How Republicans and Democrats can save Congress - and themselves

Like someone finally having the strength to exit a toxic, dysfunctional, codependent, unhealthy marriage, the first wave of frustrated Republicans leaving the nest  confirms to me something I've been thinking of lately: Moderate politicians of both parties are hampered by increasing diversity of policy (Dems) and ideology/culture (Republicans) and everyone - until now - is too afraid to leave.

They are also too afraid to think out of the box, held captive by a two-party system and unable to imagine political life outside it.

But enough. It's time to radically reinvent the process. This paralysis of the status quo and reticence to think wider is choking progress, action and consensus.

I believe this country would be well-served by the huge political shakeup and range of options if both Dems and Republicans split up their parties.

I'm tired of pundits and politicians saying there's "a fight for the soul of  the party" or that  the parties "have an identity crisis."  To keep framing this challenge by its current structure is the elephant in the room and is missing the point.

Times change:  media, information access/creation and technology evolve to give and/or stoke voices across the spectrum, whether despicable or innovative, and the existing two-party system simply can't contain this emerging diversity of competing political will.

Break it up, and smaller groups will find more common ground with each other. That's how coalitions are created in multi-party systems in many European countries. It can work and often does.

1) Moderate Republicans are boxed in by Trump's hijacking of the Republican party and his exposure of its historically racist but hidden core for what it is and giving it voice and license.

But not all fiscal conservatives share that cultural belief system --  and these new outliers, under status quo thinking, believe they have nowhere to turn, hence this first round of Republican exodus.

2)  Dems are splintered between more traditional centrists and the rapidly emerging progressives /left of center voices, feeling held back by politics as usual and dusty thinking.

Yes, racism is abhorrent and yes it's different than policy; but the larger point is that  the takeover of the Republican party  - and potentially the nation - by white nationalists and the Trump base can only be  countermanded if that sector gets isolated. And the only way to isolate it is to split the party system apart. 

Here's what I  envision: A four-party system of 1)  Trump/far right Christian ideologues, i.e., what is now the current Republican party; 2 ) Moderate fiscal conservatives (right centrists); 3) mainstream Democrats (left centrists); and 4) left of center progressives.

A four-party system would allow for solid  consensus and coalition building among the two centrist groups on core business such as infrastructure, budget, etc. Even some thornier areas like immigration has seen some bipartisan progress, only to be blocked  by the fringe right. The far right in turn will start to lose their grip on power and sway, as  the center groups -- and  joined by the left progressives - will outnumber them and form coalitions to block the far right's more Draconian attempts.

Left progressives wiill need to settle in for a long game approach to advance their policies, but they will over time gain in numbers and will use that as leverage when centrist coalition legislation needs the progressive bloc numbers for a vote.

Practical implementation, the role of big money and the political will to see this done are all impediments; but in theory this the only way I can see how to overcome Congressional stasis and inertia. Unless I'm missing something - and I did a review beofre I wrote this -- there's nothing in  the Constitution preventing this.

Why Condemning Terrorism Is Not Enough: Communications Steps For Muslim Organizations

Six years ago (amost exactly) -- when Islamophobia seemed at a high point -- I wrote a detailed series of articles  called "Reclaiming the Perceptions of Muslims", which also appeared on Muslim Matters.org.

The series addressed two broad approaches to the challenge of the series title. Overarching both was (and remains) the idea that the Muslim ummah isn't the only ummah or community we are a  part of, and that relationships and participation in the larger circle must happen.

The first was a call to action for Muslims and masajid to be more engaged with their communities at an individual and civic level; and the second approach offered steps for Muslim organizations to develop better relationships with the media. I broke down how Muslim institutions fail at media relationships, what media outlets actually need and how they operate, and what Muslim institutions can do to proactively meet that need (1).

The pieces were lengthy and detailed, but the thinking at the time can be summed up in a few quick points.

