Showing posts with label political PR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political PR. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The US Congress: Tweeting competition

Hard days in the Congress: they have to vote and to keep on eye on their Twitter updates. In fact, I think Twitter is not easy at all to handle, even at the first sight it sounds quite easy and, by having a threshold of 140 keystrokes, you don't have to fantasize too much. But, for : you shall post several times the day, including when the event is in the making. After, to be ready to answer the feed-backs of your "followers". For a busy politicians, it is a system extremely demanding and, in terms of efficiency, it is quite limited. You could have 10.000 followers, let's say, but you will not be able to skin over all and from this sample, not all will vote you. But, at the very symbolical level, if we think about the benefits of the word-to-mouth effects, Twitter is a tool - but not the only one and not exclusively the most important - with which you could increase your brand awareness, you could test the reactions of a group to certain policies and test perceptions on-line.

In the case of elections, Twitter is a quick way to permanently inform your readers about the incoming results. The Consulate of Israel in New York, for example, sent during the last elections through Twitter almost minute by minute updates.


See also:

AP - How the Twitter works

The Telegraph - The Twitter craze in the States

Monday, February 9, 2009

Russia hones new image among EU elite


Andrew Rettman

EU Observer



The recent gas crisis showcased Russia's new "public diplomacy" in the use of public relations companies and the style of its EU ambassador. But the Kremlin-Gazprom brand has its competitors and remains tricky to sell.

The Kremlin hired Brussels-based PR firm GPlus back in 2006 to update media relations. Russia's gas monopoly, Gazprom, signed a separate deal for media handling and government advocacy in 2007. The annual contracts, due for renewal in spring and autumn, cover GPlus work in Brussels and Paris as well as subcontracts with consultancies Dimap in Berlin and Reti in Rome.

Russian Prime Minister Putin showing his casual side (Photo: kremlin.ru)

GPlus says its pro-Russia lobbying with EU institutions is worth less than €200,000 a year. Competitors estimate the contracts are worth €3 million to €5 million a year in total in fees alone, excluding expenses for hiring venues for press conferences or lunches with contacts.

GPlus specialises in hiring former EU officials and eminent journalists. Gregor Kreuzhuber, who leads the Gazprom account, was previously European Commission industry spokesman. Peter Witt, a senior advisor for both clients, is a retired German deputy ambassador to the EU. Angus Roxburgh covered the war in Chechnya for the BBC.

No one takes a pay cut to join the PR sector. A mid-ranking EU official such as Mr Kreuzhuber would take home at least €6,000 a month in his previous job and a man such as Mr Witt €7,000 a month.

GPlus has educated the Kremlin on using Western media. On the 2008 Georgia war, it pushed for press visits to South Ossetia so that TV in Europe had more to show than rampaging Russian tanks.

On the gas crisis, as early as October 2008, reporters Googleing "gas" and "Ukraine" were led to pro-Gazprom website gazpromukrainefacts.com. In January, Brussels journalists received almost daily emails with easy-to-paste quotes and dial-in details for phone conferences with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov. GPlus staff mingled at EU press events to spin breaking news.

The company's pro-Putin profile has not ruled out work for other clients, such as Microsoft, Toyota or Visa. GPlus has grown from two to 55 staff in three years, with a net gain of five people in 2008. "For a company like ours, it's perfectly normal to be associated with a client [Russia] that's in the spotlight," GPlus partner Hans Kribbe said.


Our man in Brussels


Russia's EU ambassador, Vladimir Chizhov, works in tandem on Brussels intelligence gathering and media handling. With regular GPlus meetings, the media-savvy diplomat knows for example that the Financial Times' Brussels bureau chief is the brother of the paper's London editor.

Unlike his predecessor Mikhail Fradkov, Mr Chizhov chats to press on the phone, cracks jokes in English, fields human rights questions at seminars and often pops up in black tie at social events, such as the Czech EU presidency ball. "Public diplomacy is an integral part of foreign policy and that's what I'm entrusted to do," the ambassador said.

