360DigitalInfluence

We held another National Security Strategy lecture as part of Ogilvy Exchange last week.  It featured Price Floyd, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.  Price talked about how the Department of Defense is using social media and his presentation was a big hit.  And rightfully so.  National Public Radio was right when they called Price a social media guru.  You should take a look at the enhanced DoD website. 

You can get part 1 of the discussion here.

You can get part 2 of the discussion here.

Last week, the Defense Department’s social media guru, Price Floyd, visited a packed house at Ogilvy Washington for the latest installment of our National Security Strategy lecture series.

Floyd’s presentation explained the various new media channels the Pentagon is using to communicate with the public, potential recruits and its 2.6 million military servicemen and women around the world. Fascinating stuff, especially coming from a government agency that hasn’t been as open as many others. See for yourself below, and let us know what you think.

Part I:

Part II:

Presentation:

The New York Times‘ “Green Inc.” blog had a very interesting article this morning on compact fluorescent light bulbs (C.F.L.s) and the public’s apparent disdain for the product.  Several key paragraphs…

In a September 18 letter to C.F.L. industry stakeholders, Richard Karney, Energy Star products manager, said that national sales of the bulbs have declined 25 percent from their peak in 2007, with sales in some regions such as Vermont and parts of Massachusetts declining 35 to 50 percent. Further, he noted, shipments of C.F.L.s — which are supposed to last far longer than traditional incandescents – are down 49 percent in 2009 over 2007 levels….

Despite more than a decade of costly C.F.L. promotions — including giveaways, discounted prices and rebates — the bulbs have failed to capture the hearts (and sockets) of American consumers. Mr. Karney said that in regions where C.F.L. campaigns have been heaviest, 75 percent of screw-based sockets still contain incandescents. Nationally, about 90 percent of residential sockets are still occupied by incandescents, D.O.E. has reported….

“For those who believe The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will make C.F.L.s the default choice for consumer lighting needs,” wrote Mr. Karney, “I again urge caution.”

Obviously, this is not what supporters of this provision of the Act  expected.  After a decade of work, a coalition of environmental groups, labor and some manufacturers finally Congress and President Bush to pass a law that marked the beginning of the end for the old incandescent light bulb.  For the longest time, two of the biggest challenges this coalition faced were price and quality.  The bulbs were significantly more expensive and many consumers found the light put out by the bulbs too harsh (they also didn’t work with dimmer switches).  But technical improvements, advocates argued, combined with cost savings (these bulbs use less electricity than traditional bulbs) and a greener consumer were supposed to make C.F.L.s acceptable to, if not popular with, the public.

Now two years, the technical flaws have begun to go away.  Many low cost bulbs now cost about $2 (still much more expensive than traditional bulbs, but still a lot better than before).  There have also been a lot of advancements in lighting technology so the difference if quality has also gone down. (And some work with dimmers!)

So why is the public not buying?

Obviously, this is a public policy blog, not a marketing one, but I think it is fair to say that cost is still a factor.  But since there have been both subsidies and public education campaigns in support C.F.L. adoption, what happens, as the article states, as we get closer to 2012 and the public can no longer purchase traditional bulbs?  Will governments continue to fund education programs, such as the one in California that the article mentions? Does the U.S. government delay the phase out?  Or will the government essentially tell the American public to “deal with it?”  A couple of snide Wall Street Journal editorials talking about the failure of government to pick winners and losers are guaranteed, but will there be any long-term political implications?

Time will tell, but this will be an interesting subject to watch over the next several years.  What do you think?

If you’re reading this post, you are aware (maybe painfully knowledgeable) of the rapidly changing media landscape.  My colleagues and I are constantly talking about shrinking newspapers and news programs that are devoting less time to news and providing less hard news within the contracted newscast. 

