’s in control.

Smart organizations (the Roger Sterlings) know the value of leveraging editorial coverage to their advantage.  For those that don’t (the Don Drapers), we’re here to tell them.

Back in the 70s, my friends used to come over and watch in awe as I played games on our family’s little Mac with the cute multi-colored apple logo on the monitor.

My father was a successful computer scientist and programmer with NASA and NOAA, and so we were the first ones in our neighborhood to have a home computer.

Dad died more than 27 years ago. He had always advised me never to socialize with the people I work with; he believed people should keep their private life separate from their professional life. So I often wonder what this early adopter of computer technology would think about the cultural phenomenon that is social networking.

Many people thrive on putting their daily activities and innermost thoughts out there for the world (or at least their friends or followers) to see. Chances are good that a friend-of-a-friend is the friend of a co-worker, so it’s common sense to think twice before posting pictures of yourself getting your drink on or tweeting about how much you cannot stand your job.

Those of us in the public relations profession have always had rules about separating one’s personal and professional lives, especially when counseling C-level execs. We advise clients to think carefully before firing off a letter to the editor that’s based on personal opinion, since their position may be taken as representative of their company’s stance on a particular issue. Sometimes the two don’t match up, and that could be problematic.

Is that limiting free speech? To some degree, I suppose it is. But it’s worth the time to thoughtfully consider ways to express personal views that don’t cross the boundaries between home life and work life.

Now that the means to communicate quickly, easily and broadly have increased so dramatically, it’s more important than ever to think twice before posting your answer to the question: “What’s on your mind?”

A recent post on Ad Age’s Small Agency Diary griped about how marketers are behaving badly in the RFP process. The author, Jennifer Modarelli of White Horse (a digital marketing agency), compared the dynamic between hungry agencies and prospective clients to bad dating practices. Last-minute invitations, late arrivals, inexplicable stand-ups or, worse, total blow-offs. While I’m not one to publicly complain about the very companies that enable our existence, I’ll concur that we’ve seen a lot of this behavior of late.

I think the worst offender was a company that makes a product I love. I wrote a passionate letter to the founder. He responded immediately, thanked me for my advocacy and agreed to engage in a conversation about how we might help them build their profile. He introduced me to their head of marketing over email who asked if we could set up a time to talk via phone. First, he wanted to see our initial ideas. We don’t typically like to generate ideas without some strategic insight from the client. But I know this product line intimately and we’ve marketed many products to this audience: moms. So my team got together and came up with a series of creative ideas. The prospect acknowledged receipt and promised to set up a meeting the following week. Long story short, I never heard from them again. I’ve watched them implement several of the ideas we proposed on their own. And I just discovered (several months later) they hired another firm. All’s fair in love and business, but a little common courtesy goes a long way. I’ll stop short of exposing their bad behavior in any public way. But, you can be sure I won’t use or actively endorse their products again. In the end, a botched business communication is bad PR.

Of course, prospective clients aren’t the only ones to blame. Anyone looking to hire a “vendor” should consider the time and energy prospective companies put into winning their business. It won’t always be a buyers’ market and you never know when you might need to cross back over that bridge.

I was invited to attend Sidoti & Company’s (Wall Street’s largest independent small-cap equity research boutique) Second Annual Business Services Conference on February 2. Hosted by one of their senior equity analysts, David Gold, the day was filled with presentations on topics ranging from litigation trends to the outlook for commercial real estate.

Among the presenters was Patrick Carroll, Securities & Commodities Fraud Supervisory Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) New York office. He gave an inside (as inside as the FBI will go) look into how the agency tackles securities fraud in our nation. The crimes they pursue include corporate fraud, Ponzi schemes, market manipulation, insider trading and wire/mail fraud. He’s currently working on the Madoff case, for example.

Interestingly, he talked several times about the role a company’s brand – and media coverage in particular – plays in preventing or prosecuting fraud. The FBI relies on a number of information sources to uncover new cases. High on Agent Carroll’s list was what he called “open sources.” He noted that journalists were very good at uncovering fraud and that broadcast and print coverage often lead to investigations. He also joked that he watches both Fox News and CNN to ensure unbiased research.

Some of the recent trends the FBI is seeing are tied to the subprime crisis, bail-out schemes and alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity. He urged attendees (who were largely analysts and investors) to “scrub down” the source of funds before getting involved even if they’ve done business with the individual or company in the past. He suggested they ask themselves, “Is the risk worth the impact on my brand?” One other area of concern is “con men” that target hedge funds and private equity firms. He said they often get away with their schemes because they assume their victims won’t turn them in to authorities. Most organizations don’t want to admit they bought into a con man’s pitch, let alone see their naiveté played out in the media.

Call it a “scrub-down” or call it due diligence, the message was clear: The impact of an investment to your brand should be considered alongside its financial return.

Last Monday, national alcoholism authority Father Joseph C. Martin died in his Havre De Grace, Md. home after a long battle with heart disease. The addiction treatment facility he co-founded, Father Martin’s Ashley, is a client of ours.

The world of addiction treatment by its very nature is relatively anonymous. Fr. Martin may not have been a household name to some, but if you talk to anyone who has been treated for addiction or their family members, there’s a very good chance they have seen his ubiquitous films – his “Chalk Talk” lecture being the most recognized – or read one his books.

The mainstream television, print and digital media coverage surrounding Fr. Martin’s passing was anything but under the radar. An obituary that ran in today’s New York Times was among the more moving tributes.

Representing an organization that literally saves lives has always been an incredibly rewarding experience for us. Working with local and national media to celebrate Fr. Martin’s life last week was beyond gratifying. It was a true honor.

Yesterday, Morgan Stanley announced it would not even attend the PGA Memorial Tournament, an event it is sponsoring in June. As the main sponsor of the tournament, which takes place in Dublin, Ohio, Morgan Stanley would typically send employees to the event and leverage its sponsorship to entertain clients. Banks can’t simply back out of their sponsorship commitments, but the current economic climate is forcing them to scale back or eliminate all other expenses related to the events. How could a company like Morgan Stanley wine and dine its clients in such a public way when it’s also taken $10 billion in federal government aid?

Northern Trust Corp., a company that received $1.6 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was criticized by lawmakers earlier this week for spending money on entertainment last weekend during a PGA tour for which the company is the title sponsor. Wells Fargo also announced yesterday that it is cutting spending on the Wachovia Championship event it inherited when it acquired the bank last December. Given the many missteps financial companies have made since receiving TARP money, it seems like Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo were lucky to learn from Northern Trust’s unfortunate example. In the news cycle, timing is everything.

The recent appearances of the CEOs of the “Big Three” automakers before Congress offer fascinating lessons in public relations and brand image. Major news outlets seized on the fact that the CEOs hopped on their private jets to travel to Capitol Hill for the first hearing. How could the companies’ leaders expect a bailout, the argument went, when they were being so extravagant themselves?

The CEOs left the hearings empty-handed.

It was reported that one of the CEOs commented on the private jet brouhaha, stating he didn’t want to fly commercial in case the plane was delayed. He didn’t want to arrive late for the hearing and risk upsetting the nation’s lawmakers. After all, he said, how would that look?

The CEOs (or at least their PR people) realized the error of their ways and made sure travel to the second set of hearings was much less frivolous. (“We’ll drive our own cars! Brilliant!”) But being so out of touch with the customer says a great deal about the type of decision-making that landed them in such a dire predicament in the first place.

While empty gestures and publicity stunts are anathema to true PR professionals, demonstrating a clear understanding of – and belief in – one’s brand means carrying it throughout all aspects of the company. It should be second nature, not something to be conjured only when public opinion turns sour.