TruthyPR

Congress finds a third option in the tanker battle

For the duration of the battle over the Air Force's replacement of their aging refueling tanker fleet between Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS, Congress has had two options:

1. Let the process run its course while complaining or complimenting loudly about the outcome; or
2. Intervene in the process to alter the outcome and risk the label of meddling.

An accusation of meddling is a serious one.  Though Congress routinely earmarks unnecessary military equipment, it's usually "small" procurements.

Given the size of the tanker contract, and the precedent it would set, Congress would open itself up to a great deal of criticism if procurement decisions this large were blatantly done this politically. The potential of this has created one of the best soundbites of the conflict so far, with Northrop Grumman calling Congressional action to give the contract to Boeing "a $35 billion earmark".

Northrop Grumman has been able to keep Congress in check with this messaging.  However the newly released GAO report cites enough errors with the procurement process that Congress now has a third option: they can demand a rebid without strings.  Legislation introduced in Congress has demanded a tanker rebid with a series of constraints on the selection process that would all but give the contract to Boeing.

This is over-reaching on the part of Congress, and subject to the earmark accusation.  Now that the GAO has done the hard work of finding fault with the Air Force, all Congress really has to do is simply demand a "do over", with no strings attached, and Boeing is in a better position to win.  A "rebid" even by the same process will give Boeing the second shot they so desperately want, without Congress having to sully itself with the machinations of politically tinkering with the actual procurement process criteria.

Since the Air Force can't or won't just give the contract to Boeing, and they can't seem to proceed politically with the contract as it stands, a rebid with the recommendations of the GAO in mind is the most likely outcome. Congress may push it along with a threat of the "Tanker Recompete Act", but simply the threat of such legislation and the appearance of unfairness should be sufficient to force a rebid.

As I mentioned last week, a rebid seems a very likely next step for Northrop Grumman/EADS to prepare for, and they should have been preparing messaging for that for the last few weeks showing that the outcome to be the same result. They have been saying for months now that the Air Force needs these planes immediately, but that messaging hasn't seem to get much traction. 

With Congress distracted by the holiday and the November elections, not much will happen in the next few weeks, but this is the kind of issue that you can see someone wanting to bring to a higher profile because protectionist rhetoric looks good during an election. 

Competing strategy videos from the Obama and McCain campaigns

If I can highlight just one thing that happened last week in the use of the Internet for influence that you should pay attention to, it would be the strategy videos that the Obama and McCain campaigns released recently.  Take a few minutes and check them both out.

The Obama video went through quite a bit of esoteric polling information, and then laid out the campaign's strategy and the new states they hope to challenge McCain in.  I found this interesting because you usually don't see campaigns talking to their supporters in this way.  It's usually the kind of detail delved into by the chattering class (pundits) and used to fill the endless hours of black screen on talk television.

The McCain actually did this as well, and a few weeks ago released their own video on YouTube.  I actually like the video from McCain's campaign better, in that it takes a surprisingly honest approach to the challenges the campaign has in overtaking Obama's lead and countering the negative factors facing Republicans this cycle.

Having the campaigns be this upfront with their strategy shows a new level of trust and openness that we haven't seen before.  It makes a lot of sense, given that they are asking their million plus volunteers and donors to help them accomplish something monumental.

The interesting question to ponder is this: if your organization is working towards a clearly defined goal with a strategy and an army of supporters, what's to stop you from sharing the detail of it with your supporters online?  I don't mean in a 70 page "strategy plan", but a few paragraphs of easy to understand text or a 2-3 minute video?  Fear of being criticized?

The payback in loyalty and in having your entire supporter base understand your strategy and your goals should be immense if you can manage this hurdle.

Disclosure: My firm, Virilion, is not engaged by any candidate in the election.

GAO releases tanker ruling; Northrop Grumman sticks head in the sand.

On Wednesday June 18th the General Accounting Office (GAO) ruled on Boeing's protest regarding the Air Force refueling tanker contract.  They recommended that the Air Force "obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision".  To most of the news media covering this, this sounded like a call for a re-bid, and they wrote that story.  Online conversations around the term "rebid" spiked as well.  It's clear what the blogosphere thinks is happening in this graph below.