A paraphrase from the original series:

1) At an individual and masajid level, the ummah's continued reluctance to integrate and  participate fully in the American experience remains one of our biggest failures.  The main Muslim point of reference for Americans is any Muslim terrorist that makes the news, because we haven't given Americans enough opportunities to know any other kind of Muslim. Therefore, we remain unfamiliar to most Americans and are largely identified as vaguely " foreign."  

It's my belief that Islamophobia is largely based more on racism than a true theological dispute, because for Americans, most Muslims "look like" those who flew the planes on Sept. 11.
Muslim-Americans are perceived (consciously or subconsciously) as part of that very same foreign element, instead of being viewed as fully engaged American citizens. 

The truth Muslim communities must face is that for most Americans, Muslims are still a "them"  category, and not yet part of the American "us". 

In general this point still holds, though the situation is now much more complex and frightening than it was six years ago. The rise of ISIL and terrorist acts in U.S and Europe have substantially increased mistrust and fear. On the one hand, with other Middle Eastern  countries participating in the fight against ISIL and a general rejection and condemnation of ISIL ideology from Muslims worldwide,  Muslims are less likely to be perceived as monolithically as they were six years ago. On the other hand, radicalization and violence from American-born Muslims is now a reality, and  so a Muslim threat isn't as easily placed in simply racial ( "they look foreign") terms.

2) We have a similar reticence to engage with the media. Muslim institutions need to overcome their homeland fears of state controlled media, and begin forging proactive, sustainable relationships with media outlets. Media needs to tell stories and we need our stories to be told, and that symbiosis needs to be leveraged. That relationship is an opportunity if we are willing to step up to control our narrative by being available, offering expertise, and sharing personalized stories and accounts.  

 I've seen no major strides on this front in six years. Muslim institutions still put out drab press releases that beg to be ignored and offer no narratives; website content , strategy and design is exactly the same as it was six years ago, taking no notice of such techniques as content marketing and storytelling, or the rise of mobile and all the narrative and engagement opportunities mobile offers.

---

I don't need to state how much has changed in six years, particularly in the past two.

The stakes are even higher now - just watch any current news stream -- and  consider the new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, summarized by the International Business Times:

Americans’ perceptions of Islam have turned increasingly negative in recent years, a survey released Tuesday from the Public Religion Research Institute revealed. Fifty-six percent of people surveyed agreed that the values of Islam are at odds with America's values and way of life, which is a significant increase from 47 percent in 2011. 

The survey found that 73 percent of white evangelical Protestants agreed that the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life, as did 63 percent of white mainline Protestants, 61 percent of Catholics, 55 percent of black Protestants, 41 percent of unaffiliated people and 37 of people practicing a non-Christina religion. By breaking down the results of the survey by political affiliation, the report also revealed that over three-quarters of Republicans think that Islam is incompatible with the American way of life, New Republic reported.

See PRRI's news release and summary here, and view the actual pdf of the report here.

Our continued inability in the communications arena to meet the increasing demands and challenges to the community gives rise to the stats in the survey above -- and also leaves wide vacuums for xenophobic attention whores like Donald Trump to exploit the fears and mistrust we've done little to assuage.

Reevaluating the challenge for 2015, I believe a whole new area needs to be considered and developed  - that of internal communications, to our own ummah. The areas I discussed six years ago still need to be addressed, but that does not negate or replace the need to engage within and for the community.

I've done some internal business communications analysis in Dill Communications ( see Retooling Your Organization or Business for 3.0 Communications   and Messaging For The Indefensible Or Divided Client ). These concepts apply to the Muslim community in a deep way now, as countering the appeal of radicalization is paramount, and that responsibility lies fully on the Muslim ummah.

We must own this duty. While radicalization is not being preached in American mosques, we are losing youth to a social media savvy death cult and we have no comprehensive communications strategy or constituent outreach plans in place to counteract and eliminate ISIL's lure. If such work is being done, it's not being made widely known, and perhaps isn't being coordinated with other similar efforts.

