So CBC interviewed a gentleman by the name of Markus Giesler on their Spark radio show about the metering of Canadian internet.
Forgive me rehashing the issue, but I just want to be clear so that my comments on his interview aren't misinterpreted.
Basically, metered billing (or UBB -usage based billing) is a result of the ISPs reacting to a market evolution wherein they are being transformed into 'dumb pipes' and wherein innovation (primarily the internet itself) is eroding their traditional lines of revenue (ie. people are canceling TV and watching shows on the internet or using less long distance and using Skype instead).
So think of it like this. Rogers use to sell apples, oranges and carrots. But suddenly people are able to get oranges and carrots for free or for much less (use your own imagination as to how this would be possible). So instead of Rogers saying "Wow, we better find something else to sell to replace the revenue we are losing from oranges and carrots." they instead say "We better start charging three times as much for apples, to offset the revenue loss from our oranges and carrots."
Basically, if the ISPs are going to be regulated to 'dumb pipes' then they are going to charge a lot more for being a dumb pipe. And in our analogy, the CRTC is the body that ensures that no one else is allowed to sell apples and who allow the ISPs to charge a lot more for apples than they use to.
This is a very simple and basic example of an oligopoly endorsed by the Canadian government. And yes, there are lots of counter arguments the ISPs make for why they have to do this, but none of them are the actual whole truth.
Anyway, so CBC interviews Markus Giesler, an associated professor at York University’s Schulich School of Business.
So why is this interview both an example of good and bad PR?
On the good side, he does a very good interview. He is clear, he returns to his main point regularly (market drama) and he is calm and collected throughout the interview.
On the bad side, he should never have taken this interview because he has no idea what he is talking about with regards to the issue itself. His thesis point was that when consumers and providers clash you get market drama and then competitive forces eventually emerge that enable a compromise everyone can live with. Which unfortunately is not the case here, as the CRTC regulates market competitiveness and has sided with the ISPs in removing market competition through usage based billing (although both the NDP and the Liberals are against this, and the PM himself has called for a review - so all of this may yet be reversed).
So Markus, going on the show as an expert in marketing and business, basically tanked his brand and tarnished York University's brand by failing to understand the issue and the variables that go in to it.
Now, this is not really Markus' fault I would assume. What likely happened was CBC called York looking for an expert, a PR person talked with them, and then set them up with Markus.
The PR person then obviously did not prepare a briefing note for Markus that outlined the intricacies of this issue. Instead (and this is purely an assumption, I don't actually know what happened) sent him in blindly to talk about how this is an example of 'market drama'.
This is a great example of good PR - in this case having all the fundamentals of giving a good interview - can occur in conjunction with bad PR - in this case having all the wrong messages and not being truly prepared for what awaits.
How could this have been circumvented? Quite simply actually through three possibilities:
1) The interview could have been turned down
2) The PR person could have discussed the focus of the interview with the CBC. In this case, made it very clear that Markus was not an expert on this issue and could only speak to marco-theories on market forces and how they play out in what he calls market drama.
3) The PR person could have taken a couple of hours (at least) and researched the issue so as to ensure that Markus understood the hot button elements of the metered story and had appropriate messaging to contextualize what he was bringing to the conversation. If you think of all media interviews as 'conversations' you'll quickly be able to assess whether you should get involved in that conversation, and if you do, how you need to frame what you are bringing to the conversation.
The first option is a hard one to swallow as PR folks and experts don't like to say 'sorry we can't help', but sometimes, if that's the case, it is exactly what you should say.
The second option would have been best. Most media will assess whether what you are offering works for them or not. And if it does, they ensure in the interview to frame your participation in the right context, because they get egg on their face as well when they do an interview and their audience is left scratching their heads in the end.
The third option could have worked as well. In fact, combining the second and third options would have probably resulted in a great interview where in the reality of what was happening was understood against a larger theory of business.
Suffice to say, I think this is a great example of how PR can facilitate and also damage brand equity.
If I had to guess what happened here, the PR person probably asked Markus if he felt he could talk to this issue, he said yes, they set up the interview (the PR person assuming that he wouldn't have said yes if he didn't know the issue well - which by the way is also likely the assumption CBC made).
PR people can't take their spokespersons at their word that they are equipped for an interview. You have to ask them some questions (toss a couple tough questions at them is what's best), even if they are a professor or an expert. Ask them, 'so if they ask you x what will be your response?'
It is your job to protect their brand (which sometimes means protecting them from themselves). And that can be hard, because one's natural instinct is to say that the expert knows best and if they say they can do it, then they must be able to. But that's bad PR. You sometimes have to stand up to your experts and say 'This is too messy an issue for what we can add to the conversation, so let's pass."
I can tell you I've done this many a times in my career and for the life of me I can't think of a single person who was ever upset. In fact, they appreciated it and respected the fact that I was looking out for their reputation. And I hate turning down interviews, so they knew if I was taking a pass that it was for a very good reason.
Anyway, I feel bad for Markus because he obviously walked in to a firestorm issue that he was not equipped to be in. And for the situation he handled himself well.
And I feel bad for the PR person behind the scenes in this, because they likely have too much on their plate (under resourcing PR staff leads to PR staff not being able to prepare their spokespersons properly).
The unfortunate result of this however is that this interview is now out there and other media sources will consult it prior to engaging him for future interviews (yes, the media usually review past media interviews that spokespersons give in an attempt to assess whether that person is right for the story's needs). As a result, Markus will probably not get a lot of media interviews in the future (unless they are extremely specific to his area of study).
