How Common-Sense PR Could Have Put McCain in the Lead
Posted by Amy Ziari | Posted in pr | Posted on 30-10-2008
0
We’re just days away from finding out who our new president will be (unless Florida misbehaves again).
And regardless of who you’re voting for, you undoubtedly have an opinion on Sarah Palin.
She has a polarizing effect on people. You either absolutely adore her, or you hate her more than the guy who stuffed you in your locker when you were 13.
And although Sarah has been in the public eye for only a few months, her story has already become an excellent PR case study on how crucial a dead-on media strategy is to the success – or failure – of our clients.
The Beginning
At first, she came running right out of the gates. The polls soared for the Republicans. The Obama camp and its supporters got scared.
And then…something happened.
The Charlie Gibson interview…and the Katie Couric interview that cemented the deal.
The Fallout
What has happened to Sarah Palin is a classic story of media strategy mismanagement. A mix of an interviewee’s unpreparedness to speak and her handlers ignoring it.
No wonder Palin’s going rogue. She’s mad as hell. And she’s not gonna take it anymore.
Look at the video. She looks strained. Defensive. Angry. Unknowledgeable. She’s not speaking in full sentences. This may be just fine if you’re arguing with a friend, but when you have the entire world judging you, you can’t afford a slipup. And slip she did.
Her camp complained sexism with the first Charlie Gibson train wreck interview, but with Katie…there was no hiding the fact that Sarah just wasn’t prepared to answer the questions, and perhaps, even lead this country.
The media noticed. Regular folks noticed. And yes, even the Republicans noticed.
The McCain camp made a classic PR mistake – one that may cost them the election on Tuesday.
A Common-Sense PR Solution
If you have an unpolished client, the last thing you would ever do is have their first ever interview be the Wall Street Journal. Instead, you bring in a media trainer. You schedule less high-stakes interviews to build their confidence. You practice asking them the tough questions before a big make or break interview.
Instead, the McCain campaign – in an effort to minimize their exposure of Palin – only scheduled hard-hitting hour-long interviews on the main networks. Can someone from the McCain camp please explain how this makes sense? Seriously. I’m wondering.
A Hindsight Palin Media Strategy
Here’s an example of a better media strategy for Palin:
1. Intense media training before ANY contact with press. Ideally, this should have came before McCain even put Sarah on the ticket when the vetting process showed she needed some work. Unfortunately, she really wasn’t vetted at all.
2. Place Sarah on lifestyle shows to introduce Americans to her in a format that breeds likability. Potential options: The View (even if Joy would have bit her head off), the Today Show and campaign-released B-roll to the networks that shows her bonding with the troops. Anything to avoid the hard-hitting questions about foreign affairs, which she clearly lags in.
3. Offer Palin to mainstream print and TV media for short interviews focusing on domestic issues and issues she clearly excels at. If she isn’t ready to speak about foreign affairs, don’t put her in a position where that’s all she would be doing. Common sense!
4. Offer Palin for mainstream media interviews about the economy and foreign policy when and ONLY when she is ready. Don’t let her look unprepared.
What other changes to the campaign’s media strategy do you think could have prevented the Palin backlash?
Keep in mind that I’ve only explored this topic from a purely media strategy perspective. The real question – and one we all have to ask when we fill out our ballots – is should you ever have to do numbers 1-4 with a VP nominee for the United States?
Perhaps there are things that PR just can’t fix.