We need a summit or a task force to address this.

It would entail:

• a) defining effective counterarguments on theological grounds as a part of the content base
• b) analysing ISIL's content, content distribution strategy (social media) and messaging
• c) developing  both effective, resonant counter-content and messaging, and:
• d) a comprehensive social media plan and engagement strategy to deliver that content that understands ISIL's reach and engages in their same space 
• e) developing materials/resources/internal communication plans for masajid to use and implement to their own individual constituents. This would adress dissemination and education  for  the above materials but also:
• f)  (added 2016)  content, training and outreach  to masajid constituents on community engagement, as mentioned in previous writings; and 
• g  (added 2016)  comprehensive media training and engagement strategies for masajid, as mentioned in previous writings.
• h) (added 2016)  commensurate with the above, an effective documentation and media campaign to external media to share the progress and individual narratives  that arise during  the course of this program.

I am not an imam. I  am not qualified to craft the theological counterpoints, but  translating those counterpoints as part of a comprehensive communications strategy, I can help with.

There are numerous Muslim institutions. Some of them compete for space and attention and pecking order, some of them may have different points of view or perspectives.

While diversity in the ummah is good, these differences need to be put aside, not only for the sake of the Muslim ummah, but for the larger one we are all part of as well.

I challenge any Muslim institution to spearhead and organize this initiative. As a communications professional, I'll take part.

Which organization will be the first to step up?

Addendum June 2016:  I'll simply add this is not a cure-all nor a fully implemented solution, but simply a starting point to brainstorm on one component of  many areas to address. 

(1) Writing the series inspired me to form a niche consultancy - Ummah Relations -- to specifically help Muslim institutions with these issues and their media challenges. As part of that brand, I also briefly published the "Muslim Media Points" newsletter designed to help communications staff at Muslim institutions and local masaajid (who may not even have a full-time communications staff) get "jump started" on the messaging and media implications of current issues by offering context, analysis and starting points to help frame their individual responses to ongoing news developments.

In 2012 I folded the Ummah Relations brand but broadened the offerings for all sectors, focusing on crisis communications and planning. Many of the techniques and analysis I did for the Islamic sector came from the crisis communications skillset, so that emphasis for Dill Communications was a natural outgrowth. 

Five Tips For A Media-Friendly Small Business Web Site

One of my recent clients was an internet start up designed to support and give exposure to small to medium  for-profit businesses that had a significant eco-friendly and/or corporate social responsibility component. The idea was to offer a portal where eco-conscious consumers could find and support such  businesses, and those businesses in turn could have wider exposure to that consumer market.

From hipster cafes and organic restaurants to architects building and designing with eco principles, the startup profiled a lot of interesting companies. In the process of helping write up and edit these company profiles, I ran into many, many common practices among these businesses' web sites that were simply frustrating from a media relations perspective.

The thing to remember about media relations is the 'relations' part of the equation. In short, that means making any journalist or blogger or influencer's job easy for them. Too many businesses without a trained PR or media relations person on staff tend to overlook this area and instead build their web presence to attract customers at the expense of ignoring influencers.

Tweaking your web site to appeal to both constituents is simple. While bigger businesses may have a whole separate section on their site for media use (usually called "Press Room" and/or "Media Kit") , but most small to medium businesses don't need anything that dedicated. Simply try going through your site page by page and ask yourself, " If I was a journalist, what do I need from this site?" You may be surprised at what you discover.

After trying to write up over 100 small businesses, here are the most common problems I found for some tips to create a more media -friendly site:

1) Have an actual email address (and other info) on your contact page. A surprising amount of businesses only have a contact form. Yes, we all understand that you read the latest marketing tips and you're buzzed about capturing leads and the sales funnel, etc, etc, but a journalist or blogger needs an easily available email address, phone number and physical location to put in their article for their readers to reach  you. As a journalist profiling you, I certainly want to contact you as well -- I think you'd want me to give a call. Put that info somewhere in text at the top or bottom of the contact form.

