Inside the world of Rob Mclean, Author

The number one rule in PR? Never attack the media. Rephrase a question. Rebut assumptions. But never attack the media. The advice I always give is that when dealing with an unprofessional journalist who is trying to provoke an emotional response from you, is to imagine that it's a child asking you the question. How would you respond to a child? Odds are you would smile and then calmly explain why their question is inappropriate. Attacking the media in an aggressive fashion almost always results in a negative outcome. I can't think of a single instance where doing so has resulted in a positive outcome. Yet despite this truism, Conrad Black just tore into a journalist and I have to say, whether you agree or disagree with Black and his positions, as far as breaking the number one rule in PR goes, he did so successfully. A lot of this comes down to Black's ability to be more articulate than the journalist. The other thing that works for Black here is that he comes acros

So the candidates have had their third and final presidential debate the other day. I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole debate, so take my comments with that under consideration. The debate, as I thought it would be, was a bit of a snooze-fest. It's not surprising that it was for a variety of factors: Criticizing foreign policy in large part entails criticizing the military, CIA and military industrial complex (something neither candidate wants to do) Both candidates essentially have the same foreign policy, which is basically to keep mucking about in the middle east and nation building in the name of exporting Democracy To genuinely criticize Obama means to also criticize Bush's policies, since they are essentially identical (Romney would consider that to be far to messy and risky to do) Romney is not going to criticize Obama on things like the NDAA and wire tapping American citizens because he himself wants those powers should he win So essentiall

I just have to say, the real loser in tonight's presidential debate was CNN. Here I am, watching the debate via CNN.com's Internet stream, when about 20 minutes in the CNN site crashes.  Refresh, refresh, refresh, refresh - nothing.  So I had no choice but to load up foxnews.com and watch the debate there. Media outlets have to concern themselves with PR just like any other organization and having your Internet stream crash when YOU are hosting the debate is just horrible PR. I mean, when I've got to go to FOX News in order to watch the CNN debate, that's not just shooting your brand in the foot, you're shooting it right between the eyes.

So Obama and Romney had their town hall debate tonight (full video below). As I blogged after the last debate , it was essential for Obama to come out strong in this debate. So what's my PR verdict?  I'd have to say tonight's debate goes to Romney, but only ever so slightly (I'm almost on the fence in terms of calling this a draw). The President did come out strong tonight and it was the first time we've seen him standing toe-to-toe with Romney and vigorously stand his ground. However, Romney has maintained his stride from the last performance and came out just as strong as he did in the first debate. In fact, Romney may have been a little better than in his first debate because he was a tad more prosecutorial of Obama, hammer him on broken promises and failed policies. Romney effectively voiced the concerns that every day folks have, which is something he has not successfully done to date with any real authenticity. So while Obama came out strong, so

Paul Ryan So Paul Ryan decided to do a photo-op at a soup kitchen and it has turned into a PR disaster (not of epic proportions, but a black eye none the less) The problem? After Ryan's visit the head of the charity contacted the media to complain about Ryan. He said that Ryan showed up unannounced and uninvited, did nothing, took over their kitchen for his photo op and then left. While a blown photo-op may not seem like the end of the world, in this election the key issue is trust. Which ticket can you trust to tell you the truth about their platform. Obama has been weak on this front because he's failed to deliver on most of his 2008 promises. In fact, he didn't even bother attempting to deliver on most of his promises. Combined with a horrible economy, those two things should be a fatal blow to Obama. But if the Romney/Ryan ticket gets branded as shucksters as well, then independents (who will determine who the next president is) will be hard pressed to

No real comments on the VP debate tonight. Biden grinned way too much and Ryan came across as a tad goofy, but all-in-all each towed the party line effectively. Here's the debate if you want to watch it. No one votes for a President based on the Vice President, so this debate really didn't matter much. The pundits are all saying it was filled with specifics, but I didn't hear many. I heard a lot of talking points, but very little specifics. Essentially Biden's argument was we're for the middle class and America must bring together world-powers in alliances to solve problems. Ryan's argument was we're for everyone, especially the middle class and America must be strong to deter its enemies. That's about as specific a take away as I got from the debate. So no one shot their foot off and no one hit a home run. As I've been saying, this election will come down to the next two debates between Romney and Obama... simple as that.