Clearly, the future of the news media is cloudy and that is a shame because we need professional journalists, editors, columnists, photo journalists, producers, editorial writers and op-ed editors to report and provide context.  I know that the digerati believe the social media arena is filling the void and creating new outlets.  I agree (to a degree) but I also believe the social media space is a poor news generation vehicle.  It largely remains a means to circulate news and opinions (some informed and some not so much).

The future of newspapers is a particular concern because it is home to the op-ed.  While a good op-ed can be difficult to craft and unbelievably challenging to place, it is king in the public affairs realm.  There are several reasons why I hail the venerated op-ed.  First, it establishes a company or trade association as a thought leader on a subject, which provides a competitive advantage in the world of ideas, public opinion and policymaking.  Second, it allows a company or association to state its case and advocate for its point of view.  Lastly, it can drive social media. 

Think about this: op-eds are picked up by bloggers, Twitter addicts, Facebook users and people from all corners of the social media universe.  It is the content that the social media sphere craves.  Op-eds are linked to, quoted from, and serve as material for an array of online commentary.

So, social media devotees can join me in hailing the op-ed, which appears to also be the king of the social media empire.

As Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny reported in the New York Times, the Democrats appear to be preparing to go it alone on health care reform while trying to hang the obstructionist tag on the Republicans.

Maureen Dowd has a column in The New York Times today giving Sarah Palin some credit for derailing President Obama’s health care reform package.  Death panels and all that.

Umm. Nope.

No disrespect to the former governor of Alaska, but the problems with the selling of health care reform squarely sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Why?  Read this article in the same New York Times.  Might one think that the Net Roots are not as bought in as people think?

Or is there another reason The Drudge Report currently shows a white flag?

As the world’s focus turns towards the Copenhagen climate change summit (COP15) at the end of the year, public affairs consultants are turning their attention to how to navigate the political milestones on the “Road to Copenhagen”.

Politicans, policymakers, academics and NGOs have been busy preparing for COP 15: from the UN meeting (COP 14) in Poznan last December, the academic conference on climate change in Copenhagen this March, technical meetings in Bonn, G8 environment ministers’ meetings in Italy, the EU-US summit in Prague to the G20 meeting in London. The European Commission’s whitepaper on adapting to climate change, the sustainable development conference in Brussels in May and the EU’s annual Greenweek event in June all point the way towards Copenhagen.

Companies have been understandably pre-occupied with the financial crisis and subsequent global recession. But clients are waking up to the opportunities of public sector funding for clean technologies and investment in sustainable solutions. The stimulus packages may just offer a lifeline for those who will drive the engine of the sustainable economy.

CEOs of major corporations came together at the World Business Leader’s Summit on climate change to pledge support for the Copenhagen Summit and a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. But what about the many other companies with sustainable products and services? What role they should play in the run up to Copenhagen and beyond?

The answer is to concentrate on where the political and financial support is being targeted and anticipate the regulatory measures that will support sustainable markets and consumption. Use public affairs consultants not to lobby against sustainable industry measures, but to promote understanding amongst officials and politicians of the potential of business to contribute to a sustainable economic recovery.

Are companies in a position to influence the outcome of Copenhagen? Probably not. But they are in a position to align their strategies and research and development programmes with probably the most significant confluence of world opinion on the need for business and politics to forge a sustainable new world order. Our future economic and global development depends on it.

Simply promoting a company’s “green” credentials in the run up to Copenhagen is missing the point. Advising companies on the landscape and opportunities that lie between now and then, and most importantly beyond the event itself, is arguably the greatest challenge facing public affairs consultants today. And if you are still not convinced, visit the Hopenhagen site to see the compelling campaign developed by Ogilvy to spread the word that our future is in our hands.

The TV Newser Headline says it all … “Olbermann Mocks FNC; O’Reilly Silent.”

Olbermann further explains his position in a post on Daily Kos.

So, was the New York Times’ Brian Selter acting as a tool for News Corporation as Olbermann charged?  Was the new TV Newser right in claiming that the original TV Newser got it wrong?