2) Make your images downloadable (and have hi res available too). Ironically, some of the most visually compelling firms -- architectural firms, breathtaking restaurants -- load their images in a Flash or some other player, making it impossible for a blogger or journo to save and download to use in their article.

If I can't get a picture, I may not write the story. More than once on this gig, I either had to write the business and ask for photos, or go trolling through the company’s Facebook page for pictures (huge time suck). If you had a professional photographer take photos for you and you paid for them, then there should be no copyright issues on the photos -- you own them.

It's a good idea to have hi-res (300 dpi) versions on tap for print media as well. They can be downloadable, or simply available upon request.

2a) A reproducible logo. Make sure there's a standalone logo ( i.e., not part of a built up header image) that’s downloadable. JPGs are preferable to PNGs for this purpose, as some transparent PNGs may not embed well on other blogs.

3) A strong "About"page. These are hit and miss, but remember, journos are always looking to personalize their stories -- they want the people behind the business. Make sure you have good bios, a good story, and good bio pics (see #2, above).

4) Have your social media channels easily accessible. I was surprised when on several occasions I had to take a business name and Google them for their Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest or Instagram accounts, because the company's social media links aren't anywhere on the website!  some businesses have the share icons, but I  need to see your social media channels as well. I want my readership to have that info easily accessible in my article, so make sure those links are upfront. 

5) Keep your social media channels current and consistent. I found several cases of conflicting addresses and phone numbers between a company's contact pages and its Facebook info. Make sure everything is coordinated and up to date.

These are all easy steps, but will save journos and influencers a lot of time and headache -- and the easier you make it for them, the more apt they are to give your business good coverage.

Get tweaking!

Adria Richards and Donglegate

There's quite a bit of conflation out there on articles and posts covering the Adria Richards "donglegate" affair (here's a summary outside of tech sources). While the incident does raise broader related issues of sexism and misogyny in the tech work culture -- and  if nothing else, this incident should be a wake up call for the sector to grow up, face  the social problems of its  culture and deal with it -- that larger discussion can be separated out from the specific actions taken by all parties involved.

There are plenty of poor choices displayed from everyone in this incident to go around.

For the record: I do not in any way condone misogyny and sexism in the workplace by any stretch, and the threats extended to Ms Richards in the wake of the incident are inexcusable.


1. Amanda Blum provides an interesting context of some of Ms. Richards' past behavior. According to  Ms. Blum's blog post, Ms. Richards seems to have a track record  of being offended and not dealing with such offenses in the most effective way possible, and yet she is not above making sexual innuendo jokes herself. However,  sexual innuendos traded on Ms. Richards' Twitter remain in the self-selected of universe of followers and followees, implying some consent to be communicated with.

Did these past patterns of behavior get to the attention of her superiors at SendGrid? If Ms. Richards was hired as a professional communicator or "evangelist"  and then reports came back from the field that she was found difficult to work with, that  would be feedback from customers or business partners  the employer might like to know about.

Gayle Laakmann McDowell responds to Blum's post, delving into details of the previous incidents, but to me,  it misses the central point: If you find something offensive about a conference you're going to participate in, a professional level of behavior is to deal with it privately with the organizers, not in podcasts or blog posts to your own constituents and followers.

2. At least one of the men in question , by his own admission, violated the conference's CoC. Whether you think such remarks are OK, ' its just culture", "she overreacted,"  etc., (I don't buy into any of those justifications, personally) does not change the fact that a breach of rules was  found to have been committed. Whether PlayHaven made a sound decision in firing one of the men involved is a separate discussion.

3. The remarks were not private, even if they were meant to be. In a public place where they can be overheard, they cease to be private.

4.  As Ms. Blum points out,  there were  better options for Ms Richards to resolve the situation than the semi-public course she took. 

One option not taken would have been to simply send the photo and  description of the incident as a text or a DM Tweet to PyCon  rather than making it semi-public.

