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.

I like music. I enjoy watching music videos. I even enjoy watching some commercials. But what about when the line between entertainment and advertising is blurred?

On a recent morning while at the gym, I was watching VH1 and the VJ introduced the next video – courtesy of Toyota. But the video wasn’t from a pop artist or hot rapper. “Swagger Wagon” was a commercial for Toyota’s Sienna minivan. I was entertained by the rapping parents; the beat was decent and the lyrics comical. But I was also thoroughly confused by the placement.

Had the “Swagger Wagon” video simply followed an ad for toothpaste or a fast food restaurant, I would have thought great commercial.  I appreciate that networks have to think differently to appeal to advertisers these days, but I was left wondering if playing an ad off as just another music video would really do anything for Toyota.

The beauty of viral videos – like “Tea Partay” and “New Dork” is that consumers drive the interest; not the marketers behind the effort. I’d much prefer a colleague to email me a “can’t miss” video or have a friend post one on my Facebook page than watch it on TV. The buzz created by and surrounding viral videos has to be earned and authentic, not solely a media buy.

Rolling Stone magazine was founded by Jann S. Wenner in the late 60s – an era defined by Vietnam War protests, hippies and Woodstock.   A chronicle of counter culture, the publication carved out a niche for itself by combining in-depth political coverage with pop-culture commentary. 

The longtime home of gonzo journalists Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O’Rourke, Rolling Stone’s relevance seemed to fade when the founding baby boomers grew up and the controversial Thompson passed away.  Advertising revenue and circulation was on a downward spiral.  The cutting-edge national affairs pieces that made the magazine famous were nonexistent. 

That is until Mark Hastings, a contributor to Rolling Stone magazine, was granted unprecedented access to a top-ranking military official, General McChrystal.  The piece recounts disparaging comments made by the general and his staff during a few nights of alcohol induced outings.  Hastings’ “Runaway General” article did more than prompt the resignation of General McChrystal, it marked the beginning of the magazine’s comeback. 

Hastings’ article quickly became one of the most read online even before the print publication hit newsstands.  Mr. Hastings appeared, via satellite from Afghanistan, on various broadcast outlets including CNN’s Larry King Live.   Having once worked in the publicity department of Wenner Media, I know the staff there was overjoyed by all the TV bookings and fanfare created around the June 21^st issue. 

But the question becomes can this title that’s been around for more than four decades sustain its renewed popularity?

Some argue that the publication is well poised to continue to churn out notable journalism.  A recent New York Times article attributes Rolling Stone’s recent success to its bi-weekly publishing schedule: “Many newsweeklies have faltered and lost their impact on shaping the national conversation, but as a biweekly Rolling Stone has thrived in defiance of a digital age in which articles are supposed to appear then vanish within hours.”

According to Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, “Biweekly publications have the best of both worlds: they can respond nimbly to the news and take their time on longer enterprise pieces.”

We’ll have to wait and see if the publication can continue its momentum.  I know I’ll be watching to see what’s on the next cover of Rolling Stone. 

One of the first things I thought when I heard Helen Thomas’ comments about Israel and Palestine was, “Hasn’t she been in this business long enough to know better?”

A journalist for 67 years, Thomas is perhaps best known as a fixture of the White House press corps, covering every president since Eisenhower from her reserved seat in the front row. Throughout her long career, she broke gender barriers and received countless awards recognizing her contribution to journalism.

In an interview by RabbiLIVE.com’s Rabbi David Nesenhoff at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration on May 27, Thomas said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany, Poland, America or elsewhere. The video went viral, and Thomas’ storied career was finished. She resigned earlier this week, saying in a statement on June 4:

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

Some say Thomas, who is of Arab descent, has shown her bias on this issue before and this incident is just the latest in a long list. Two years after resigning from UPI in 2000 to work for the Hearst Corporation, Thomas reportedly said in a lecture at MIT, “I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” (An object of her disdain that day was then-president George Bush, and Thomas’ condemnation of the war in Iraq drew cheers from the audience.)

There has been much debate about Thomas’ remarks. There are those who say she has a right to speak her mind, no matter how offensive her point of view may be to some. Others say it’s her tough, outspoken nature and no-nonsense approach that made her such a successful journalist. And, in her current position as an opinion columnist, it can be argued that she has more leeway than she did as a reporter.

