This is a general response, not only to your two posts, but might explain why I've had some fun at the expense of the idea of the 'PR Campaign' for some time.
Apologies for some redundancies since I was writing my answer to halides and did not see the 'piling on'
Since Marriott also admits this publicly:
We consider every project individually and assemble a team to suit the client's specific needs. We then develop and implement a plan;
usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences.
http://www.gogertymarriott.com/whatwedo
And without the signature Googled interpretations of 'media', I am glad you find minutes of merriment from what IMHO is a pretty small stretch.
*Some* may think semi professional bloggers like Frank and Candace (pause to genuflect when mentioning these sources on this Board) as well as less professional but no less prolific bloggers may have been somehow compensated.
To be clear and add a note of finality; I do not have enough evidence to make that claim, but it is not one I find in any way 'amusing'.
I do!
I find it
utterly hilarious, being as back in the day what set off the kook detectors was the 'accusation' that people were being paid to post against them. Calling the opposition 'conspiracy theorists' whilst claiming that they (or at least some) are being paid as some sort of 'PR campaign' is really funny if you have a somewhat twisted sense of humor as I do. Noticing patterns and coming to the conclusion they must be managed by sinister forces known or unknown is a staple of conspiracy theorists. It suggests an inability to recognize the natural causes of events and unwillingness to incorporate the concept of 'coincidence' into their worldview.
In this case, the fact that the Knox family hired a local PR firm to handle press requests gets extrapolated beyond reality by some to explain every, or nearly so, article negative to the conviction and person coming forward to protest it. At least that is the impression left by regularly perusing PMF, though I've suspicions some of the more astute know it's nonsense. A few months ago one of the more hardheaded regulars over there 'genuflected' in the direction of the 'PR Campaign' but added the insightful bit that the next presidential candidate would do well to hire Gogerty-Marriott, considering the 'success' they'd had with Amanda Knox. I'd like to hope he was slyly implying the world doesn't quite work the way some over there think it does.
However, looking at what you posted from the Marriott website, I wonder if this accusation hasn't had an effect at least on that, as I recall it once included a bit about 'grassroots efforts' or somesuch, thus if that's from the same page as before they must have changed it. I find that funny too.
What is it you think this below actually
means in real-world terms?
We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media, community outreach, ally development, and government relations among other ways of reaching important audiences.
"Paid media" is commercials, like they (probably) had to run in their effort for the Seattle Seahawks to get that new stadium built. Items like thirty second advocacy ads suggesting all the advantages of having a new stadium in Seattle paid for by the generous taxpayers. That can be a tough sell, ask
George Petak. Has anyone seen any of these ads for Amanda Knox? I suppose some might insinuate it means something else, that there's media hacks out there that get 'payola' from this 'PR campaign' when in fact said hacks have editors who approve those stories, and would fire any reporter on the spot if they were being paid by outsiders.
"Earned" media is where Gogerty-Marriott would come in, that's media inherent to the fact that Amanda Knox is real news, and some media outlets would like to do stories on it. This is also the stated reason they were hired, to answer all the media requests coming in after the arrest. Have you ever considered the idea they might have been telling the truth? Imagine what it would be like to all of a sudden be international news and having the phone ring off the hook from people as far away as Britain wanting to talk to you about it? You could keep answering that phone and scheduling on your own, but after a while it might just occur to you to hire someone to do that. Someone who also might be able to tell you the ins and outs of how to appear on TV without looking like a zombie, a blustering fool, or constantly tongue-tied.
This
is a story, it's not manufactured by a PR firm to 'sell' to media outlets. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were accused of helping
Patrick Lumumba Rudy Guede rape and murder Meredith Kercher for utterly bizarre reasons or none at all. It's going to attract attention, it's definitely 'man bites dog' and beyond that there's elements apparent that suggest that Amanda and Raffaele might be innocent, which just makes it all the more appealing to media. If there was no 'story' there'd be no media access, that's not something a PR firm can do in a case like this. Those PR representatives are not mighty magnates dictating terms to the lowly proletarian reporters, they're at times guardians trying to keep the barbarians at the gate and at other times salesmen trying to 'sell' their client, and in this case their story.