Lawyers are about to have a feeding frenzy:

5.  Defamation charges against Ms Richards likely wouldn't  hold,  since there was a violation of  the CoC. The issue of taking and distributing people's pictures without their consent is a separate but important legal question. Others in the picture may have a case on those grounds.

6. Basis for legal charges by Ms Richards against SendGrid re termination are hard to comment on, since we don't know the terms and duties of her employment and HR records re performance, any previous incidents, are confidential, so we won't know. Lawyers are ready to dig in, however.

From a PR perspective, and looking forward:

7. Bad form for SendGrid to block comments on their post. Not great messaging in their post, either. They also made discussions disappear on their Facebook page, leaving people to post on their FB recommendations section, until they decided to  scrub discussion there as well. 

Play Haven's FB page is at least allowing the conversation to occur.

Social Media 101 for crisis communications: People will have the conversation, so own and monitor the space where that happens.

Should SendGrid have fired Ms Richards? Not my call to make, but they were silent and then made a large decision with fuzzy explanations. That indicates, to me, either bad PR savvy and/or knee jerk decision making while in panic mode.

8. There are  some interesting ways forward, communications wise, for most involved. In the meantime, everyone involved  I'm sure is lawyering up.  Given the PR capabilities demonstrated so far from all sides, I expect each will let their lawyers handle the messaging rather than pulling together a decent communications team and strategy.

I'm predicting dead silences and "no comments" for a while, then announcements that agreements have been reached.

carpe diem: media mastery for Pope Francis' election

A crisis planning approach doesn't always have to be deployed in a crisis. If you have a major event that hinges on unknowns -- such as electing a Pope --  the thorough preparation techniques used in a crisis plan can be brought to bear.

The Vatican, it seems,  displayed remarkable media prowess and planning in handling the announcement of then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J.'s selection as Pope Francis.

I was particularly struck by one bit of preparation that, while I can't confirm came from the Vatican (I do have an email in to the Press Office), seems extremely likely that it did.

I succumbed to the Twitter feeding frenzy soon after the white smoke appeared. As CNN was scrambling to decipher the announcement on the balcony from Cardinal Tauran -- all CNN knew was that "he is an Argentinian" --I started scrambling and of course quickly found the Wikipedia page on Bergoglio.  I was reading it as CNN confirmed the selection.

CNN hadn't yet announced the papal name. Suddenly the Wikipedia page changed its title to "Pope Francis"   before any live news announcement in CNN's coverage.

That suggests to me that someone on the Vatican comm team was assigned with a Wikipedia  editor account to do that in real time -- and that is impeccable and impressive communications planning.

In a serious OCD moment, I  dug deeper, cross referencing the Wikipedia version history of the page with the Vatican's timeline.

Per the Vatican, "The Cardinal proto-deacon Jean-Louis Tauran made the solemn announcement to the people at 8:12 pm." I don't know if that's based on when Tauran walks out  to the balcony or starts speaking. Watching unstamped video, Tauran takes about 30 seconds to do the announcement when he starts, with the Papal name revealed at the end.

The Wikipedia page is moved from Bergoglio to Pope Francis at 8:13. 

The editor who moved the page is credited to  MTVArro.

I can't confirm any details of his or her employ, but MTVArro's edit and article history on Wikipedia suggests high knowledge of Vatican procedures and Church history, with little  or no deviation  outside of those spheres, so it's a strong assumption.

What's remarkable is the insight displayed here in knowing what to do:  Understanding that  Wikipedia entries would rank at the top of Google or other search engines as people started looking  up "Bergoglio," reaching Wikipedia was among the very first things Team Vatican did. This takes the PR and social media popular maxim of  "knowing where your audience is" to a new level in my estimation, because the Vatican applied an anticipatory,  forecasting model: it's now ""knowing where your audience will be." And also being able to own or control your narrative at that juncture.

