When Ozzie Guillén, manager of the rebranded Miami Marlins, inserted the proverbial foot-in-mouth during an interview with TIME magazine, where he stated, “I love Fidel Castro,” I immediately began to question the Marlins’ management strategy.

I thought, “Clearly this guy has no understanding of local politics. Clearly he has no understanding of what so many of us lived through in a Fidel-Castro-Cuban regime. Clearly the Marlins management doesn’t necessarily know what it’s doing to the brand.” I wasn’t alone.

To give you some quick background: What Guillén said is highly offensive to many Hispanics of Cuban origin, especially to those who are older. Cubans did not come to the U.S. looking for a better job or a better economic opportunity. Many lawyers, doctors, engineers, journalists and professionals left their homes, careers and even families because of political oppression and the sheer lack of simple human rights — all attributed to Castro and his followers.

Just as recently as last month, during the Pope’s visit to Cuba, he reiterated how important it was to keep in mind human rights above all else in the island. He urged the Cuban people, “that you may strive to build a renewed and open society, a better society, one more worthy of humanity.”

Having been personally affected by this communist regime, I was taken aback upon hearing about Guillen’s remarks. The fact that he was suspended for five games for his comment didn’t seem like “enough” to me initially. Then, I thought, “How could the Marlins public relations team not have provided such important market-sensitive information?”

Continue reading " No Grand Slam for Miami Marlins’ PR Practices "

It seems pretty clear to just about everyone that home improvement giant Lowe’s made a huge public relations gaffe in its recent decision to pull advertising from the show “All-American Muslim” on TLC. The more interesting story may be how and why Lowe’s made such a dumb mistake.

Lowe’s came under pressure from a group called the Florida Family Association (FFA), which doesn’t like the show because, I guess, they think the show portrays Muslims (at least the ones on the show) as normal people and not as crazed jihadists out to destroy America. It’s certainly not new that people with a political ax to grind might try to eradicate support for the people they’re out to get. If that support comes in the form of advertising dollars, they try to pressure the advertisers to drop support.

It doesn’t work very often, usually because advertisers rightly recognize that the investment of advertising dollars pays off, and a small, but vocal, interest group that threatens a “boycott” will either be seen for what it is or be a blip on the media radar.

In this case, FFA won a battle by persuading Lowe’s to pull its ads from “All-American Muslim,” but I wonder if it hasn’t lost the war — not only for itself, but for all interest groups who attempt to use this tactic.

Before this happened, I doubt many people even thought about the fact that Lowe’s advertised on the show — at least to the extent that they may have considered the social or political implications. A few people in Florida may have been upset about it, but I doubt many other people cared one way or the other.

But once Lowe’s dropped the ads, everyone became aware of it, and not in a way that reflects positively on Lowe’s corporate reputation. Rather than just getting complaints from one group of cranks, Lowe’s is now catching heat from all over the place.

The lesson: You bring more trouble on yourself by pulling your ads from a show like this than if you just keep running them … especially when you claim you support diversity.

Continue reading " PR Lessons from the Lowe’s Advertising Debacle "

The past few months have witnessed increased media interest in the motivations of public relations professionals when it comes to accepting consulting opportunities with governments whose actions are, at best, questionable.

The focus has been primarily aimed at the former Libyan government’s ham-handed efforts to spruce up its image while it was under the control of deposed dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

This first came to my attention after The Boston Globe revealed in March that Cambridge, Mass.-based consulting firm Monitor Group had previously provided the Libyan government “consulting services” designed to present a more “humane” side of the dictatorship — at fees ranging in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While principals of the firm claimed innocence, sadly the appearance of questionable motivation — reinforced by exorbitant consulting fees — smudged the firm’s previously shiny reputation.

Subsequent articles in PR Week UK, The New York Post, HolmesReport and The Hill have drawn even more attention to the Gadhafi regime’s attempts to secure public relations counsel.

The Libyan government, acting through an intermediary, solicited bids from several large public relations firms, both in the U.S. and abroad. Among the services sought were “image management, public affairs and comprehensive media outreach,” according to the HolmesReport.

Further mainstream media reports have highlighted the increased interest among foreign dictators at using public relations firms to spread their own brand of questionable messaging. In August, Salon.com reporter Justin Elliott highlighted the willingness of those whose business it is to provide advice and counsel to accept less than upstanding clients who are able to pay substantial fees for these services.

Two aspects of this ongoing tragicomedy worry me.

Continue reading " The Lure of the ‘Big Name Client’ "