Of course access to the family is 'managed.' Why wouldn't it be? Not talking to people they don't want to is their prerogative, what would they
really want to say to someone that smeared their daughter all over perdition to sell the story? That would actually do any good, I mean? Reporters don't
need access to the family to write about this ongoing event, in fact it's in the family's interest to try to attract them, to tell
their side of the story, because there
is another side of the story being told, that of the police and prosecutor in Perugia--and by the tabloids which just excoriated her. They also try to protect their clients, negotiate 'no go' areas, but that's something the media has to agree to of their own free will, they can't 'dictate terms' or they may well lose their opportunity. Reporters refused access might not take that kindly, nor incorporate that element into their story, so it might have consequences.
I think there's simply a gross misunderstanding of the power relationship between a PR representative and the press amongst some. The
media has the power, and the PR representative tries to access it knowing that precious minutes on the news or column inches is all that outlet really has to offer, and the PR representative is just begging to get his side into that story...but it's the reporter that writes the story and the editor who approves it. The idea that the PR representative has the power and the meek journalist succumbs to their charms and dutifully spits out the talking points and memes presented them is very much 'wag the dog.' Journalists
know what talking points and memes are too, you might say they've a professional interest in the subject.
That's what a firm like Gogerty-Marriott would be doing, setting up appointments so the family can tell their side of the story, perhaps helping them prepare so they don't look silly, and taking care of the easy questions and information so the family doesn't have to be bothered by it. Having seen their daughter arrested, charged and convicted, yet obviously believing her innocent like many others, it would be a natural thing to want to tell her side of the story, and they'd probably regret it for the rest of their lives if they didn't.
Here's a chart listing the primetime ad rates for a 30 second commercial in the US from about the time of Amanda's arrest. As you can see access to the TV media costs anywhere from about $50k to roughly $200k with a couple outliers. Being as those lower-rated shows and re-runs pull in about the same ratings as a decent cable news show, a mere 30 second ad on one of those shows probably costs about $50k. Since they're not buying the ads, the Amanda Knox story has to
sell them, it must be of interest to enough viewers it justifies the expense in time the network is spending on it. The network knows this, of course, and would soon suffer if it is making its decisions on the basis of whoever called from some PR firm in Seattle. How much does 'access' to the family cost again? Wasn't there a bowling fundraiser recently, I presume some family members were there?
The other idea, the one missing from that quote but that I recall seeing back in the last thread or the previous, that they manufactured a 'grassroots' campaign that might have included Frank Sfarzo, Candace Dempsey, Bruce Fisher, Steve Moore, Douglas Preston
et al, and perhaps even posters here like LondonJohn who was a prime 'suspect' at one point at least, is ignoring the very
essence of what a real grassroots campaign
is. It is an 'uprising' of (oftentimes) outraged people to promote some cause or project. You don't
need to pay them, it becomes a passion, why would you pay for what you get for free? I would think in Douglas Preston's case they couldn't pay him
not to speak out if Mignini made the news again.
An issue like this is
naturally going to attract some people, for various different reasons, just like you can find other websites on a variety of political issues or causes, none of whom are being paid. To what end would they 'seed' the internet with 'astroturf' posters? Anyone with a computer could do that, Gogerty-Marriott is being paid for what they know about accessing the traditional media. The last 'Continuation' thread lasted seven months, included 25k posts, and garnered a grand total of a little more than half a million views, many of them obviously the people participating. In contrast a cable news show might pull in that many viewers in
one night. The ones who enter the thread are the ones already interested, in some way or another, whereas with a news show you have the opportunity to expose currently uninterested people to the issue.
The event the other night should have been proof positive there's no coordinated 'PR Campaign' that extends beyond the booking of TV appearances and the like. Those people up there were volunteers, true 'grassroots' activists in every sense of the term. If there was any event that
could have been orchestrated by a PR campaign, this would be it. However, did you notice some of them still had some things
wrong? I did, they're the sorts of mistakes a coached PR 'representative' wouldn't continue to make, they'd be corrected after every appearance as they interfere with the 'message.'
