Case II Announcements – The information superhighway

Prior to the opening of the newly improved South Eastern Freeway in Melbourne, the old road had been dubbed the South Eastern Car Park due to the traffic bottlenecks that regularly built up, particularly around peak traffic hours.

Motorists demanded improvements to the roads infrastructure and, faced with mounting pressure, the South Eastern Freeway project became a top priority for the local transport authority, VicRoads.

Following an extensive series of major project works, the new free­way was completed with VicRoads' management looking to bask in the glory of their splendid work by making a very public announce­ment of the road's opening. In fact, the project was such a success that the authority's management decided to handle the media relations effort themselves, dispensing with the need for input from its in-house communications team.

A central reservation

Against the strongest of advice from the authority's in-house PR staff, who clearly saw a PR pile-up in the making, the management team arranged an onsite media photocall for 4 pm in the afternoon. The PR team's concerns were waved aside. Apparently, 4 pm was the only time that all the VIPs from the roads authority could agree on a window in their diaries. One insider later suggested that the time was actually chosen to coincide with the home journey of one fairly important - or self-important - bureaucrat.

To create the impression of clear and uncongested roads for media purposes, several lanes were closed off so the management team could cut a ribbon at an opening ceremony. This caused a traffic snarl-up that far outstripped anything the old South Eastern Car Park had ever been able to generate. Motorists and media alike were quickly up in arms about the lunacy of the self-congratulatory indulgences of the officials involved in declaring the route open.

Hazard warning

Talk radio was the first to vent, damning the bungling bureaucrats and totally overlooking the fact that they had successfully completed an impressive piece of civil engineering infrastructure. The radio coverage raged, further fuelled by the well-intentioned but hapless intervention of the wife of one of the project's engineers. She called the lead talk radio station to offer a spirited defense of her husband and his colleagues, who, she insisted, had worked tirelessly on the project. Her unscripted intervention only served to prolong the on-air debate, elevating its significance on the media radar. This encour­aged the evening TV news and several scribes to add their take on the bungled announcement. Everyone certainly knew about the new freeway after that!

Lessons learnt

Clearly, this episode shows the folly of allowing egos to dominate where common sense should prevail. Quite simply, the lure of self-aggrandizement should never supersede the deeds of the audience you wish to communicate with. So, what could the PR person have done to preclude this event, especially when the whole shebang was instigated and personally championed by the organization’s top executives?

Ideally, PR should be represented on every executive manage­ment team so the PR implications of any decision can be evaluated and planned for. But if not, the PR person can do nothing but sim­ply wait for the furor to die down and look for opportunities to repair the damage to the organization's battered and maligned reputation. In this case, it looked like a long road back.

CASE III

Astroturfing — PR creates smokescreen

Media spin:

‘Behind fuming bar owners is savvy, well-heeled group’’

In the early 1990s, when the commercial interests of the big tobacco companies in the United States were coming under increasing pressure from the trend towards 'smoke free' zones in public places, a group sprung up to defend smokers' rights. This is perhaps not surprising in what purports to be the pluralistic home of free speech.

But while the National Smoker's Alliance (NSA) appeared to be an independent body representing the rights of individuals who wanted to smoke, it was eventually revealed to be a sham organization funded by big business and administered by one of the world's largest PR companies.

Paid a packet

Dubbed an 'Astroturf’ group due to its fake or synthetic grassroots nature, the NSA was thought to be the brainchild of PR firm Burson Marsteller, who set it up with the backing of several notable 'ciggy biggies' including Philip Morris, Lorillard and Brown & Williamson.

So how do we know it was a fake? Well, we paid heed to the words of Morton Downey, Jr, a former NSA Advisory Board Member who admitted the group was a front for the tobacco industry. That was a big clue. Then there was its funding. Internal Revenue Service docu­ments showed that in its first three years of operation, less than 1 per cent of NSA earnings came from membership dues, which left lots of room for corporate donations.

Although claiming to have a membership of around 3 million people, analysis of the NSA's annual reports by media vigilantes PR Watch revealed that income from membership dues stood at just $74,000 - enough for just 7,400 members. There's a discrepancy - if not a lie - between 3 million and 7,400. In fact, so lackluster was the response to the NSA's initial membership drive that it eventually ran full-page ads and not only waived joining fees but even paid people to join the group.

While the NSA appeared to be a group that represented the rights of smokers, it was a front for the interests of people who make money from people addicted to nicotine. Its rationale was simple; the fewer places people are allowed to smoke, the less people will smoke and the more this will hurt 'big tobacco's' financial interests.

Ciggy Stardust

So what did the NSA do to create its smokescreen? It recruited local businesses - bars, restaurants, etc - whose wallets could be hit by anti-smoking legislation. The NSA showed these businesses how trade and profitability would be adversely affected by legislation that sought to restrict or prohibit smoking. It also showed how the bans infringed upon smokers' rights, of course.

Then, the NSA used these credible businesses as channels for dis­tributing pre-printed master campaign materials - generally created by Burson Marsteller - tailored to contest smoking bans and aimed at local media. The PR puppeteers even seconded their own PR staff to roles as NSA Action Team Leaders, whose job was to run local cam­paigns. The Leaders' responsibilities included identifying and manag­ing all local media relations and lobbying opportunities and rallying NSA representation at local stakeholder meetings. Nothing was left to chance or, more tellingly, left to any genuine grassroots locals.

No doubts

Clearly, the NSA was not an independent 'smokers' rights' group. It was heavily influenced and bankrolled by the interests of fee-paying clients - tobacco companies - with a vested interest in contesting smoking bans. Until rumbled, the strategy was highly effective at gen­erating media coverage biased towards the pro-smoking lobby and duping a range of news-hungry media. However, the real PR disaster in this case only really surfaced when the PR initiator's cover was blown, uncovering the sleight of hand. The entire PR industry's image also suffered because the NSA and Burson Marsteller had managed to hoodwink media and public audiences and influence legislation before being 'outed'.

This case shows how half-truths provided a smokescreen for tactics deployed in a strategy designed to influence public opinion and fur­ther the needs of paying clients. It's no wonder that so many people are suspicious of PR campaigns and the practitioners who carry them out, especially when one of the world's biggest and, it's claimed, most reputable PR firms is involved in initiating and executing a covert campaign such as this.

Lessons learnt

Transparency is one of the fundamental tenets of most of the world’s professional PR associations. Member consultancies – including the famous ones – are supposed to conduct their business in an open and honest way, although there are no enforceable rules that seriously penalize or disbar companies who contravene what are, in the final analysis, voluntary guidelines.