Who's the bigger idiot?
My, my. It seems to me that there have been more Public Relations blunders in the past week or so than normal. So for this week's 'Question of the Week' feature, I wanted to do a multiple choice-type thing, and let you pick which person is guilty of the dumbest PR move of the week.
The problem I had was, how to narrow it down, in a world filled with stupid people, it seems?
Well, the first thing I did was take out all the celebrities, like What's-Her-Face Hilton. She is so stupid that picking on her would be like pushing a disabled person out of a wheelchair.
I decided to only list people who should know better. And here are the three I came up with:
Wenner Media Executive Kent Brownridge. When asked about the breakup of Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt (otherwise known as J-Pitt, or Pitt-Jen, or something like that, I think), Brownridge—publisher of US Weekly—had this to say: 'For a celebrity weekly, this is our tsunami.' Good move, Kent. Compare a Hollywood divorce to a once-in-a-millennium natural tragedy that took hundreds of thousands of lives, and destroyed the lives of millions more. Very sharp, dude. One can only hope that one day, Brownridge has family that dies in a hurricane.
Prince Harry from England. I'm sure you've seen this one. The little bloke dressed up as a Nazi for a costume party, was subsequently photographed by one of those English newspaper rags, and given the cover headline, 'Harry the Nazi.' Oh, Harry. Surely even coddled little English sissy boys know better than that, what?
Ketchum Public Relations. As reported in my previous blog item, which you can read, Ketchum brokered the deal between the Department of Education and pundit Armstrong Williams in which the DOE paid Williams $240,000 to promote the 'No Child Left Behind' act. Not as a public spokesperson, you understand. But as part of his show, with no acknowledgement of the money or the sleazy relationship. And, since the news broke, Ketchum has been unavailable for comment. That's right . . . a PR firm, unavailable for comment.
So, who's it going to be? Which is the biggest PR blunder? I'll tabulate the votes and let you know in a couple of days.
Comments (12)
Nick:
You're probably right, especially from a communicator's point of view. Ketchum finally made a statement in PR week, in an editorial . . . and it was very lame. Basically, the CEO blamed the entire thing on the "blurred lines" between PR and Journalism. I'm going to find a link to the statement and post it here.
Steve
Posted by steve crescenzo | January 17, 2005 10:15 AM
Posted on January 17, 2005 10:15
DATE: 01/14/2005 10:00:1P AM
These are all pretty bad, Steve, but my vote is with PR Idiot #1, Kent Brownridge. Comparing the Aniston-Pitt breakup with a devastating tsunami is insensitive and mindless. Two pretty rich people who can't make their marriage work vs. 150,000-plus dead people and more injured, orphaned, or devastated? What a jerk.
Posted by Sonya Georgeff | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/14/2005 11:84:9P AM
Tough choice. But then you can rule out Harry for inbreeding...that leaves the government and Brownridge.
Brownridge wins by a neck!
Posted by Melody | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/14/2005 12:43:2P PM
I vote for Ketchum. The other two were done relatively spontaneously. The DOE thing was planned in advance, and not a single person in that planning meeting raised his hand and said, "Um, isn't this slightly unethical?"
Posted by Shari Spiewak | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/14/2005 12:85:4P PM
I vote for Harry. The little pisher should -- and does -- know better than that. And I don't think inbreeding can be an excuse, here. Isn't his father supposedly that Hewitt guy?
Not to defend Brownridge's comment...well, okay, I'm going to. It's possible that he was thinking like a publisher when he said it, as in "It's our tsunami in that it'll be the biggest story and biggest-selling issue all year and we're going to devote our entire staff to researching it." Hard to tell without witnessing the statement.
I don't vote Ketchum since they'll pay the price in client losses. Heh heh.
Posted by Meredith | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/14/2005 31:73:6P PM
I am sure Brownridge was thinking exactly like a publisher when he made the comment. That does not excuse him. It's still mindless and insensitive. It's akin to when sports coaches and players talk about waging or winning a war while we have military people dying in Iraq and elsewhere. It's just wrong, no two ways about it.
Posted by Sonya Georgeff | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/15/2005 72:23:5A PM
NO, Melody!!! No, No, a thousand times no!!!! We can't let people off the hook because they are inbreeders. Making excuses for inbreeders is how we ended up with the current administration!
Posted by steve crescenzo | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/17/2005 10:75:8A AM
Looking at it from the long term damage their actions will bring down on themselves and others, I'd rank them this way:
3rd Place - Harry ... hey, he is an inbred. A child of privilege that probably doesn't know better because he wasn't taught what is, and is not, right. For his ilk,, this costume party attire was probably considered "oh, so cute."
2nd Place - Brownridge: A stupid statement by a tabloid publisher? Gee, that's news. More inbreds.
1st Place: Ketchum: Let this be the straw that brings down congressional investigations, even hearings, into PR practices while PRSA sits by with their finger in their navel? Oh, Ketchum is the loser/winner? It isn't even close.
Posted by Robert | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/17/2005 03:74:5P PM
Well, I gotta go with number 3. My heart tells me number 1, but this is for the dumbest PR move of the week, not the dumbest move, period.
So, I do believe this honor goes to the PR folks who should know better.
You *could* make the argument that the other two, while stupid, offensive, and inappropriate, were errors of judgement brought about by lack of maturity or lack of common sense. The agency thing brings in malice of forethought on top of being stupid, offensive, and inappropriate. Hard to beat that combo. With a stick.
Posted by Steve Neruda | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 01/17/2005 83:72:4A PM
Ketchum...by far the most damaging to the profession.
Posted by Nick | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 02/03/2005 69:41:1A PM
Hmmmm - without any thought at all - Ketchum wins by a landslide. Practice what you preach, fellas. No comment? PLEASE! At least admit your mistake. It's hard enough to make headway establishing credibility with journalists and CEOs without this BS. Clearly unethical, clearly bad judgement and clearly makes my job that much harder in the big picture. (Love the blog btw!)
Posted by Lisa Owens | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30
DATE: 03/09/2005 50:05:3P PM
My vote has to be for Ketchum. At least Pitt-Jenn and the little Nazi didn't use my tax dollars to finance their stupidity.
Posted by Jennifer | October 16, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:30