Tag Archives: nonprofits

New PR target: airlines

It seems you can’t turn on your computer without the latest cell video of someone being abused by an airline.  Passengers being dragged off flights to make room for airline employees, families thrown off because the child’s name doesn’t match the ticket, and passengers simply frustrated at being treated with disdain by flight attendants and pilots.

The strange thing is the airlines are almost always right: legally.  They do what their manual tells them they must do or be fired.  And they blame the FAA as the culprit. These flight mishaps, that end up on CNN and all over social media, are not because the airline is doing something wrong.  It is the way they handle the situation.  Again, as in most crisis communications scenarios, it is not the act, it is the coverup.  It is not asking someone to leave a plane, it is how it is done.

When incidents hit the media, and result in public outrage, the airlines cave in.  The CEO goes on Good Morning America to issue an apology and the case usually ends up with the passenger much richer.

What is missing from these crisis scenarios is some common sense.  If flight attendants and pilots worked on alleviating an escalating situation rather than bulldozing their way to follow the manual, nobody would be filming the situation and nobody would think that airlines have become the most non-customer relations sensitive business in the world.  Right now, people would but airlines at the bottom of the list for customer service and in many cases rightfully so.

Issuing apologies and paying passengers millions of dollars doesn’t solve the PR problem.  The airline admits guilt and stupidity and is out a lot of money.  The answer is to stop a PR crisis before it begins.  Give flight attendants and pilots authority to solve problems on the ground before they escalate.  Don’t call the police whose job is to do whatever it takes to get a passenger off the plane.

And have better staff training in how to deal with passengers who have done nothing wrong other than buy a plane ticket.

 

 

 

“Walking back” — the new darling in media terminology

With the presidential race in full swing, news stations (primarily cable) are in 24/7 mode talking with and interviewing “experts” and “surrogates” for both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

As both sides send out their PR, marketing, polling and media experts, these poor souls have the unenviable task of having to explain the positions of their bosses (the candidates) and more often than not, “clarify” what the candidate meant to say but didn’t.

This holds true for both Trump and Clinton.  Trump with the immigration issue and Clinton with her email issue.  Both make large statements at large gatherings, and when what they say sinks in, the media want to know why they both keep changing their positions.

Typically this would be called “changing a position” or “taking back” a promise.  Simple and straight-forward language.  But a new term has crept into this election.  It is “walking it back.”

What exactly does it mean to “walk back” something?  Well, apparently it means the same thing as changing a position.

So while Trump originally said he wants to deport 11 million Mexican aliens, his reps have to go on TV and “walk back” that statement and say what he really means, whatever that is.  And the same with Hillary.  When she said she turned over all the emails she had, and the FBI said no she didn’t, then her reps have to go on TV and “walk back” that statement and clarify what she meant to say, but for some reason forgot.

We live in a world of soundbites and a changing of language to keep up with the changing times.

Most of it is fueled by the media, who for some reason find simple, plain English just to boring to adhere to.

Now that’s a statement I will never “walk back.”

 

Does Subway have a crisis on its hands?

Jared Fogle was the face of Subway, the multi-billion dollar sandwich chain. His story helped the chain triple its sales in the decade or so he was affiliated with the company.

Today, he pleaded guilt to child pornography charges and will find himself eating prison food instead of Subway sandwiches.

The question is, does Subway have a PR crisis on its hands through its affiliation with Fogle?

Typically, a PR crisis focuses on the actions of an organization or one of its employees. But Fogle was not an employee, he was merely its spokesperson. Is there a PR crisis by association?

The obvious answer is no. Subway has done nothing wrong and there are no guarantees that an advertising face will remain an angel forever. It was a good advertising idea when it started and helped the company increase sales over the years. But now its over. Subway immediately cut ties with Fogle when it was first learned that Fogle’s nonprofit director was accused of similar crimes. It seems apparent that he led authorities to Fogle.

So the best thing Subway can do is forget they ever heard of Fogle and move on. He is history. His name and likeness should be scrubbed from every document in the Subway headquarters, and I am sure this was done a long time ago.

I would close by advising that companies choose their reps wisely, but predicting the future and predicting human nature is a skill that has yet to be perfected, and we have a long way to go.

Is nonprofit PR the same as fundraising?

We often get calls from nonprofit organizations seeking fundraising help.   It’s only normal, because all nonprofits need funding.  And many seem to believe that nonprofit PR is synonymous with nonprofit fundraising.

Over the years we have represented well over 50 nonprofits of all sizes.  I can’t think of one that didn’t need fundraising help.  But when a nonprofit agency talks to us about fundraising, we need to explain the difference between a PR firm and a fundraising firm.

Public relations and marketing  can support fundraising efforts.  But PR and marketing alone is not fundraising and it has his own .  We have had many situations when we were able to land an article in a major newspaper or network news program and that resulted in funds coming in.  That’s what we call fundraising support.  Our efforts in the PR sector are not to come out and ask for money.  It is to make people aware of the mission of our clients so when the fundraising plan is implemented, they will have heard of the organization and know to whom they are giving.

Many of our clients have fundraising firms or internal fundraisers on staff.  We work hand in hand with them — preparing materials, writing text, promoting special events, everything that supports the “ask.”  Sometimes we do direct mailers and set up giving stations at special events, but all these activities are in conjunction with a fundraising strategy that is put together either by the client, their fundraiser or the client and us.

So when seeking fundraising assistance, make PR a part of that process, but it is not the entire process alone.  One works with the other and supports the other.

Why starting a nonprofit might not be such a good idea

Who can argue with someone who wants to start a nonprofit organization to better the world?

Having represented upwards of 60 nonprofits of all sizes and missions for their public relations and marketing, I have yet to meet a nonprofit that didn’t have its heart in the right place.  They are started and run by wonderful people.  Many are motivated by a very personal issue that propels them to help others.