Whatever one believes about the issue, all journalists must hold themselves to a higher standard and strive to be as objective as humanly possible.

Of course, the operative phrase is “humanly possible.” But I would think after almost 70 years in the industry, Thomas would have tempered her remarks and kept her personal opinion of this particularly incendiary issue to herself, especially in an interview setting (and while being filmed, no less).

An ironic side note to this story: Nesenhoff’s full interview begins with Thomas giving advice to new members of the press corps standing nearby:

“Go for it. You’ll never be unhappy. You’ll always keep people informed, and you’ll always keep learning. The greatest thing of the profession is, you’ll never stop learning.”

How true.

I was one of a few thousand people at Radio City Music Hall (RCMH) on Tuesday night that gathered to see Conan O’Brien’s “The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour.” It was an evening filled with comedy, rants about NBC, and special guests. Here’s what I took away, in addition to the image of Stephen Colbert and O’Brien in a hysterical yet rather uncoordinated dance-off:

-Team Coco wants you to tweet

Last month when I took my stepdaughter to see “Phantom of the Opera” on Broadway, we were reminded to turn off our cell phones and pagers (really, the announcement said pagers). For years now, audience members at shows and performances of all kinds have been asked to turn off wireless devices. So I thought it interesting that upon entering RCMH I was greeted with a sign instructing audience members who planned to tweet about the night’s events to use the hashtag #triumph (as in the insult comic dog).

It’s a new world. One where people are compelled to share whenever and wherever they may be. Encouraging tweeting – at a sporting event, performance, etc. - especially with a suggested hashtag, is a smart way to build trackable buzz and create a sense of camaraderie amongst audience members.

-Shtick journalism really resonates

Tuesday’s show was jam packed with special guests – Colbert, Vampire Weekend, John Krasinski, Paul Rudd, Bill Hader and Jon Stewart, clearly the crowd favorite. The applause the “Daily Show” anchor received rivaled when O’Brien first took to the stage. Nearly a year ago, a Time.com poll named Stewart “the most trusted news man in America,” beating out Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric. Judging by the crowd’s uproarious reaction to Stewart’s appearance, I’d stay he still ranks number one – at least with folks in their late teens to early 40’s.

I’ve liked Stewart since his days on MTV. He’s funny but beyond that he is articulate, expressive and appears well-informed. He’s addressing important stories in a way that makes people smile and think. Like Mary Poppins sang, “a spoon full of sugar makes the makes the medicine go down.”

Last week I read Jack Neff’s article in Advertising Age on Dawn’s wildlife rescue efforts in the Gulf Coast oil spill – below is an excerpt:

Dawn’s Wildlife Rescue Efforts Shine in Gulf Coast Oil Spill

Dish Soap’s Long-Running Cause-Related Ad Campaign Timely in Light of Environmental Disaster

By Jack Neff

BATAVIA, Ohio (AdAge.com) — It’s not the kind of luck Procter & Gamble Co. was looking for, but its Dawn dish soap is one of the few brand beneficiaries of the massive Gulf Coast oil spill.

Dawn launched a new ad for its wildlife rescue efforts on Earth Day and was still in the midst of a related promotional fundraiser just as the environmental catastrophe was unfolding. Earlier this week, it helped drive the point home further, shipping 1,000 bottles of Dawn to animal rescuers in the Gulf Coast, and plans to follow with another 1,000 by week’s end, said spokeswoman Susan Baba.

Lest P&G be accused of opportunism, the ads and donations are extensions of one of the company’s oldest cause-related marketing programs, now in its fourth decade, which got its original impetus from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Because of Dawn’s longstanding relationship with leading wildlife rescue organizations, the International Bird Rescue and Research Center and the Marine Mammal Center, it has access to the animal rescue efforts near the disaster site that few news organizations have, so it began sending news flashes about the first bird rescues today via its Facebook fan page with more than 140,000 fans, and Twitter account, a newer effort with under 200 followers. Publicis Groupe’s MS&L Groupe has handled PR for the Dawn, including the brand’s Facebook page and Twitter account.