My guess is that we won’t have to wait to my 200th post to know for sure (this is 100).

Cross Posted on The Huffington Post.

Again some recent items from the week past…

U.S. News‘ “Washington Whispers” notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the Pentagon’s Iraq PR campaign to reach out to former military officials “did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.”  The GAO report, which was released back on July 21, received minimal media attention.  A Google News search only found articles from the Associated Press and The Hill, along with pieces in some smaller trade publications.

In regard to the program, U.S. News further reports,

The GAO report, signed by Acting General Counsel Daniel Gordon, was requested by House and Senate Democrats who were concerned that the Pentagon was violating a law that prohibits using appropriations for propaganda. The GAO said that, unlike propaganda, the retired officers program was about helping pundits tell the straight story about the wars. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to inform the public about their activities and programs, explain their policies, and disseminate information in defense of those policies or an administration’s point of view,” the report said.

That said, the GAO did make one recommendation…

While DOD understandably values its ties with retired military officers, we believe that, before undertaking anything along the lines of the now-terminated program at issue in this decision, DOD should consider whether it needs to have additional policies and procedures in place to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, its public affairs efforts and to ensure the transparency of its public relations activities.

The program created a huge brouhaha when David Barstow of The New York Times originally reported it in April 2008 and the reporting won a Pulitzer Prize.  I have to admit that I am cynical by nature, but I have to admit was I underwhelmed by the story (its follow-up that focused on Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s business dealings, which was also addressed in the GAO report, was much more interesting).  As one whose firm does government public relations work and as one who has a government client, I’ve always felt that much of the criticism of the government’s use of traditional public relations tactics and public relations firms was misplaced.  Sure, there have been times when the line between public relations and propaganda has been crossed, but in vast majority of cases I find it sour grapes when groups complain that the government uses traditional public relations tactics or firms to make its case.

As I mentioned on my earlier Twitter post, it will be interesting to see how Congress reacts to this report.  According to The Hill, Sen. Russ Feingold’s office had no immediate statement on it and, as of this morning, no statement appears on the Senator’s home page.

…

The Times had a fascinating front pager yesterday in regard to the apparent cease fire between Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.  The hosts’ bosses at  General Electric and News Corporation agreed to have the hosts of their respective 8 PM cable news shows stop taking swipes at each other (or, in the case of O’Reilly, General Electric).

For those who have not been following the feud, here is a short recap.  Olbermann, the ratings underdog, began by regularly challenging statements that O’Reilly made on his program.  O’Reilly then retaliated by going after NBC News’ objectivity and, more importantly, General Electric’s business practices (although not usually referring to Olbermann by name).  This led to a scene earlier this year when MSNBC critics (with an O’Reilly producer present) brought up many of O’Reilly’s complaints at a General Electric stock holders’ meeting.  Those questions stopped when General Electric turned off the microphones.

I think first and foremost, the thing to remember is the the key word here is “apparent.”  As Olbermann told the Times, he was not a party to the deal.  Moreover, should a deal exist, it has not stopped other Fox hosts going after NBC and General Electric and other MSNBC hosts from going after Fox hosts, such as Glen Beck.  Nor should they.

Moreover, the deal doesn’t seem to cover other corporate entities — the New York Post recently went after MSNBC’s David Shuster over an alleged tantrum.   In short, both networks have had their share of cringe inducing moments and even if they aren’t brought up between 8-9 PM ET, they get coverage elsewhere.

In the end, I don’t see many of the big journalistic crises that others, such as Aaron Barnhart of the Kansas City Star, Salon’s Glen Greenwald and the team at Mediaite (run by MSNBC contributor Dan Abrams), do.

Would I like to have seen the feud continue.? Not really.  It has long since become tiresome, especially on Olbermann’s part.

Does it reinforce some of the talking points that Greenwald and others make about “corporate media?”  Yeah.  But there is nothing stopping others, including others at MSNBC, from picking up Olbermann’s mantle (assuming he agrees to the terms of the deal).