So the NDP has come out with an attack ad against Harper.  I'd like to be able to tell you what the ad is about but I can't because it's the worst attack ad I've ever seen. Literally, this is the worst ad EVER. The reason it's the worst ad ever? Because the damn transitions go so fast that you can't finish reading what they say!  Forget about actually having a few seconds to absorb what you've read, you can't even finish reading it! It's BEYOND frustrating to be reading the message and then to have it flip just as you're 80 per cent of the way through. It makes you want to slap your computer monitor.  What's mind boggling about this is, did they not test the ad on folks before releasing it? It would have been obvious that the vast majority of people would not be able to finish reading the slides and as a result the whole ad was a giant waste of time. 

So it looks like the presidential debates will be the deciding factor in this election. Romney has experienced a massive bump in the polls as a result of winning the first debate. The latest Ipsos poll puts Obama and Romney at 45 per cent each - a dead heat. The latest Gallop poll shows Romney ahead 49-47 per cent, and a Pew Research Center poll shows Romney ahead 49-45 per cent. This might just be the most spectacular (political) PR crash and burn that we've seen in my lifetime. Obama was crushing Romney in all the polls, with a lead ranging from 2 per cent to 10 per cent in some swing states. Among women Obama had something like an 18 per cent advantage over Romney. All of those leads are now gone, including among women, where Romney and Obama now split the vote with 47 per cent each. What does this mean? Just like some were ready to shovel the dirt onto Romney's grave, they are now ready to do the same to Obama. Truth is, Obama isn't dead yet. The second and

One of the most interesting elements of PR is when you are working with data. Whether it be polling numbers, quarterly shipments, unemployment figures, scientific study results, or anything of a statistical nature. For folks just starting out in PR this can be a very confusing aspect of the job, how do you communicate data effectively and ethically? What can be tricky is that the numbers often times create more confusion than clarity. This is counter intuitive since numbers after all are about as clear cut as you can get right? If 50 per cent of people said yes, then, 50 per cent of people said yes, where's the confusion? But today offered a great example of how statistics, if not handled properly from a PR perspective, can create as much confusion as they do clarity. Unemployment down to 7.8 per cent or is it? The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) today released U3 unemployment figure and stated that the unemployment rate in the US has fallen from 8.1 per cent to 7.8 per ce

So the first presidential debates just ended and from a PR perspective I think it's safe to say Romney destroyed Obama in the debates. I've been saying that this election will come down to the debates and with his performance tonight I'm betting that you'll see Romney get a big bump in the polls this coming week. Here is the debate (five parts) followed by my commentary: Now, up until tonight I personally have not been a fan of either candidates. Obama has done a very poor job as President in my books (even with consideration that Bush created the mess Obama inherited). And Romney hasn't sat well with me for a variety of reasons, including he's the preferred candidate of the big banks, he seems open to engaging in new wars and overall he's shown little understanding of what people are going through in the real world. But after tonight, I have to say, while I'm still not a fan of Romney (mostly because he supports the NDAA), I wou

In PR we often talk about messaging and talking points but we rarely talk about honesty. Good interviews are often judged based on how well a person stayed on message. Yet to me, some of the best interviews out there are not the ones where the interviewee has a perfectly tailored answer to every question, but ones in which they may fumble about but everything coming out of their mouth rings of honesty. Sam Zell, a real estate mogule in the US, did such an interview on CNBC this morning. Romney should take note, because Zell has a way of cutting through all the bs and pointing out that Obama simply hasn't done a great job. This is a great example of how compelling commentary is not always a function of well tailored talking points... in fact, it's sometimes comes from the completely opposite in form of simple, honest, off-the-cuff exposition. d

The GOP released an attack ad on Obama today. While the ad is somewhat effective in painting Obama as an 'off the cuff' president focused on re-election as opposed to doing his job, I think the GOP are straying off track with their message. The only thing that matters is JOBS. Every time the GOP talk about something else they water down the resonant value of when they do talk about jobs. The gutsy part of this video however was inserting George W. Bush in there and suggesting that even Bush took the job more seriously than Obama is taking it. It's clever in that most people now highly dislike Bush, so if you can somehow re-classify Obama as being in the "Bush league" of American Presidents, you start to chip away at the idolatry that Obama enjoys. The ad is fair criticism in that I think it's possible, if not entirely likely, that Obama chose to go on The View as opposed to meet with world leaders because if he's going to be re-elected he has