You can read the full article here.

This is no doubt a very delicate situation for P&G – what my colleague Rosemary referred to as “the balance between missionary and mercenary.” 

The company has a reputation for donating soap to help with cleanups following oil spills. In fact, I remember watching animals being washed with dish detergent when I was eight-years-old and the Exxon Valdez oil spill was making headlines. But there are certainly critics that think the brand is being opportunistic. Public relations is about communicating and building relationships – in good times and in bad. P&G is communicating about the benefit of Dawn dish detergent in a very tangible and consequential way with its support in the Gulf.

I think it would be more detrimental if a company with a product proven to aid in the rescue of animals played it low-key. P&G is a Fortune 500 company – it’s in business to make money. But if it can help spread brand awareness, drive sales and help save precious wildlife at once – I think there is a PR hat trick at play.

Connie Chung (’69) leads the ceremony dedicating Knight Hall, the new Philip Merrill College of Journalism building at the University of Maryland.

What a difference a quarter century makes.

In 1985, I graduated from the University of Maryland with a Bachelor of Science degree in journalism.  I returned to my alma mater last week with my colleague and fellow alum Rosemary (’93) for the dedication of Knight Hall, the new Philip Merrill College of Journalism building.

When we attended the university, the journalism school included public relations as one of the specialty tracks or “sequences” students had to choose in addition to their core journalism major courses.  But first and foremost, we were taught to be journalists. 

After we graduated, the powers-that-be decided the public relations sequence didn’t belong in the journalism school and moved it out, a highly controversial action that left a bitter taste in many mouths.  For me, the rigorous journalism training I received at UM made me a stronger PR person.

On the day of the new building’s dedication, Rosemary and I listened to presentations by various professors and other speakers.  CNN/US managing editor Jay Kernis (’74) presented The Front Lines of Journalism: Leading or Chasing the Change?  It was fascinating to hear a veteran of such esteemed news organizations as NPR, CBS and now CNN take us through one of his typical days in search of the news.

Kernis talked about the role of good journalists in today’s world. He said that no matter what changes, reporting the news will always be about putting a human face and voice to the stories we tell, and making them come alive for the audience.

Reporting the news is important, he said, simply because what happens in the world is important. Good journalists foster a connection to others and to truth by trying to make sense of things together with their audience.  He said it’s a comfort to know “that some of the things that confound, amuse or confuse you has the same effect on others. If we all participate, we’ll get to the truth.  No one is alone.”

I was struck that much of what he said about journalists also applies to public relations professionals.  Maybe the things that really matter haven’t changed much after all.

Ya know, we’ve all used them. Um … let me think, I believe I heard a well-seasoned broadcast journalist, a former editor of a top celebrity magazine and a high-profile lawyer all use them several times in one interview earlier this week. Ya know, filler words, those verbal pauses and missteps like um, er, so, ah, and ya know.

Yesterday Meredith Vieira was interviewing Janice Min, former editor of US Weekly and Jeanine Pirro, prosecutor, former judge and contributor to the Today Show, about Larry King’s impending divorce from his eighth wife. What struck me most about the interview wasn’t Larry King’s divorce but the number of times filler words were used in the segment. I think my senses were heightened because I watched Min on The Joy Behar Show a few weeks ago and vividly recall the number of times she said ya know, like and um during an interview about Tiger Woods’ infidelity. While both interviews tackled the scandalous topic of cheating, I wasn’t focused on the messages being delivered but rather on the number of filler words used.

I should note that I’m as guilty as the next person; I often catch myself saying “ya know” a few times a day. I bet my colleagues could attest to hearing the longer filler, “ya know what I mean.”

The problem with filler words is that if they are used frequently, they tend to chip away at a spokesperson’s credibility. When we media train our clients we look out for these types of words and phrases. If you are scheduled to appear on live broadcast television, you need to rehearse and try to minimize the use of filler words as much as possible.

Here are some helpful tips for minimizing the use of um, er, ah, ya know, so, but, etc.:

· Speak slower: If you are like me and live in the NY Metro area, chances are you are a fast talker. Slow your pace down. Take your time and annunciate your words and you’ll be less inclined to use fillers.