The Russian EU mission has grown from under 20 to over 120 staff since Mr Chizhov took over in 2005. Just a handful play a public role. Colonel Vladimir Kuvshinov, the councillor for emergency planning, stands out for his energetic schedule in meeting security officials from EU states.

Moscow's EU message is amplified by PR firm Hill and Knowlton. The company's Brussels chief, Elaine Cruikshanks, promotes Gazprom offshoot Nord Stream as a "purely commercial" venture and a "strategic prospect" for EU energy diversity. In the past, Hill and Knowlton flew MEPs to Siberia on a private jet for Russian oil giant Rosneft.

But if Moscow outclassed Kiev on 2009 gas diplomacy, the tools of modern PR are also at work against it. Hill and Knowlton's sister company in the WPP media group, Burson-Marsteller, represents the lawyer of jailed anti-Kremlin oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovksy in what Ms Cruikshanks calls a "competing brand."


'Competing brands'


US consultancy APCO and Swedish firm Kreab broadly follow US State Department and Swedish Foreign Ministry policy. Kreab ended co-operation with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in late 2007. But some senior staff hold strong ideological convictions and still freelance for the "enemies of Putin" club.

APCO represents the shareholders of Mr Khodorkovksy's old oil firm Yukos amid a €23 billion anti-Moscow lawsuit in the Hague. It is interested in taking on clients such as Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan - post-Soviet regimes it sees as keen "to come out of the darkness" into a new era of EU and US relations.

And if the European Commission appears too Kremlin-friendly to EU states such as Poland or Lithuania, behind the talk of "strategic partnership" some commission analysts look at Moscow with dispassionate eyes.

"The problem with selling Russia is that it's a flawed product," one EU official said. "It's a vast country with a falling population that neighbours China. It's armed forces are in a poor condition. With the price of oil forecast to stay low, we are worried about the stability of the rouble and Russia's ability to meet budgetary commitments in 2009."

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Obama losing the stimulus message war


At this crucial juncture in the push to pass an economic recovery package, President Obama finds himself in the most unlikely of places: He is losing the message war.

Despite Obama’s sky high personal approval ratings, polls show support has declined for his stimulus bill since Republicans and their conservative talk-radio allies began railing against what they labeled as pork barrel spending within it.

The sheer size of it – hovering at about $900 billion — has prompted more protests that are now causing some moderate and conservative Democrats to flinch and, worse, hesitate.

The anxiety over lost momentum seemed almost palpable this week as the president in television interviews voiced frustration with his White House’s progress and the way his recovery program was being demonized as a Democratic spending frenzy.

In Obama’s own words in an NBC interview, it’s his job to “get this thing back on track.”

Already, he’s trying – rolling out Michelle Obama to talk stimulus Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday (at a train station, no less) and sitting down with key senators one-on-one.

But this is unfamiliar turf for a team that achieved near epic status for its communication skills during the presidential campaign. They’ve rarely ever had to play catch-up.

With the president’s gifted oratory and a technologically savvy team, the Obama camp was able to seize control of the national conversation as early as April and never fully relinquish it right through his Inaugural Address two weeks ago.

To be sure, some of Obama’s headaches stem from the normal dysfunction that occurs when a White House is in transition. Phones don’t work, chains of command are fuzzy, and there are formalities that need tending to.

But the Obama team also made its own mistakes. The president’s troubled cabinet nominees added to the cacophony that at times drowned out the White House economic messages in the past two weeks.

And it seems more apparent each day that the nascent Obama Administration isn’t fully prepared for the task at hand.

The president’s decision to push through a massive stimulus bill, while perhaps unavoidable, is forcing the much-vaunted Chicago crowd to adapt at lightning speed to its more skillful adversaries on Capitol Hill, while at the same time taking a crash course on harnessing the full power of bully pulpit. If he doesn’t figure it out soon, Obama is likely to find out that his stimulus package looks very different than he had in mind indeed.


The Jetsons versus the Flinstones


Obama’s campaign was lauded for its visionary use of modern tools for old-fashioned politics. Through the Internet, it recruited supporters, collected dollars, rallied supporters and organized get-out-the vote operations.