At the same time discussions of the rebid spiked, so did the use of the term "fair" in relation to the process.  One presumes this was because most commentors found the process not fair.  The AP story cited the rebid, as did Reuters.  If you were a Boeing communications person on this day, your job was to appear not to gloat, and they did it. The blogs and the press were saying all the right things, so there was no reason to wade into it.

However if you were EADS or Northrop Grumman, you had a lot of work to do.  You needed to spin the GAO report and explain to the market why your tanker was the best value even with a modified Air Force procurement process.

Let's Not Make That Mistake Again
As I watched this play out, I was reminded of the last time EADS/Northrop Grumman had an opportunity to react, right after they won the bid and Boeing filed their protest. 

During that critical period they were quiet while their opponents rallied the media and the Congress into a fervent anti-outsourcing mob, while Northrop Grumman and EADS were ineffectively quiet.  The sight of Lou Dobbs ranting about outsourcing our military with barely a response from Northrop/EADS is seared in my mind as a teachable moment for communications professionals. 

I looked forward to an aggressive defense, as the GAO decision was a long time coming and they had plenty of time to prepare.

Would they comment on their local Mobile Alabama blog, the site of the new facility?  Would they use their special tanker blog to argue the merits of the plane and the boom?  Perhaps even their own website?

Northrop Grumman's Response
Believe it or not, no.  Northrop Grumman published what looked like a "thank you and goodbye" letter on their local Alabama site with the improbable title, "Outlook Remains Optimistic".  Please, saying it doesn't make it true folks.  The main tanker blog they operate doesn't even acknowledge and spin the GAO decision on the homepage.  The tiny bright spot of hope is a short press release on the NG website which responds to the GAO decision.  No proactive response to the rebid appears in any of the news stories.  The EADS chief executive is quoted as saying, "We are still under contract".

This is weak, very weak.

What Could Northrop Grumman Have Done Differently?
The 50,000 foot view says that if the blogosphere and the media are all talking about something, you need to talk about it, and your message points should be designed reshape the debate.  Saying everything is ok "Outlook Remains Optimistic!" is honestly just a credibility killer. So is not saying anything at all.

Northrop Grumman should have spent the last several weeks preparing materials for the release of this outcome.  They should have prepared an entire set of materials showing that if the Air Force re-evaluated the tankers with consideration given to the likely objections to the process, the Northrop Grumman plane is still the better purchase for America.

Then they should have followed it up with a response that they welcomed a rebid, but since it would result in the same outcome, and because the tankers are desperately needed by our men and women in harm's way, there's no reason to delay.

The goal is to promulgate the message that a new process is going to generate the same outcome.  And if you don't start saying it, nobody else will believe it.

If you work for the Northrop Grumman or EADS communications teams and you're readying a strategy of Chuck Norris awesomeness quality, I'd love to hear about it.  Heck, so would the media.  Or Congress.  Or the Air Force.

Disclosure: My firm, Virilion, is not engaged by any relevant party in the tanker bid conflict.

I am deeply indebted to my colleague Jason Alcorn for collaborating on this article.

We use a combination of Radian6 and human intelligence to monitor online conversations and generate graphs like the one included in this article.

What's the lasting story about the Internet and the 2008 Democratic Primary?

As you might expect, many people who make their living practicing persuasion are trying to define the Internet's role in the Democratic primary.  I have been at this since 1992 and I'm always hearing people talk about waiting for the Internet's Kennedy-Nixon moment.  Nixon's inability to understand the impact of television, and Kennedy's ability to play to it, is considered a pivotal moment in that election and in the history of politics.  There are many pundits talking about how video helped sink Senator Clinton's nomination.

Much like Kennedy, Obama is a reformer running in an age when he appears to be exactly the right candidate for the outcry of the electorate, and the newest medium at hand has allowed that advantage to reach much farther than it otherwise would have.  But it didn't cost Senator Clinton the nomination, her campaign did that themselves.