· Listen to yourself: As part of our media training sessions, we record clients during mock interviews and let them listen to themselves. This is a valuable exercise. Most of us don’t even realize we use these words.

· Be aware: Making yourself aware of the habit is the first step. My fifth grade teacher had a jar in our classroom called the “Like collection.” Every time we misused the word “like” we had to contribute a quarter to the jar.

Saying I was raised on McDonald’s is an exaggeration. But when my mom was pregnant, she handled bookkeeping for a Mickey D’s franchisee and, needless to say, she chowed down on many Big Macs while I was in utero. I also have fond memories of childhood birthday parties underneath the Golden Arches and posing for photos with Ronald McDonald. So I was shocked when I read that Corporate Accountability International (CAI) was calling for clown’s resignation.

The Retire Ronald campaign argues that “for nearly 50 years no one has been better at hooking kids on unhealthy food, spurring an epidemic of diet-related disease.” The timing of this campaign, which includes a Web site, a Twitter feed, a Facebook page and grassroots outreach, couldn’t be better. The group’s press conferences in New York and San Francisco and a protest outside a Times Square McDonald’s coincide perfectly with the momentum of Michele Obama’s Let’s Move campaign. Smart.

But unless Ronald has been covertly offering cramped rides to McDonald’s in his clown car – he isn’t to blame for the obesity problem and his “retirement” isn’t likely to help matters. The problem lies with parents opting to feed fast food to their children and not teaching proper nutrition at home. While obviously not a healthy meal, eating a McDonald’s value meal once a month or even once a week won’t make you fat and this campaign probably won’t force Ronald’s retirement from position of chief happiness officer. Like it or not, McDonald’s, an iconic brand, will weather this storm – just like it did when Super Size Me was released and the “experiments” currently circulating online showing its food doesn’t rot.

The Let’s Move and Retire Ronald campaigns are very different, but both ultimately want children to make better decisions when it comes to what they eat. And they’re both garnering the attention they were intended to. As with any campaign designed to change behaviors, knowing your target audience is key. Let’s Move is addressing parents and children (and not victimizing any one source of our obesity problem) and, as such, will likely have a longer shelf life than a Happy Meal or the CAI’s efforts.

“That will never happen.”

It’s human nature to avoid thinking about anything negative happening down the road.  While there is a myriad of bad things that can happen on any given day, it’s unproductive and even unhealthy to dwell too much on the “what ifs” of life.

But when it comes to a company’s reputation, preparing for the seemingly unthinkable is vital to maintaining good relationships with all the constituents an organization values.

Toyota’s situation is an excellent example of this, as my colleague Tracey explained in her recent blog post about the company’s current woes.  I imagine that Toyota, with its heretofore stellar reputation for quality products and outstanding customer service, considered the extent of their cars’ technical problems a “never event.”

Similarly, pharmaceutical company sanofi-aventis likely didn’t count on the fury of a very vocal woman who used Facebook to vent about hair loss she alleged was caused by the company’s chemotherapy drug Taxotere.

We counsel clients to contemplate “never events” – whether it’s an accident, a faulty product, a security breach or an errant employee – and be prepared to respond to all the various audiences who may be affected by (or at least interested in) the incident.

When crisis strikes, unprepared companies scramble to assess the situation, track down contact information, craft thoughtful statements, assign an appropriate spokesperson and proceed with an agreed-upon plan of action.  All the while, the clock is ticking away – and the delay alone may irrevocably damage the company’s reputation in the eyes of the public, even before any remedies are implemented. Tiger Woods demonstrated what happens when you wait too long before addressing a crisis.

We advise developing a crisis communications plan that includes possible scenarios with action steps for each, a key party contact list (with office, home and mobile phone numbers), media list (which today must include social networking sites and bloggers), statement template, company backgrounders and fact sheets, among other items.  The company’s executive team should review the plan carefully so everyone is onboard and on point.  In some cases, we suggest conducting drills to test the efficacy of the plan.

When we speak with clients about crisis communications planning, they sometimes say they want to shelve such preparations until later and deal with current issues at hand. It’s true we can’t control our destinies, but there is much a company can do upfront to save precious time if and when a crisis hits. 

Why not be prepared?