CL&P’s disastrous public relations regarding the restoration of electricity following the October 2011 were documented in the blog done here at the time. Eventually, COO Jeffrey Butler did resign. However, a new report issued by state Attorney General George Jepsen reveals that subordinates shared some of the blame in the company’s mishandling of public communications. The report notes that a CL&P day shift commander who provided power restoration estimates requested by superiors was less than truthful in communicating what would be later shared externally. The supervisor wrote in an email that the estimates are “Quite the work of fiction…I took a swag [scientific wild-assed guess]…I don’t think this should be shared with any town official as it is not really a good picture of what we are doing.”

Yep.

A government investigation or subpoena is not necessary to have the same public relations impact on any company. Improperly forwarded emails have resulted in countless PR snafus. There is one very simple rule question all employees with significant responsibility should ask before hitting send: Would it present a problem if someone outside this department, or company were to see this email? If so, DO NOT SEND IT. Communicate any amusing items in person or at most on the phone with a trusted person.  It’s simply not worth the chance the email could end up on the wrong screen.

UConn Logo

The University of Connecticut recently made two major branding changes. By now officially referring to itself as UConn, rather than the University of Connecticut, the school is making a smart move.  It’s a smart way to reinforce the brand identity that most of the world already uses as first reference.

The school’s also changed the school mascot logo in use for more than a decade. The Husky known as Jonathan’s had a fierce makeover.  Reaction’s been quite mixed on the revision. When it comes to logos, change is never easy.

Many companies’ past logos often invoke nostalgia. It’s been said we are nostalgic largely because the past is a safe, secure place to go mentally. However, periodic logo change is necessary in almost every industry because fonts and colors do become dated. Sports logos are not exempt.

On a personal note, this lifelong Denver Broncos fan hated the team logo unveiled in 1997. It looked far too much like the New England Patriots ‘Flying Elvis’ that knocked out an excellent revolutionary war-esque emblem a few years earlier.

A modernization for the Colorado team that was unneeded in my mind. Yet the following season….the team won its first Superbowl.

My lack of support for the ‘new’ logo was quickly forgotten…

Subway stumbled addressing the issue. It took considerable time to react, allowing the problem to build. During such time, media professionals in New York City purchased so-called Footlongs at several Subway outlets in Gotham, only to find they all came up short. Subway, then claimed that the sandwich moniker “is not intended to be a measurement of length.”

Ugh.

A far more efficient response would have been to quickly acknowledge that Social Media brought to light inconsistencies in the franchise’s sandwich making and they were making every effort to guarantee that Footlongs are 12.” Subway finally did come to that conclusion as well, claiming “We have redoubled our efforts to ensure consistency and correct length in every sandwich we serve. Our commitment remains steadfast to ensure that every Subway Footlong sandwich is 12 inches at each location worldwide.”

Lesson learned?

Don’t take so much time that the media and Social Media allow the story to grow and if you’re wrong, admit it. Subway suffered loss of brand value over this incident that easily could have been minimized.

On a similar note, Connecticut Congressman Joe Courtney, D-2, recently took issue over a slight that impacts the state’s role in American History. Courtney observed that Steven Spielberg’s film Lincoln includes a scene showing two congressmen from Connecticut voting against the abolition of slavery in 1865. The scene very much irritated Courtney, who had staff research the vote. Turns out the current Congressman has a right to be miffed on behalf of his predecessors. Connecticut’s federal delegation actually unanimously voted to end slavery. Courtney then sent a formal request to Spielberg to correct the mistake when the film is transferred to DVD.

It is understandable that there are certain omissions of fact in a historical motion picture. Unfortunately, Spielberg got this one so dead wrong, it’s hard to fathom how it happened. Did someone in the film’s production just pick Connecticut out of the air as the state to malign? Did they think no one would notice?

And as lacking as Subway’s response to the Footlong controversy is, the response from Spielberg’s team is far worse.

Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner fired back, apparently on behalf of the film’s production, that Courtney was wrong to ask for a revision. It wasn’t so much the position taken as how it was conveyed it that makes for one incredibly poor mop up job.

Kushner concedes the error with: “These alterations were made to clarify to the audience the historical reality that the Thirteenth Amendment passed by a very narrow margin….The closeness of that vote and the means by which it came about was the story we wanted to tell. In making changes to the voting sequence, we adhered to time-honored and completely legitimate standards for the creation of historical drama, which is what Lincoln is.”

