Skip to main content

RNC Convention: On a PR scale of A-to-F, first night gets a D

So the Republican Party kicked off their convention the other day and the two big keynote speakers were Anne Romney and Chris Christie, with Christie being the more anticipated of the two.

Ironically, of the two, Anne Romney's keynote was the crowd pleaser (her keynote below).

Anne Romney's Keynote: B


I found the first half of her speech laughable. She focused on connecting with women and went in to a laundry list of the struggles women today face and how she understands those struggles.

She may very well understand those struggles, but from a PR perspective it's never a good move to have someone who is filthy rich telling the poor folks they understand their pain. People don't buy it and it comes off as sounding contrived.

I don't think a single woman who is Independent or Democrat will be moved in the least by her words.

She did a great job though espousing that her husband is someone who will work hard and who can be trusted. That played directly to the criticism that many have of Obama... that he got in to office not because of hard work but rather because he gave good speeches that moved people. Additionally, he's broken or failed to achieve 80 per cent of his promises, so can you really trust what he is saying now?

So that part of the speech was excellent because those two things - hard work and trust - are reasons someone might pick a Romney over Obama. Given Romney's success in the private sector it's clear he's a hard worker. On the trust thing, who knows, but 'who knows?' is better than 'we know we can't trust', which is how many feel towards Obama.

I'm going from memory here (don't really want to watch her speech again) but Anne tried to wrap up her speech with the theme of Love (why this is important later).

Overall, given Anne Romney does not do this for a living, you have to give her a solid B for her speech. While it came across as overly-targeted at addressing the weaknesses of Mitt's campaign (ie. women and the Mitt's personality), she came across as someone who is authentic who being thrust in to the limelight did her best to do what the campaign required of her.

So despite it being obvious that nothing about her speech was authentic (it was in fact the epitome of pandering), she herself came across as authentic.


Chris Christie's Keynote: F


What a mess.

Chris Christie was expected to be the guy who blew the audience away. It was the speech that everyone expected would make headlines the next day and inject some serious enthusiasm and passion into the 2012 Presidential Race.

Christie decided instead though to go the blow-hard route. He talked about his upbringing. Talked about facing up to hard truths. And talked about dismantling unions. The one thing he basically did NOT talk about was Mitt Romney.

Perhaps the worst aspect of his speech was he talked about Love versus Respect and how the republican party was not about being loved, but rather about earning people's respect.

And there's nothing wrong with that message, other than the fact that 'love' was the central theme to Anne Romney's keynote only minutes earlier.

What's worse is that he also went after politicians who pander (saying folks need to stop rewarding those who pander). And yet, minutes earlier, that's precisely what Anne Romney was BLATANTLY doing, pandering to the women's vote.

It's clear that whoever wrote Anne's speech did not check with whoever wrote Christie's speech, because the two speeches back-to-back gave you a headache trying to figure out what they were collectively saying. Anne's saying it's about love, Christie says it's not about love. Anne's pandering, Christie's saying don't listen to anyone who panders. WTF?!!!

The Ron Paul Protest: D 

A lot of delegates at the convention were Ron Paul delegates who obviously wanted Ron Paul for their nominee not Mitt Romney. So their presence at the convention was not really welcome, but there was nothing the RNC could do about it. That was until they changed some rule that allowed the RNC not to recognize the Ron Paul delegates in Maine I believe.

As you can see, a huge section of the crowd got pretty vocal against the rule.



You've got half the crowd boo'ing and the other half chanting 'USA USA USA' to try and drown out the boo's.

What a gong-show.

On top of this, the RNC refused to let Ron Paul speak at the convention given he would not endorse Mitt Romney and would not let them vet his speech before giving it.

Which is fair ball I guess given Mitt is the nominee.

Having said that, Ron Paul was the Republican's ticket to getting the youth vote, independent vote and even Democrat votes in the general election. Their actions both against Ron Paul and against the delegates he amassed send the message loud and clear: "We do NOT want new blood in our party. You will get with OUR program, or you will GET OUT!"

And hey, there's nothing wrong with that, other than it's strategically stupid, both in the short run and in the long run.

Overall PR rating: D

Here's the thing, a convention is 100 per cent PR. That's all it is really. It's nothing more than speeches and firing up your base and generating momentum for the campaign.

So did the first night in this three-day convention achieve that? Not in the least. 

Anne Romney was fine, but did not inspire wide-spread passion for Mitt's campaign.

Christie was horrible, doing literally nothing to make Mitt seem like the leader America needs right now.

And the whole Ron Paul delegates versus the Mitt Romney delegates made the whole thing look like a gong show.

Die hard republicans will vote Republican no matter how bad the convention is. It's the independents and Democrats that you need to convince to vote Romney. And I think on that front, the convention so far has actually hurt Romney's chances of doing that.

We'll see how day two and three go though. Someone is going to have to give one hell of a speech at some point to fire up the country about the Republican party, because so far no one has.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Morgan Freeman Botches Reddit IAmA - Black Eye on PR

For those not familiar with Reddit it's basically a forum where people post interesting things on a wide variety of subjects. Postings gain popularity when people 'up vote' them and become more visible in their particular subreddit (a subreddit is simply a subject category, like politics or videos). One of Reddit's most popular subreddits is the IAmA subreddit - which allows reddit users to ask questions of various people. Over three million people subscribe to IAmA, which is also widely used by celebrities. An IAmA can last a couple hours during which Redditors (the term Reddit users call themselves) can ask the person doing the IAmA questions. The term "IAmA" comes from the concept of "I Am A doctor, ask me anything", "I Am A movie star, ask me anything" - you get the drift. IAmA's are not just for celebrities, lots of common folks do them as well. Recently Morgan Freeman did an IAmA  and it turned into a PR mess. To make a lo...

Mainstream versus Alternate Media - Where is the news now-a-days?

It's well known that CNN has been suffering an exodus of viewers, losing over half their viewership over the past couple of years. Yet Fox News has not lost viewers, but has increased its viewership slightly. It's an odd phenomena given that Fox news is clearly biased in their coverage. Mind you, so is CNN according to many. But I'd suggest it comes down to something much more simple.  While Fox may be holding its ground, the rise of alternative media is taking off where CNN left off - a focus on hard news. For those of the under 40 crowd, that's what they are looking for, NEWS. The simplest way to highlight the difference between mainstream media and alternative media is to take a look at their homepages and the stories they highlight. It becomes very clear why people are turning away from CNN and turning to alternative media. Let's look at five media sites and their homepage (click on pictures to enlarge): CNN Feature stories: CNN heroes Top t...

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...