Is there a winner here? Yes. Fox. The story makes it seem like General Electric sued for peace which means O’Reilly’s tactic of going after Olbermann’s employer worked.  It also puts Olbermann, MSNBC’s most popular host, in a pickle.  If he abides by the deal, he looks like he was muzzled and it hurts his credibility with his  fan base.  If he doesn’t, then he gives O’Reilly an excuse to go back after General Electric.

FWIW, Barnhart also links to Olbermann’s ratings over the past year click here.  In short, Olbermann is back to about where he was this time last year.

…

In his question of the day, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic asks if the White House can turn around the health case debate in the next three weeks.

With the House having gone home for August recess and the Senate scheduled to do so at the end of the week, look for the war over health care to continue back in the states.  I think the President and the Democrats have a lot of work to do to repair the damage that has been done to their position, as evidenced by the polls.  But I wouldn’t count them out.  Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, look for a lot of Democrats to go after insurance companies.

As Politico reported this morning, expect the insurance companies to push back (emphasis in the original)…

EXCLUSIVE — FOOD FIGHT AT THE TABLE — THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY, LONELY IN THE LEGISLATIVE CROSSHAIRS, IS STARTING TO PUSH BACK, ACCUSING DEMOCRATS OF USING INSURERS AS A SCAPEGOAT — America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP — the national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies providing health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans) is urging the industry’s hundreds of thousands of employees to GO TO TOWN MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN AUGUST TO CONFRONT THEM on House Democrats’ top recess message — that health-reform legislation is “health insurance reform to hold insurance companies accountable.” The association’s positive TV ad will continue into this week, but look for the spots to toughen up soon.

AHIP’s director of strategic communications, Robert Zirkelbach, tells Playbook: “The American people want Washington to focus on solutions, not the same old divisive political rhetoric that hasn’t worked in the past. Our industry has offered to completely transform how health insurance is provided today. We have stepped up to do our part to make health-care reform a reality. That’s an INCONVENIENT FACT that some people have chosen to ignore. These attacks are politically motivated, and they ignore the significant commitment that our industry has made to the health-reform process. WE’RE GOING TO BE VERY ACTIVE. We have people on the ground in more than 30 states. There are thousands of industry employees WHO HAVE NOW HAD THEIR INTEGRITY CALLED INTO QUESTION. They want to have their voices heard as part of this.”

…

While much of the attention has been paid to how the Democrats fight back on health care, I think the more interesting battle to watch is whether the Democrats start an internal civil war with the liberal wing of the party going after the more centrist wing (not just the House Blue Dogs).  Last week alone, Sen. Tom Harkin suggested that the Senate Democrats vote on committee chairmanships by secret battle, a not not-to-subtle threat to Sen. Max Baucus, who helped broker the Senate Finance Committee’s reported deal.  In the House, Rep. Maxine Waters suggested that the liberal wing of the party run liberal candidates in the upcoming Democratic primaries in an effort to elect candidates who are, well, more liberal.

This threat is not new, although much of the attention was paid in recent elections when conservative Republicans ran a similar campaign against moderate Republicans (see Lincoln Chaffee, Wayne Gilchrest and, most recently, Arlen Specter).  In 2008, the liberal wing of the Democratic party unseated Rep. Al Wynn of Maryland and threatened to go after other Democrats who were not viewed as sufficiently anti-war.  A recent cover story in National Journal noted that the elements in the party were working on a campaign to repeat the Wynn case in 2010 as part of an overall attempt to reduce the influence of the moderate wing of the party (including trying to undercut the legacy of the Clinton administration).

This strategy did not work well for Republicans.  It will be interesting to see if the Democrats follow a similar path.

…

The first NFL preseason game is next Sunday night — not a moment too soon.  Yes, I AM ready for some football.

…

For daily thoughts that are 140 characters or less, check me out on Twitter @gregstanko