Hopefully he didn’t sprain his shoulder patting himself on the back with that one.

Newsflash for Kushner: Many people in the American south are still trying to rewrite history on the Civil War. Time Magazine published a 2011 cover story about the 150 anniversary of the start of the Civil War that focused largely on how a significant number of people in the South refuse to acknowledge the war was fought over slavery.

‘Tis true folks. This issue is still not exactly over, i.e. all sides acknowledge the actual historical events, however difficult they may be to accept, a century and a half later.

Kushner and Spielberg could have easily told the truth regarding the states that took the votes against abolishing slavery. How much would the story have been harmed if it noted the state’s that actually took those votes. From his statement, it seems they just don’t care. How difficult could researching that vote be for the film’s production team if Courtney had it accomplished within a couple of days?

What is clearly broadcast in Kushner’s statement is smugness. After George Clooney gave a particularly smarmy acceptance speech at the 78^th Academy Awards, Comedy Central’s South Park incorporated a “cloud of smug” that emanated from that speech into an amusing storyline. Such palatable smug is also the stuff of Kushner’s response.

Instead of taking any kind of high road, the response from the Lincoln team blathering about “time-honored and completely legitimate standards” is “So what? We don’t really care if it maligns you or seriously rewrites history. We’re Hollywood. What happens here changes the perception of historical events and we’re just the folks to do it because we…know…best.”

And this issue will impact how history remembers Spielberg’s own career.

Out of Touch: The National Rifle Association’s statement on December 21^st advocating armed guards at every school. Really? It’s no coincidence that the NRA has sunk dramatically in public opinion polls since Newtown. However, that statement, rather than serve as any kind of flotation device, instead became an devastating lead weight. One wonders if the week-long period the NRA took to issue the statement was truly out of respect to the victims and their families or because the organization struggled mightily to craft something that could be well-received by the public. Regardless, the NRA miserably failed its most significant Public Relations test.

Put a sock in it:  Vice President Joe Biden in noting his panel’s impending recommendations on gun control on January 9, said that the Newtown tragedy was especially disturbing because the victims were “riddled, not shot with a stray bullet.”   Sadly, reaching the nation’s second highest elected office doesn’t ensure one is well spoken. Even accounting for Biden’s long history of gaffes, we should expect a far better choice of words.

15 Minutes of Fame: Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy posted a theory on his personal blog that the massacre in Newtown was a complete hoax. This proves that publicly opining a ridiculous theory on a major national issue can still generate global, albeit short-lived, notoriety. History will pair Tracy with those who claim the September 11 attacks were physically conducted by the United States and that George W. Bush did not win the 2000 election. There are irrefutable facts that prove otherwise in these cases but it is quite possible to become well known from portraying fantasy as reality if it involves a hot button topic.

One disturbing note related to higher education is that a university actually employs Tracy, who is known for promoting his theories via the school’s “The Culture of Conspiracy” course.  This prompts the question: How many other professors at higher education institutions throughout the nation teach fiction as fact?  I personally took a college course in American History in which the professor promoted a number of similarly outrageous theories, including his interpretation that the Union prolonged the U.S. Civil War to benefit its own economy.  I’m hopeful Tracy isn’t merely one of many who are employed to teach such falsehoods. Since he does teach in the university’s Communications Department, perhaps this is just his way of demonstrating one way to become quickly  known worldwide in the 21^st century with little effort.

But I doubt that.

Likewise, a variety of YouTube videos that claim law enforcement authorities have fabricated much of the information disseminated following the Newtown shootings are targeted toward gaining the same kind of viral attention. And only confirm that thousands of people have no qualms sharing nonsense via Social Media simply because it involves a controversial topic.

Media coverage of the tragedy that took place in Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14 stirs and re-stirs a wave of emotions. It is also worth a look at professional communications that have taken place following the massacre of 20 young children and 6 adults.