I've written many times on these pages (it's my core philosophy)  that  effective media and content (and they are different) is about understanding user behavior to meet needs. Whether it's porn or looking up a recipe or learning about the new Pope, people seek out the information (content) contained in media (platform) to solve a problem or meet a need.

That breaks down into three areas:  1) identifying that need,  2) how can you help your target audience meet that need, and 3) how does that particular audience like to meet it?

I filter all my media and PR work through this model, and I think you'll find interesting results if you do as well.

Framed against that model, the Vatican's effort here was brilliant.

Messaging for the indefensible or divided client (or both): The NRA as case study

The NRA is a fascinating case study right now on how to handle the most difficult of scenarios: either a client whose policies you're morally at odds with, or a client that may have enough internal divisions  that no consensus on  communication goals or outcomes is attainable.

With the NRA, both of these dynamics can be at play, which makes post-Sandy Hook NRA a great study.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, there were some great discussions in online PR and crisis comm peer groups. Much  of what follows are from my posts in those discussions.

The question generally posed was, "what would you advise the NRA if they were your client?" Many opted to say they wouldn't take the client  on grounds of moral or philosophical conflict, and I admire and respect that integrity.

Some advised the NRA should rethink their policy or stance -- advocate more background checks, action on mental health, rethink some of its hardline posture. 

From a professional point of view, though, that 's not the crisis communications or PR consultant's job -- that's wish fulfillment thinking on our end. Don't conflate your client's policy and mission with your task as PR consultant of messaging  that policy, whatever it may be. Once you take on a client,  you're there to serve their best interests professionally -- not to change their mission according to your belief.  If that mission isn't right for you, then you have every right --  even a duty to your own personal integrity -- to walk away.

That said, many organizations become increasingly doctrinaire and rigid in their position over time and/or with change of leadership, potentially straying from the organization's original mission statement and goals. If you sense that discrepancy or drift, it's often a red flag for some internal division. More on this in a moment, but if you see that drift and still decide to represent the client, pointing out those gaps in terms of the company's own best interests may help them realign.

Retooling your organization or business for 3.0 communications

Good outbound communication and messaging starts with good internal communication.

The slickest PR campaign or social media policy will fail spectacularly if there's not an effective organizational structure to implement, support and respond to it.

So how strong are your company's internal communications? Are departments talking to each other? What kind of oversight and accountability is in place for every outbound content, across all channels?

How many silos do you need to knock down?

What I've discovered since I've been doing freelance consulting is that many companies haven't retooled their internal organization to accommodate 2.0 / 3.0 media and marketing functionality.

I've had more than one client that I've started a proposal for only to find out that their organizational structure was so wack, my initial recommendations for social media policies/strategies/training or crisis communications would never even work.

Here is a true scenario. Conversation with me and the Comm Director of potential client company to develop a crisis communication plan:

Disabling Your Opponent's Media Weapons -- And Avoiding Blowback

A bit of catching up:

It's been some time since the last post -- and while I've been quiet, I've not been idle.

In working with Muslim and/or Middle Eastern related issues and organizations over the past two years, I've observed and experienced what works, what doesn't, what still must be done. I've been seeing media strategy successes and failures from other sectors as well, since lessons can be learned (though not rotely copied) from anywhere.

I've increasingly drawn on the principles and techniques from the crisis communications end of the public and media relations sphere. That it fits so well for this sector is indicative of many things: most Muslim advocacy organizations are still reactive instead of proactive; that the Muslim community still faces unfamiliarity, distrust and a host of professional antagonists; and that conventional PR outreach --even conventional crisis management thinking -- is not always enough.

This last point is proving to be important. I see more and more companies and institutions across the board -- regardless of sector or industry --that are structurally and culturally unable to implement a good crisis communications plan, even if they had one. I'll delve into this in upcoming posts.

It's been a productive period away. Now, it's time to share some ideas and perspective developed in the interim. Consider this Muslim Comm 3.0, though there's info here for every business person or communications director, regardless of sector.

Let's dig in.