Although the fact that he gives a good interview might still get him another kick at the can down the road. Let's hope next time his PR people have the time to better prepare him for the interview he's walking in to.
And from a technical PR perspective, anyone who is giving interviews on this issue, the simplest PR strategy to use in my opinion is the following. You can say a thousand different things, but you want to contextualize anything you are saying around the four following themes:
Forgive me rehashing the issue, but I just want to be clear so that my comments on his interview aren't misinterpreted.
So think of it like this. Rogers use to sell apples, oranges and carrots. But suddenly people are able to get oranges and carrots for free or for much less (use your own imagination as to how this would be possible). So instead of Rogers saying "Wow, we better find something else to sell to replace the revenue we are losing from oranges and carrots." they instead say "We better start charging three times as much for apples, to offset the revenue loss from our oranges and carrots."
Basically, if the ISPs are going to be regulated to 'dumb pipes' then they are going to charge a lot more for being a dumb pipe. And in our analogy, the CRTC is the body that ensures that no one else is allowed to sell apples and who allow the ISPs to charge a lot more for apples than they use to.
This is a very simple and basic example of an oligopoly endorsed by the Canadian government. And yes, there are lots of counter arguments the ISPs make for why they have to do this, but none of them are the actual whole truth.
Anyway, so CBC interviews Markus Giesler, an associated professor at York University’s Schulich School of Business.
So why is this interview both an example of good and bad PR?
On the good side, he does a very good interview. He is clear, he returns to his main point regularly (market drama) and he is calm and collected throughout the interview.
On the bad side, he should never have taken this interview because he has no idea what he is talking about with regards to the issue itself. His thesis point was that when consumers and providers clash you get market drama and then competitive forces eventually emerge that enable a compromise everyone can live with. Which unfortunately is not the case here, as the CRTC regulates market competitiveness and has sided with the ISPs in removing market competition through usage based billing (although both the NDP and the Liberals are against this, and the PM himself has called for a review - so all of this may yet be reversed).
So Markus, going on the show as an expert in marketing and business, basically tanked his brand and tarnished York University's brand by failing to understand the issue and the variables that go in to it.
Now, this is not really Markus' fault I would assume. What likely happened was CBC called York looking for an expert, a PR person talked with them, and then set them up with Markus.
This is a great example of good PR - in this case having all the fundamentals of giving a good interview - can occur in conjunction with bad PR - in this case having all the wrong messages and not being truly prepared for what awaits.
How could this have been circumvented? Quite simply actually through three possibilities:
1) The interview could have been turned down
2) The PR person could have discussed the focus of the interview with the CBC. In this case, made it very clear that Markus was not an expert on this issue and could only speak to marco-theories on market forces and how they play out in what he calls market drama.
3) The PR person could have taken a couple of hours (at least) and researched the issue so as to ensure that Markus understood the hot button elements of the metered story and had appropriate messaging to contextualize what he was bringing to the conversation. If you think of all media interviews as 'conversations' you'll quickly be able to assess whether you should get involved in that conversation, and if you do, how you need to frame what you are bringing to the conversation.
The first option is a hard one to swallow as PR folks and experts don't like to say 'sorry we can't help', but sometimes, if that's the case, it is exactly what you should say.
The second option would have been best. Most media will assess whether what you are offering works for them or not. And if it does, they ensure in the interview to frame your participation in the right context, because they get egg on their face as well when they do an interview and their audience is left scratching their heads in the end.
The third option could have worked as well. In fact, combining the second and third options would have probably resulted in a great interview where in the reality of what was happening was understood against a larger theory of business.
Suffice to say, I think this is a great example of how PR can facilitate and also damage brand equity.
If I had to guess what happened here, the PR person probably asked Markus if he felt he could talk to this issue, he said yes, they set up the interview (the PR person assuming that he wouldn't have said yes if he didn't know the issue well - which by the way is also likely the assumption CBC made).
PR people can't take their spokespersons at their word that they are equipped for an interview. You have to ask them some questions (toss a couple tough questions at them is what's best), even if they are a professor or an expert. Ask them, 'so if they ask you x what will be your response?'
I can tell you I've done this many a times in my career and for the life of me I can't think of a single person who was ever upset. In fact, they appreciated it and respected the fact that I was looking out for their reputation. And I hate turning down interviews, so they knew if I was taking a pass that it was for a very good reason.
Anyway, I feel bad for Markus because he obviously walked in to a firestorm issue that he was not equipped to be in. And for the situation he handled himself well.
And I feel bad for the PR person behind the scenes in this, because they likely have too much on their plate (under resourcing PR staff leads to PR staff not being able to prepare their spokespersons properly).
The unfortunate result of this however is that this interview is now out there and other media sources will consult it prior to engaging him for future interviews (yes, the media usually review past media interviews that spokespersons give in an attempt to assess whether that person is right for the story's needs). As a result, Markus will probably not get a lot of media interviews in the future (unless they are extremely specific to his area of study).
Although the fact that he gives a good interview might still get him another kick at the can down the road. Let's hope next time his PR people have the time to better prepare him for the interview he's walking in to.
And from a technical PR perspective, anyone who is giving interviews on this issue, the simplest PR strategy to use in my opinion is the following. You can say a thousand different things, but you want to contextualize anything you are saying around the four following themes:
- What's in the best interest of Canada as a whole
- What's in the best interest of the Canadian consumer
- What's in the best interest of Canadian businesses
- What's in the best interest of the ISPs themselves
Comments
Post a Comment