The Good:  President Obama’s mid-afternoon remarks on
December 14. Not only could one sense that the president was on the verge of being overcome with emotion but there was eloquence in his actual words. One of Ronald Regan’s finest moments in the nation’s highest office came through his remarks to the nation on January 28, 1986, the day the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded during liftoff, killing all onboard. Speechwriter Peggy Noonan is credited for crafting those remarks and incorporating the now- legendary line from a poem regarding how the astronauts “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”  Obama’s remarks on December 14 may represent the equivalent bright mark of crisis communications in his presidency.

The Offensive: Hartford Courant Editorial Cartoonist Bob Englehart’s cartoon that appeared on the newspaper’s website within hours of the slaughter in Newtown. It depicted two smoking bullet cartridges inscribed “Newtown shooting” and a caption below reading “Gun Culture Wins Again.”  It’s understood that anger would be part of the intense barrage of emotions that flooded the national consciousness. However, a cartoonist of Englehart’s considerable experience should know better than to engage in such an instantaneous assessment of the situation. It was in extremely poor taste but this is not exactly a surprise these days with Englehart’s work. Once an even-keeled moderate, he’s since moved politically to the left and apparently not only lost the ability to be objective but to exercise restraint and good judgment as well.

The Bad: The term “unspeakable.” This word needs to be retired by communications professionals and the media. It’s an oxymoron of the worst kind. If it is an ‘unspeakable’ tragedy, why are we spending so much time talking about it?

The Improving: Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s remarks early the day of the incident were emotionless and bland. Later that day and in the days immediately following, he’s done a better job framing the tragedy for the state in his statements. His emotional remarks to the media the following Monday describing how he felt obligated to personally tell parents that their children would not returning will play a major role in his next public opinion poll.

A strong undercurrent in many comments made by professionals and amateurs alike about what happened in Newtown is both the attempted rationalization of the events in a reflective tone and locally, observation of a personal connection. Here in Connecticut, a friend remarked to me that afternoon that because the shootings took place so close to where we live and work, we would soon learn of close connections to our own family and friends.

In fact, reports carrying those ties did arrive quickly.

Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung was both a middle school classmate and member of my graduating class at Naugatuck High School. From numerous accounts, she was a passionate, exemplary educator, as well as a wife, mother and grandmother who died far too young and violently.

Be it security in schools, violent video games, mental health reform or gun control, many people want to utter a nice, 30-second soundbite that explains why this happened, opine how such a future tragedy can be prevented and yes, express a personal connection. Sadly, while there is no easy
rationalization of something, that in reality, is very complicated, there are countless personal connections  to what happened in Newtown 
throughout Connecticut.

Fox was let go by WTNH in early 2011 at the conclusion of his contract. It was then widely speculated in the media the station’s actions were largely due to budget issues. A few months later, he found himself employed by Fox-CT and back on televisions throughout the state.

One would have thought his own days as media story were over.

Last week, Fox-CT announced it dismissed the meteorologist due to “inappropriate behavior.” The station itself provided no details of the misconduct, which was later revealed to be explicit texts or messages that shouldn’t be conveyed by a married gentleman. Geoff Fox’ subsequent acknowledgement of this via his blog (read here) and begging for his job back there are the actions of man whose world has come undone at what must feel like the speed of light.

It also showcases the new reality for members of the media. Fox is a somewhat unique case of being a media personality, not an elected or appointed official, whose electronic transgressions have been his downfall. Were he single, would making the transcripts of these messages public been harmful? Possibly, but not nearly as damaging as they became for him as a married man.

The acceptable standards of elected or appointed officials are now applicable to the media as well and there is no question that we’ll see similar gaffes and terminations in the years to come. An observation: The standard of conduct that is now required for anyone seeking public office…and apparently serving as a high profile member of the media as well…continues to move toward sainthood. If you have anything the least bit scandalous in your past, from missing a mortgage payment to a heated custody dispute, expect it to become public knowledge. If you use a social media account to connect with members of the public and convey explicit conversations, also expect the world to learn about them. That is not intended to express any degree of approval for Geoff Fox’ actions, merely an observation that bar never lowers in this regard.

I don’t know Geoff Fox personally. I’m aware he’s loved in many Connecticut households after being on the air for more than 25 years on a daily basis. I also heard from a friend last year who had a service sector job and interacted with Fox on two separate occasions and reports that the friendly persona we see on TV was quite different than what he observed in those instances.  And while it may be difficult to know who the ‘real’ Geoff Fox is, it’s easy to see he’s one of the first examples of exactly what personal behavior is expected of the media themselves in the 21^st Century.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

News outlets throughout Connecticut covered the recent incident in Torrington in which a State Trooper shot and killed a city resident. Handling the media duties for the State Police, as always, was longtime spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance, someone whose face and voice are familiar to many of us by now.