---

One area that seems to be glossed over to varying degrees in crisis communications (though much less so in the private corporate sector) is in fully analysing your opponent's specific attack message. As a PR person or communications director, you'll put a lot of thought and effort into a response -- your output -- but are you able to fully evaluate the input that you're responding to?


High stakes corporations and/or their crisis strategy consultants will often hire private investigators to research the opposition. Investigators ferret out the opponent's true agenda or goals, underlying motivation and any vulnerabilities. Investigative targets can be specific, such as a rival company or CEO, or more general,such as understanding the psychology behind the demographics that are opposed to your position.

Sometimes, of course, it backfires, as in the ethically-challenged case of Walmart last June when a staff member of a PR firm Walmart had retained posed as a reporter.

That incident's takeaway: it's a fine line between researching your opposition and industrial espionage, but if you have to cross it, hire professionals. PR firms shouldn't "go there" in house, largely because a professional private investigator could have likely gotten relevant info through less surreptitious means. That said, if they have to be fuzzy, they're not as likely to get caught: if it's happening and it's not known, then of course it's being done well.

If you believe the firm's version that the staffer was independent, then PR firms need to better vet and train who they hire.

While the Muslim community at large has done work examining the Islamophobe class -- most notably last year's report by the Center for American Progress, "Fear, Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" -- I'm not aware of any high intensity private investigative work that rivals what can happen in the political or corporate arenas. But for this sector, that's how it should be -- it's an obviously ill-advised approach for Muslim groups, who must remain extremely transparent and above board in the current climate.

(As a brief aside, see my review of that report and my interview with principal author Wajahat Ali over at Muslim Matters.org).


But a lot of rigorous due diligence and investigation can be done openly and transparently. Are you doing your homework? You can be sure that your opposition is.

It's clear that Muslim opposition remains consistently focused and proactive. After 11 years, Muslim groups are still caught unaware, perpetually on the defensive, and have yet to assemble a sustained, effective media message and presence. It's possible --myself and others have written directly on this topic for years.

So how is your research information used? Advocacy or position organizations, as well as corporations with intense rivals and competition or that are in a controversial sector (pharmaceuticals), use this information in their crisis plan as a foundation to build templated pre-responses in the event of an emergency or crisis when the opposition strikes. A more aggressive approach is to integrate the gathered intelligence in an ongoing proactive media offensive.

By contrast, most Muslim groups  -- and even many businesses -- may not have such resources, much less have such info integrated into a strategic media or crisis communications plan.

That level of prep -- even if you have it --may not be enough in the heat of a media war. Your research will provide insight on your opponent's motivations, psychology and goals, but such data will likely be broad, strategic. But when your opposition strikes with an ad, a blog post or a viral video, you'll need to drill down a little deeper and examine their media at a more granular level.

In a media battle, content is not merely content. It becomes a weapon with a specific tactical function. As communications strategists in a volatile sector, you need the skill set to analyze and disable those weapons aimed at your organization or its interests.

Lowe's Holds Ground With Weak Spin On TLC Ad Pull

Lowe's stands by its ad pull even as a North Carolina-based interfaith group collects 200,000 signatures expressing concern over the company's action. Lowe's is based in Mooresville, N.C. According to the Charlotte Observer,

On Tuesday morning, Revs. James Leach and Russ Dean, of the Unitarian Universalist Church and Park Road Baptist congregations in Charlotte, drove to Lowe's Mooresville headquarters. They were accompanied by other representatives from the interfaith Mecklenburg Ministries, bearing more than 200,000 signatures from petitioners. The petitions asked Lowe's to apologize and to reinstate its advertising.

But the petition did not achieve the desired outcome, and Lowe's held firm with a weak backpedal attempt after the meeting. Per Entertainment Weekly's "Inside TV" page,

"The decision was absolutely not, despite what's been reported in the media, influenced by any one group," said Lowe's vice president of marketing, Tom Lamb.

