Archive for March, 2008

A Progressive move?

March 30, 2008 · Filed under Branding · Tagged , ,

Adios, Jacob’s Field. Hello…Progressive Field?

If you don’t live in Cleveland, you might not care when the Jake, home of the Cleveland Indians, sold its naming rights for an easy $3.6 mil to Progressive Insurance in January. According to Progressive’s site, it is the third largest auto insurance group in the country.

ballpark_progressive_581x130.jpg

One thing’s for sure, there are a lot of aaaaangry Cleveland-ers, and they are not afraid to speak their minds, especially in the form of online comments.

Maybe if we hadn’t lost the Gund to Quicken Loans people wouldn’t be feeling as dejected or let-down.

Trendy Cleveland news magazine, Scene, recently ran an article titled, “How Progressive insurance lost what made it progressive,” which garnered over 35 passionate comments and responses.

The comments either:

  • Defended the Mayfield insurance giant
  • Negatively back-lashed it
  • Complained (or b****ed) about the name change, or
  • Yelled at the people who were b****ing.

So what’s the big deal? What’s all this hoopla and uproar about?

For starters, apparently people, more importantly, its employees, aren’t too happy about little ol’ Progressive Insurance. It’s no secret the company isn’t doing as well as it did in the past. Shares have nose-dived and over 300 employees were shooed out since November.

It’s rumored that ever since “Peter B.” Lewis passed on his Chief Executive Officer title to Glenn Renwick, Progressive has turned into the land of the Iron Fist, and this does not make for a happy work environment.

Progressive’s branding and marketing strategy has also taken some heat. Lisagecko.jpg Rab, author of the Scenearticle, describes Progressive’s high-tech and unoriginal commercials as no match for Allstate’s notable spokesperson (Dennis Haysbert) or GEICO’s funny cavemen or cute Australian gecko.

I couldn’t even tell you what Progressive’s slogan, tagline, or jingle is.inside2-allstate.jpg

I’m thinking that splashing its large block letter name across Cleveland’s downtown Indian’s stadium (and all other stadium materials) won’t cause people running…or driving their uninsured cars…to Progressive.

A company cannot solely rely on building a brand name and then put aside the creation and implementation of a concise customer and employee message, a strategic public relations and marketing plan, and strong and rememorable advertising.

I’m interested to see if Progressive unveils a PR campaign once baseball season gets underway or if it continues to rely on corporate stadium ads…

And if Wal-Mart buys the naming rights for the Brown’s stadium, I’m outta here.

Comments (3) »

Saving Face: Organizations, the Politician and their Spouse

March 16, 2008 · Filed under Branding · Tagged , , ,

I understand every person and relationship is different. It seems to be normal and healthy for a couple to have their ups and downs. Makes sense.

Don’t worry, this isn’t a “Loveline” relationship analysis. It is, however, related to what I feel is Image Management. I’m referring to the recent situation with Eliot Spitzer, but more importantly, to Silda Spitzer and all of the other politician’s wives who’ve dutifully stood by their cheating husband’s sides.

goffmanerving528.jpgSociologist Erving Goffman wrote The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, analyzing the processes and actions people create and manage for their social roles. Goffman used stage (“dramaturgical”) metaphors to describe how people live their life as a stage performance and control their own scripts and settings.

I came across a fantastic previous professor of mine from the University of Dayton, Dan Miller, and his writings on Goffman and symbolic interactionism. Goffman also popularized the concept of “saving” or “losing” face, which describes how people control their own behavior to avoid situations that may cause embarrassment or humiliation.

One could say former Gov. Spitzer tried to hide his affair(s) from Silda Wall Spitzer and the rest of the world because he wanted to “save face,” or maybe because he is an alpha male who thought his political status could exempt him from being a lying adulterer…

Regardless, I’m particularly interested in why Silda, Hillary Rodham, Wendy Vitter, Dina McGreevey and Suzanne Craig felt it was their responsibility to stand by their husband’s sides, especially during the humiliating (for both parties I’m sure) press conference and public apology.

I fully understand every one of these cases, situations, and couples are different in their own way, but from an outside perspective, I cannot fathom why a wife needs to stand stoic and proud at her husband’s side as he is reading a public apology script to try and save whatever “face” he has left.

In a Psychology Today blog post, Stanton Peele also ponders why the cheated-spitz.jpgon wife feels the need to stand dutifully by his side. “We shall see if Silda Spitzer falls in the group of women who find their marriages to powerful men sufficiently rewarding to overlook – and to assist – their husbands’ very public indiscretions.”

In Public Relations, it is important for an organization to consistently manage its brand and image among the public, employees, shareholders and stakeholders. Similarly, in order to be successful it is vital to be as transparent as possible with every public.

Organizations must maintain its “face” or brand as much as possible, same as the politician and their spouse.

Comments (3) »

How far is too far?

March 10, 2008 · Filed under Freedom of speech · Tagged , , , , , ,

The importance of freedom of expression has been ingrained in everyone’s heads since childhood. Why was the catty comeback, “It’s a free country!” so widely used on the playground? Because that is the image and thought-process drilled into American people.