Vance is before the state’s media more than any other spokesperson. Every time a few flakes start to fly in the winter months and television and radio stations seek someone in an official capacity to tell viewers/listeners to ‘stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary…use caution,’ etc., he takes the calls. Watch one of these ‘appearances’ – here.

And when state police are involved in a serious crime or motor vehicle
accident, Vance fields those calls too. I first became familiar with Vance when I was a newspaper reporter in the mid-1990s covering the Town of Prospect, which is served by a resident state trooper – at the time a post held by Vance.  When I needed information from the men (and women) in blue, I’d be referred his way. He’d provide a prompt, thorough response to each inquiry.

A few years later, he was in the big time answering dozens of media calls on any given day.

What comes across in his statements to the media these days is a professional, direct handling of what the state police likely believe the media have a right to know. Yes, he’s the gentleman taking those questions about snowstorms, tropical storms and such but is far more often addressing extremely serious subjects that involve major crimes and deaths. Both his direct manner of speaking and the message delivered are always a tailor match for the task at hand.

Do reporters also ask questions Vance declines to answer? That’s difficult to gauge from a reader’s or viewer’s standpoint. One thing I can say is that I’ve seldom seen in coverage that he declined to provide details that were being sought.

The Lt. is a pro and one of Connecticut’s better uses of our tax dollars.

An Oxford, CT high school student recently died in a tragic single vehicle crash with a fellow teenager at the wheel. The car had been pursued just prior to the accident by a local police officer who noticed its illegal undercarriage neon lights. An intrepid local newspaper reporter found the driver’s Facebook page several days later. As one could expect by now, it contained posts that the driver certainly wishes he’d never authored. Exchanges between he and a friend included:

Friend: (referring to the undercarriage lights) I’m surprised you haven’t been told to take em off, aren’t they illegal in CT?

Driver: Yup, I’ve got to go to court in August for them.

An additional exchange featured the driver’s thoughts on previously having to going to court for breaking and entering charges. All subsequently published in the daily newspaper for everyone to see.

Additional cause for concern regarding repercussions for posting personal details online were detailed in a recent Associated Press story, which reporter that prospective employers are requiring applicants to provide their Facebook passwords as part of the hiring process. As federal lawmakers scrambled in response to write bills to prohibit this practice, a Hartford Courant ‘Claim Check’ followup story indicated that it, is not, in fact, widespread policy.

For now.

However, both these news stories are only the latest proof that what people post online can haunt them. This is typically more of a problem for young adults and teenagers, whose judgment and foresight are still developing. Yet, these news stories are a timely reminder to people of all ages that a certain practicality prevails over our right to free speech: If your thoughts were to be seen by the wrong set of eyes, could it create personal or professional difficulties? That’s all you need to know on whether you should publicly post them.

Yes, one of the strongest appeals of the program is that of nostalgia. Set in a chronological progression of the 1960s, it seemingly gets everything right in pop culture and fashion. Mad Men is visually stunning in the detail present in the clothing, hairstyles, homes, cars, etc.  I was a toddler in the decade’s latter half (where the fifth season is finally moving to), so it’s not from memory that it seems so period-correct to me personally. But if you’ve ever seen any television, movies, print ads from the period, or homes (like my own childhood version) that held over styles from that groovy decade in the years that immediately followed, you know they nailed it.

Every time.

No, nostalgia isn’t a reason marketers should watch Mad Men despite its remarkable accuracy. Nor is it the well-developed characters or storyline, which are worthy of note. Creator Matthew Weiner served as a writer and producer on The Sopranos during its final three seasons. I’m not a fan of mob films or television. But I watched nearly every episode of that series, largely because of those absorbing storylines and characters. Don Draper is Mad Men’s Tony Soprano, a highly flawed, yet endlessly intriguing and charismatic protagonist.

What Mad Men can do for anyone in promotional or marketing roles is help reignite the core passion.