But when these modern heroes arrived at the White House, it was like the lights all went out.
Their contact with their millions-fold supporters was cut off, literally, as e-mail systems broke down and ‘The List’ of political supporters was blocked at the iron gate.

To meet government ethics rules, the campaign operation and its grassroots army were forced to de-camp to the Democratic National Committee, robbing the president of one of his most potent political weapons just as the stimulus bill was under consideration in the House.

But while the White House team struggled to adapt, it was business as usual on Capitol Hill for Republicans.

They could practically sleep-walk through their attack plan once House Democrats began to fill in Obama’s broad outlines for a stimulus with a few pet projects of their own.

It required two simple steps: Scream pork, call Rush Limbaugh.

They even could have even used a rotary phone.

The result: Every House Republican saw a free pass and voted against the first version of the bill.

The outcome is not surprising. Obama had roughly 90 people working at his headquarters on Internet outreach and new technology projects, observes Joe Trippi, a Democratic operative who broke new ground on modern campaigning during Howard Dean’s 2004 Democratic primary bid.

Even with closet-sized spaces, the White House can only accommodate about only about 200 or so people for jobs ranging from national security to health care reform to Internet guru.

The Obama team “built this incredible campaign and now they have these ridiculously primitive tools. The communication tools they mastered don’t exist in the White House. It’s like they are in a cave,” said Trippi.

“Then there are the masters of the Stone Age and they are doing a good job,” he added.


Learning to play well with others


During the campaign, Obama had complete control over his message. Now, he doesn’t and that’s not an easy adjustment for any president.

Obama must suddenly yield turf to both Capitol Hill and outside interest groups who are trying to help. The results in both cases can be messy.

Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus -- “targeted, timely and temporary” -- rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.

But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.

Funding to allow Medicaid programs to provide contraceptives as part of its family planning services to low income recipients was the Republicans’ first easy mark for attacking the legislation.

“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives -- how does that stimulate the economy?” House Minority Leader John Boehner asked.

With a phone call from the White House, Obama had that provision stripped from the legislation but the damage was done and Republicans soon moved to the next so-called pork project to launch a new attack.

Senate Democrats have vowed to strip those measures from the bill. But now moderate senators, including some Democrats, uneasy with the size of the package are considering trimming one of Obama’s top priorities: providing seed money for doctors and hospitals to begin computerizing patient records, a first step in broader reforms he plans to offer on health care.

Similar disconnects are evident in the public campaign for the legislation.

A host of unions and liberal advocacy groups have stepped up to try to help Obama move the legislation through Congress. Their intentions are all good, but it’s an untested alliance given the Obama’s decision to shun such independent support in the campaign. The effort also lacks the dramatic punch -- and deep pockets -- that became the signature of his campaign.

According to Evan Tracey, president of Campaign Media Analysis Group, about $65,000 has been spent on pro-stimulus ads in a handful of states.

In the last week of the presidential campaign, Obama was spending an average of $250,000 a day on commercials in the Philadelphia market, alone.

The pro-stimulus television ads aired by the outside coalitions echo Obama’s message about helping working families survive the worst economic conditions since World War II.

But the legally required lack of coordination between the White House and it’s newest allies has led to other inefficiencies.

Among the targets of the television ad campaign was New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg. Just days later, Obama nominated Gregg to become his new Commerce Secretary.

More discordant, however, was the impact of a radio ad by Americans United for Change.

“Are you with Rush or with Obama?” the commentator asked.

The commercial ran in only three states, but it wound up capturing national headlines, elevating a mere radio talk show host to presidential status and sending the White House efforts to recruit moderate Republican support wildly off message.


Owning the bully pulpit


During the presidential campaign, Obama’s team used big events to elevate the candidate’s big ideas or respond to emerging, divisive issues. Remember Philadelphia and the big speech on race relations?

That’s not so easy to do in the White House, which thrives on its own rhythms and traditions.