I can do what I want and say what I want whenever I want!

Well… not really.

For example, just look at the Congressional wiretapping debacle last month. According to the BBC News article, “The House of Representatives allowed the law to expire this month after refusing to rubber stamp a Senate bill that would give telecommunication firms immunity from lawsuits.”

hor.jpgWarantless tapping of phone calls and emails, regardless if it is only implemented on “suspected terrorists,” is frightening! Even though the (telecommunication immunity) temporary law expired, this seems to only be the tip of the iceberg. With wireless phone tapping comes loss of rightful freedoms. I’m sure the wireless tapping issue is here to stay and it is only the beginning.

Even students gabbing on their personal computers is starting to garner legislative attention.

On the extreme side, there have been very sad and unfortunate incidents of students committing suicide because of cyberbullying. More and more students are being cyber-bullied, or harassed online. Many states are lobbying to create cyberbulling legislation that will give the school freedom to control student Internet bullying. This is now getting into the freedom of expression and right to privacy realm.

Many of the laws are contained to monitoring the school’s own computers and networks. Understandable. Now it gets into the nitty-gritty when some state laws “call for education officials to take action against off-campus bullying that disrupts their schools.”

The USA Today article also said, “School administrators were told they “may impose consequences” for off-campus bullying — but only when it “substantially interferes” with a school’s operation.”

School disruption? May impose consequences? Substantially interferes?

I’m channeling last semester’s Research Methods in Mass Communication course: how are those terms conceptualized and operationalized? IE, how are the terms defined and measured? I can guarantee many people have different ideas and definitions for those terms and concepts.

In the Center for Scholastic Journalism’s blog, Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, Mark Goodman, summarized the concern more clearly:

“Only when school officials can reasonably forecast that student speech will cause actual, material disruption does the First Amendment allow it to be punished.”

This is when it starts getting reaaaally difficult and hairy.

playground.jpgShould schools step in? If so, how far should they step in? Should students be wary about what they write on a school computer for fear of being monitored or censored? Should students be wary about what they write on their own computers for fear of the school stepping in?

Where will it stop? How far will it go?

As far as bullying and writing negative comments about people- can’t we go back to the other playground mentality of “treat others as you would like to be treated”?

So simple yet so profound.

Comments (3) »

Which came first? The celebrity or the President?

March 3, 2008 · Filed under Campaign · Tagged ,

We live in a celebrity-driven society where rock stars, movie stars, talk show hosts, heck, even b-listers are not only given a silver spoon, but a microphone that beats physics: everyone in the world is able to hear what they have to say. The explosion of social media (ahem, YouTube) doesn’t hurt the celebrities or their message either.

Celebrities like getting a piece of the primary pie. It all started with my not-so-favorite billionaire, Ms. Oprah Winfrey. (Actually, I applaud Oprah’s humanitarian and charity efforts, I just can’t stand her studio audience). Once Oprah announced her endorsement for Barack, it seemed as if the dam broke open and all celebrity endorsements came pouring down.

It’s not like celebrities or rock stars endorsing candidates is anything new. Whether it was true or not, rumors circulated former President John F. Kennedy had the boys of the Rat Pack supporting him.200px-rat_pack.jpg

Badabing. And there you have it. It’s a win-win situation for the endorser and the endorsee. Refer to the old school PR saying: any press is good press. Depending on how you handle the situation of course. It also makes one wonder, how many celebrities are receiving any sort of kick-backs (besides press) from the candidates?

Let us peruse the guest list.

Rock Stars for Obama: Grateful Dead (Phil Lesh), Pearl Jam, Common, Stevie Wonder, Fall Out Boy, Arcade Fire’s Win Butler, My Morning Jacket’s Jim James, Ne-Yo, Usher, and of course the myriad of celebs in Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am video.

Rallies for Clinton: Madonna, 50 cent, Jon Bon Jovi

McCain supporters: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone

Last but not least, Huckabee. I save this for last because apparently I’ve been living under a rock and just saw this video today. Huckchuckfacts. Chuck Norris, aka Walker, Texas Ranger, teaming with presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee.

The video consists of a serious-faced Mike Huckabee making Chuck flagman.jpgNorris quotes such as, “My plan to secure the borders? Two words: Chuck Norris.” I didn’t realize being a full-blown comedian is a Presidential campaign tactic.

Professor David Jackson from Bowling Green State University has conducted research on the effects and influence of celebrity endorsement. In the Huffington Post, blogger Elana Berkowitz wrote Jackson “found that the celebrity endorsements influence opinions by reinforcing popular beliefs or making unpopular beliefs seem more palatable.”

Although, as Jane Fleming Kleeb, executive director of Young Voter PAC, so eloquently stated in Elana’s post, “you can’t rely on celebrities to be the holy grail of getting young people to the polls.”

There you have it. Celebrities can toot the candidates’ whistles all they want, but in the end, it’s all you.

Comments (1) »