Every story heavily involves courting prospective or existing clients. Each episode calls for crafting a new advertising campaign, finding a new angle to reach the masses. The detail that goes into finding the pitch lines and quality of the final results are always impressive. Draper & Co do nothing halfway, at least in their professional lives. That kind of tenacity and precision effectiveness are a romanticized version of the profession but something most of us would aspire to achieve some degree of in real life as well. Every marketer experiences a thrill from having a promotion, ad, or campaign approved by the client and seeing the end result before the target. That’s why we’re in the business.

In fact, while it is a romanticized take on the ad agencies of 1960s Madison Avenue, Mad Men also works in some grit, like The Sopranos, just to let us know it’s not all fairytale. Cigarette smoke fills almost every room, especially in the early 60s episodes. Ad execs drink in the office, during the workday. The characters sordid personal lives are high drama but also somewhat realistic.

What marketing or promotional professionals will find captivating are the many rejected campaign focuses, and how and why the winning slogan or visual comes to be. We’ve seen the fictional firm pitch everything from popsicles and potato chips to cigarettes, hotels and air travel. Both time-period-correct and effective angles are always in the mix.

In determining a campaign for Playtex, a male staffer opines that all women either want to be Jackie Kennedy or Marilyn Monroe and a marketing campaign to appeal to both types is devised.  Bethlehem Steel is promoted as ‘the backbone of America’ and London Fog gets the tag ‘Limit your exposure.’

To learn the odd, yet amusing story behind why the women’s health rejuvenator product is marketed as “you’ll love how it will make you feel,” well, you’ll just have to watch the rerun sometime.

In the end, Mad Men is a program that fills a uniquely entertaining role for fans of Americana, drama….and yes, marketing.

And what our state faces in bringing tourists here is a major challenge.

To Governor Malloy’s credit, his administration recognized that our tourism efforts have been lackluster in recent years and is attempting to turn the situation around. The research tourism officials shared regarding what people living in several key areas surveyed think about Connecticut is both good and bad.

For example, those polled in Texas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania largely don’t know much about our state. Having a somewhat blank canvas to work with there and in other areas ends the good. But the perceptions people do have about Connecticut in certain locations, particularly Massachusetts, are poor. To be blunt, neighbors to our north view Connecticut the way many people here view New Jersey. Please understand that’s not a slam on the home to the Boss, the (fictional) Sopranos, Chris Christie, etc. Outside of a few Giants and Jets games, I haven’t spent much time there myself and imagine there are many fine things in Jersey.

But rest assured, in the greater Boston area, your being from Connecticut nets you negative points. Yeah, that’s whether you’re a Sawx fan hanging around Lansdowne Street or not. You’re in the same territory that comes to mind for many here when someone tells them they’re from Hoboken.

Some characteristics that people living north and west of Connecticut think of first when asked about Connecticut include it being the land of traffic nightmares, bad drivers and high taxes. I’ve personally heard from people who periodically travel here from out of state that Connecticut’s state symbol should be an ‘Under Construction’ sign due to the never ending projects on major roadways. Meanwhile, I found it amazing that those polled from Massachusetts thought drivers here a real problem. Again, the greater Boston area provided the highest number of negatives in the focus groups.

One respondent, said of Connecticut “I see it as a place you drive through.” Other noteworthy quotes include: “It is a depressed, crime ridden area,” “Limited flights to get there and they are very expensive,” and “It’s not a cultural hotspot.”

An unfortunate misperception that I’m hopeful tourism efforts can effectively overcome is that Connecticut isn’t part of New England.  That regional moniker carries one of the most powerful brands throughout the United States, yet those polled identify Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine with the region, not our fine state.

Connecticut imagery that has the ability to interest audiences are strikingly similar to those in other New England states. The covered bridges, traditional town greens with a church at any given end, beautiful lakes, ski slopes, summer seashore, etc.  While that is no reason not to utilize them in a tourism campaign, it does make it more difficult to find images that are unique to Connecticut.

I’m hopeful that when the tourism campaign is rolled out, it takes advantage of New England’s stature in the public mentality. The best one I’ve heard to date is: New England Starts Here. A perfect tagline in my mind but regardless of whether it is incorporated into the campaign, I look forward how seeing just how the rebranding efforts will position Connecticut in the not too distant future.