Obama has certainly tried to exploit those opportunities, offering radio addresses and using what seem to be such routine administration events as announcing a new cabinet pick to pitch the recovery package.

In addition, he has fallen back on the time honored White House photo-op/meet-and-greet to drive the news of the day.

But the Obama team hasn’t mastered the less-is-more formula that isolates a presidential appearance for maximum impact.

Simply put, the way to exploit a White House moment is not to compete with it.

That kind of PR self control can drive the coverage from the relentless and omnipresent cable outlets back -- again and again -- to that singular event.

But the new White House sometimes runs over its own, central economic message.

For instance, Obama hosted at the White House nearly a dozen corporate executives who support his recovery package on the same day the House passed its version of the legislation on a party line vote.

As a consequence, the support for the legislation from a host of cutting edge technology CEOs was buried amid coverage of the lack of a single House Republican vote in favor of it.

On Monday the White House tried again.

Obama had sought to illustrate the support he has among governors for the stimulus package by inviting Republican Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas for remarks.

But that news was quickly overtaken by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s swearing in ceremony.

Indeed, the Obama team has yet to fully exploit the open and enthusiastic support it has received from such higher profile Republican governors as Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California for his stimulus program.

Eric Eikenberg, Crist’s chief of staff, said in an interview this week that his boss is hoping federal aid can help the Sunshine State avoid significant layoffs and that the governor is burning the phone lines to turn Republican opposition on Capitol Hill into support.

“This can help Florida,” Eikenberg said.

But when White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs had a chance to highlight that support on Wednesday, he referred reporters to television interviews of Crist on cable networks rather than an Oval Office moment.

To make matter worse, the White House’s failure to space out events took another toll on its economic public relations campaign.

Just hours after Obama issued new rules on corporate compensation aimed at renewing public support for his recovery package, he signed a major bill expanding health care for children.

“To me, each one of those is a stand alone event,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic political consultant. “There is a risk of overwhelming things.”


When the campaign is over, the tasks and the challenges are different. In addition, you need results. Obama is roughly a month in office. No wonder he still need to get the full control over the White House and his own new schedule for the next four years. The dangers of an almost perfect PR electoral campaign is to rise high expectations, diluted after - and quite easy - in an ocean of despair. I'm very very curious how his working communications campaign will look like.


Thursday, January 29, 2009

Obama 2.0 -- Volunteers of America or 2012 Campaign?


Barack Obama's e-mail network is vast and organized, but some wonder whether legal problems could arise from using campaign resources for lobbying and grassroots efforts while president.

FOXNews.com

January 29



Barack Obama is now the president of the United States, but his nearly two-year campaign for the office is far from dismantled.

Armed with a treasure trove of 13 million e-mail addresses, 4 million contributors and 2 million active volunteers, the Obama team -- regarded as one of the most powerful grassroots organizations ever assembled -- is transforming its structure into a lobbying and volunteer fixture that will continue to benefit the president, perhaps well into a 2012 re-election bid.

Both Democratic and Republican strategists say that capitalizing on this massive database can reap many rewards -- but keeping a campaign intact beyond an election wades into some uncharted waters.

Some people are raising legal questions about how the group will function, how it will lobby members of Congress on Obama's behalf and how it will work in coordination with the Democratic National Committee. Others ask whether it can satisfy both the liberal blogosphere and more moderate and conservative Democrats.

Obama announced the formation of Organizing for America, dubbed "Obama 2.0" by insiders, on YouTube on Jan. 17, just three days before he took office.

A December memo sent to some supporters indicated that Organizing for America would promote "legislative issue organizing to support President-elect Obama's agenda, electoral organizing, civic engagement" and communication between the Obama administration and grassroots supporters. The group plans to expand its grassroots organization, "directly lobby members of Congress and other elected officials," and "work to win local elections."

"This is a powerful tool that they have if they use it right," said Massie Ritsch, communications director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

He said it can be a political party, a lobbying organization, a grassroots mobilization effort, and a re-election campaign in waiting, able to "start up its engines" very quickly for 2012.