But when we are approached by nonprofit start-ups, the issues are always the same.   They need funds to operate.  So they come to us to make them known so they can attract donors, volunteers and quality staff.

When we meet with a start up nonprofit to learn more about them and their strategic plan, the first thing that comes to mind, often, is there are dozens of other nonprofits that do exactly the same thing.  Personal tragedy in losing a loved one to cancer often motives an individual or family to start an organization that supports cancer research.

But starting a nonprofit takes funding.  There is rent to pay and payroll to meet.

So when we meet with a new nonprofit, we often discuss the possibility of perhaps their efforts and fundraising is better spent joining an existing nonprofit that is already up and running.  If someone truly wants to fight cancer, or any one of a million other causes, there are established organizations already doing it.  Why not help them achieve the same mission?

What we learn is that many people want to head their own nonprofit like best work boots agency’s.  They want to make the decisions, be the boss.  There is nothing wrong with that, and many start ups we have worked with have a different approach and are headed by talented people.  But we think it is always worth exploring whether the costs for starting a nonprofit might be better utilized in joining the efforts of an agency already fighting the battle.

We have been successful in helping well-meaning people find their place with other organizations. This is always a win-win.  An established organization gets talent and energy and people with a mission get to immediately put their talent and energy to work.  Their name might not be what they want, and it might not memorialize their loved one, but there is always a way to start a program that will just that.

So if you’re thinking of starting a nonprofit and need PR, we are happy to talk.  But be aware that we may just explore with you how you might make a larger and faster difference joining forces with someone else.

 

Don’t forget the URL

For many reasons, organizations often consider a name change.  Or, more likely, a new organization needs to come up with a catchy name.  Finding the right name is important, and for nonprofits that want to be known and remembered, having the right name can make all the difference in the world.

We even had a nonprofit Foundation hire us to help wage a PR fight for a domain that they said was rightfully their’s, but was registered by a former employee.  An intellectual property attorney was engaged and was able to force the return of the domain.

The primary reason a nonprofit might change its name is because the name no longer reflects the mission of the agency.  If those served has expanded, the organization’s board wants the name of the organization to reflect the new reality.  Usually the reason is fundraising, thinking the circle of donors will widen if the organization’s name is more inclusive.

But after the new name is chosen and everybody is relieved and thrilled, one task is often forgotten.  That is finding out if the internet domain name is available.  As we all know, it is almost impossible to register the domain name, with the right extension, that an organization wants.  There are just too many organizations and only so many domains available.

That’s why from the moment an organization decides on its name, someone should immediately see if the domain is available.  If it is not, then the nonprofit may have to compromise on not getting the (dot) org and settle for (dot) com or (dot) something else.  More likely, they will have to try different combinations, adding dashes or the initials of the city.

We have had many PR clients that have undergone the name change process.  When doing so, our first recommendation is to find out if their first choice for a domain is available.  It often isn’t, but then the work begins.

This is not to say an organization should create a name based on the domain(s) available.  That would be working backwards.  But when the decision is made, don’t waste any time checking on the domain and hopefully you’ll reserve the domain that fits your organization and makes the Board happy.

The next favorite CNN crime story?

Justin Ross Harris is a 33 year old man in Georgia who is on trial for leaving his 22 month old son in his car all day.  The child died and Harris is on trial for murder.

The trial has received widespread media coverage from the start, with CNN covering live the “probable cause hearing” where a judge determined there was enough evidence for the prosecution to seek an indictment.

During the hearing, which lasted one day, it was revealed by police that there was more to the story than a father forgetting his child in a hot car.  The Father had searched Google for information on people dying in hot cars, living a child-free life, and legal terminology.  Further, police testified that while his child was in the car in 80+ degree weather, the father was at work sexting either women he had met online.

CNN is all over the story, as it was with Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias and select others.  At the same time CNN ran a story that in 2013 alone, more than 40 children died in cars when parents forgot about them.  In fact, they interviewed a woman who was prosecuted for doing just that and was found not guilty.  So why is the Harris trial getting so much attention?

It almost seems like the major media need certain elements to be in place for them to find a story worth following.  The Casey Anthony story centered on a young, attractive woman who liked to party.  Jodie Aria is also young and very attractive and her story included sex, lies and tremendous violence.  Perhaps it has nothing to do with it, but the case of the other woman who was acquitted didn’t contain sordid details of sex.  Boring TV.

The Harris story now seems to be much more than a forgotten child.  Police allege Harris was leading a secret life by sexting other women, one of which was under age.  Harris and his wife were having financial problems and marital issues.  They took out life insurance policies on their child.  On and on. Almost as if CNN knew all these salacious details before they came out in court.

Unless something dramatic changes, like a plea deal, Justin Ross Harris is about to become the next Casey Anthony story.

And you can be sure that CNN will be there gavel to gavel.

CNN reports on America’s worst nonprofits — a donor and a PR problem.

CNN reports an investigation with the Tampa Bay Times and the Center for Investigative Reporting that names “America’s Worst Charities.”  A yearlong investigation shows 50 nonprofits that raised in some cases tens of millions of dollars, yet gave as little as under 1% of the funds to the people they are chartered to help.

The bulk of the funds raised went to enriching the heads of the charities and to for-profit fundraising consultants.

A bit appalling wouldn’t you say and a bit of a PR problem for those charities named?  What would you do if you found out the hard-earned money you were donating to a cause never made it to helping the people you thought you were helping?

What’s the lesson?  Donors need to keep donating, but perhaps a bit more transparency on the part of nonprofit organizations and a bit more questioning on the part of donors is in order.  Just to keep everybody honest.

You can read the story here.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/index.html?hpt=hp_t1