He said that the decision to stop advertising on the show had been made before the Florida Family Association emailed Lowe's CEO, Robert Niblock. ...

Lamb told the Observer he was "surprised" that the Christian group was credited with pressuring Lowe's, which made the "routine" decision to pull the ad.

A spokesman says the first spot aired Dec. 4 as part of a bulk buy. (TLC didn't specify which shows the ad would appear in). Within 24 hours, negative feedback about the TLC show had appeared on the company's social media sites, so the decision to pull the ad was made shortly thereafter. "We're surprised at how much happened and how quickly it happened in the context of an advertising decision," Lamb said.

The Hollywood Reporter adds this:

According to the company, the All-American Muslim promo time was part of a bulk ad buy, though they understood the show following Muslim residents of Dearborn, Mich. could be included. He also says the decision to pull the ads was made on Dec. 5 shortly after their social media team identified negative comments on the show that morning.

The company says Lowe's CEO Robert Niblock received the initial email from the FFA later that same afternoon.

Lowe's spokesperson Chris Ahearn says that the company responded to the FFA with a form letter explaining the ads had already been pulled. She also says that decisions to pull commercial spots from shows that are considered controversial are made perhaps 8-10 times a year. The company declined to name other shows it has pulled its advertising from.

I'm not buying the Lowe's spin (and I'm wishing that Mecklenburg reps hadn't bought it either: "'We respect their business decision,' said Dean," states the Observer).

I'd like to see the kinds of comments and the volume the company alleges on its social media channels on Dec. 4 - 5. It's likely less than the 28,000 Facebook comments it received (and even dividing that evenly pro and con, that leaves 14,000), and it's likely less than the 200,000 signatures gathered by Mecklenburg.

That leaves content as the driving factor from that early feedback, if you want to follow their argument. Anti-Islamic rhetoric (such as we saw left unchecked on FB) would be the likely major tone.

Given the numbers as described above, along with the company's actions throughout this brouhaha, I'm left with two  conclusions:

PR Fail: Pressure Mounts On Lowe's For TLC Ad Pull, updated

Some excerpts on my take Saturday on the Lowe's debacle as written up for Muslim matters.org:

From a professional public relations perspective, Lowe’s public response indicates a lack of a good crisis communications plan. Without detailing the chinks in their armour — as I have no desire to strengthen their strategy at this stage — that lack of planning does indicate a certain corporate vulnerability. Also noteworthy is the fact that the company succumbed easily to pressure from the Florida group, which indicates some corporate attention to consumer buying power and interests — so continued and increasing pressure should yield results.


The key will be in numbers: the objective will be to show Lowes management that those outraged over the company’s decision far exceed the constituency that called for the ad pull.

Some further thoughts:

Their decision aside, what's been astounding is their PR failure throughout in trying to backpedal and spin their decision.

The inadequate Facebook response --  which comes off as being written by an inexperienced  social media intern with no corporate oversight and  hastily approved by a lawyer not too happy to be bothered on a  weekend -- is an inelegant (notice the typo) way of offering an apology of sorts, while spinning their original cave to pressure.  It rallies those who support their position, but does little to indicate a sincere re-evaluation of the ethics behind their choice  and  shirks any responsibility to pull themselves out of the fray they created:

    It appears that we managed to step into a hotly contested debate with strong views from virtually every angle and perspective – social, political and otherwise – and we’ve managed to make some people very unhappy. We are sincerely sorry. We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we’re proud of that longstanding commitment.


    Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.


    We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize.


    Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position.

That they've let their Facebook comments go completely unchecked , allowing some truly repulsive and vulgar comments to appear (even from both camps), flies in the face of their alleged claim of "We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers."

Most corporations with a  sound understanding of social media  and community management will reign in the most egregious comments but allow a fairly wide berth. That Lowe's is unwilling or unable to do so  -- and in the end, sending a signal that such customers are whom they wish to build their community around -- reveals either Lowe's true colors, its communications ineptitude, or both.