But Obama's opponents have many questions about Organizing for America. One Republican strategist said legal problems could arise, depending on how it's constructed. The source of funding is significant, the strategist said. If the Democratic National Committee is involved, as planned, and is spending the money on lobbying, does it violate its 527 status? If the organization's fundraising is separate from the DNC and viewed as part of the Obama campaign, do monies count against the limits on Obama's 2012 race?

It's also unclear who in the White House would coordinate with the group. Antideficiency laws would prevent a White House official from asking an organization to spend money for direct lobbying of members of Congress, the Republican strategist noted.

Organizing for America's exact relationship with the DNC is still undefined, but a DNC source familiar with the group's formation described it as a "special project of the DNC" that will be "housed within the DNC." Right now, video announcements about Organizing for America have been posted on both BarackObama.com and the DNC site, Democrats.org.

Reporting by the LA Times indicated the annual budget for the organization could be as much as $75 million. But the DNC source said that staffing and budget decisions are still being made, and that it's not clear exactly where the money will come from or how much it will be. A timeline for official launch has also not been determined, said the source.

Presuming everything is kept within the limits of the law, the Republicans have reason to be worried. The Obama campaign's grassroots organization was "very impressive" compared to the GOP's, the Republican strategist said, and Obama 2.0 "has the ability to be highly effective."

But the transition from a candidate's campaign organization to a legislative lobbying group may not be a seamless one. "Re-electing Obama is one thing, and nudging members of Congress to back Obama's programs is another," Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said in an e-mail.

"It's possible that Democratic members of Congress will resent the pressure coming from their own president. The Blue Dogs will be special targets, one supposes," he said, referring to a group of conservative Democrats in Congress. "But to keep their districts safe, the Blue Dogs probably have to vote their own way from time to time."

The organization also must be careful not to get "too closely aligned with the Democratic Party," said Ritsch. "Many of the people who signed up wouldn't consider themselves to be ardent Democrats or even Democrats at all," he said.

And then there are Obama's left-wing supporters. Some liberal blogs have already expressed anger and disappointment with the operation of the post-campaign structure. Early this month, about 100,000 visitors to the transition site Change.gov voted on questions they wanted answered by Obama. In a concerted effort, liberal bloggers promoted a question about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration, and the question topped about 76,000 other queries. The Obama team ignored the question until mainstream media outlets brought it up.

One blogger at Crooked Timber wrote:

"Under normal politics, they might be able to sweep this under the rug ... But the creation of an open architecture, where others can bring inconvenient issues up -- and very likely keep on bringing them up -- makes it substantially more difficult for them to maintain control of the conversation." In some cases, "the volunteer movement going to be [sic] more of a bully than a bully pulpit, setting the agenda rather than serving as a glorified force-multiplier for things that the president would like to see happen."

With this in mind, some wonder if Organizing for America will be beneficial to Democrats in the long run, especially once Obama leaves office.

"This plan for the future of the Obama political operation is something of a double-edged sword," a blogger wrote on both the Future Majority and Daily Kos Web sites.

"It might allow for fantastic legislative accomplishments (assuming you agree with all of Obama's policy prescriptions), but it could leave a seriously weakened party structure in its wake once Obama is no longer in charge. And if it weakens the state parties without committing resources downballot, it could actually cause the Democratic Party to atrophy at the local level."

Regardless, the Democrats appear to be in better shape than their counterparts for the next few years. Obama's "50-state" strategy was successful in the fall, and Republicans are now making plans to emulate it. Republicans learned in 2008 that "any state can be a battle state," said a GOP official.

But the change won't come soon enough to help the GOP significantly in 2010, Sabato says. The Republicans are "years behind the Democrats," he said.



FoxNews could be biased, and effectively was on many occasions in the last eight years. But, at the end of the day, facts are facts, whatever they key we choose to read it.


Friday, January 9, 2009

Obama, the brand

The US are in serious recession, but the brand "Obama" is going better and better, 11 days before the inauguration of the new president's mandate.