Internet video has played a very important role in both this election and in the last one.  (Remember the macaca video?)  And what it has been is a tool.  But the Internet didn't unseat Sen. George Allen, he beat himself.  The Internet just publicized these mistakes far and wide and allowed his opponent to reach more people who became disaffected the more they heard.

Consider the potential that such an enormous audience for online video has for your cause or issue.  Clearly you can take advantage of it like the Obama campaign has.  But if you fail to use it, perhaps because organizationally you can't get support for it, or because you don't think it's really that important, you may still find yourself affected negatively by it, much as the Clinton and Allen campaign teams discovered.

Recommended Reading:
How New Media Affected Clinton Campaign by Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle.

These two photos come from the PBS website and the SFGATE website.

Refueling tanker protest: how did this issue generate six websites?

In the latest chapter in the saga of the refueling tanker protest between Northrop Grumman and Boeing, it's worth taking a moment to look at their website strategies.

Boeing has created three presences: one on their own website, a tanker facts blog (boeingblogs.com/tanker), and a website sponsored by a conservative nonprofit, the Center For Individual Freedom called americastanker.com. Northrop Grumman has three as well: one on their website, a separate one that's entirely called americasnewtanker.com, and a local Mobile Alabama focused site called ComeBackHomeToMobile.com. In point of fact, both sides probably don't need all three websites and spreading the information out like that is going to make it a lot harder for anyone (reporters, public, etc) to find anything. 

Having worked in and around corporate IT departments for 15 years, I can tell you it's probably limitations of security and functionality that created at least four of these six websites as separate entities.

However there are two real strategic questions at work here:    

1. Is it effective for Boeing to use the Center for Individual Freedom (a conservative NGO) as proxy for their americastanker.com website, and is it effective to copy the domain name of their opponent (americasnewtanker.com) so closely?
2. Is it effective for Northrop Grumman to have the Mobile County Commission sponsor the local organizing site comebackhometomobile.com?

Should you mimic your opponent?
Boeing used the Center for Individual Freedom to run a "lookalike" website at americastanker.com to mimic Northrop Grumman's americasnewtanker.com.  I personally don't like Boeing's strategy here.  First they're blatantly pimping out a conservative NGO to carry their water.  Their only hope, much like AngryRenter.com, will be to tap into a well of real anger over outsourcing.  It's unlikely anyone believes that the CFIF has a long term interest in this topic, and any disinterested observer will assume they're just jumping on the bandwagon to raise donations off the topic.  They'll disappear in a few weeks when the press dies down.

The other problem of course is that this is too little too late.  Boeing owned this issue for the first two weeks after they lost the contract, when they claimed Northrop Grumman was outsourcing American jobs.  Everyone echoed that message because the Northrop Grumman public relations folks were caught like deer on a highway.  The slant of every news story was, "Should we outsource our defense industry?" When Northrop Grumman finally got their message out and reframed the issue, the facts began to weaken for Boeing on this topic. 

Having this issue be the centerpiece of americastanker.com's messaging makes it a weak advocate that appears obsolete at best, and opportunistic at worst. Oh, and nobody is going to "accidently" mistype the URL and suddenly have their mind changed on this issue. 

Is copying Northrop Grumman's URL the best argument Boeing's got?

Letting the County Take the Lead
The other important strategic question revolves around the Mobile Alabama organizing site sponsored by the Mobile County Commission. Yes it's got a catchy domain name, but catchy domain names can be pointed at anything.  The real value of the site is in it's frenetic level of activity and it's tiny but brilliant tactics like asking people to upload their resumes.

Using the Mobile County Commission is a much better tactic than using an uninterested NGO as your champion.  Their credibility on the topic is much better and the site doesn't look so much like something that they threw up in the hopes of riding the coattails of an issue for their personal gain.  It's clear that the Mobile County Commission is invested in keeping this contract for the good of their community.  I personally like this tactic, even though the segregated website means the information is that much harder to find.

If I had to score this, I would give points online for web presence to Northrop Grumman. 

See my previous post on this topic about the war waged on YouTube.

[Disclosure: Neither I nor my firm is working for either side of the tanker protest conflict.]

The Wall Street Journal is shocked, SHOCKED to discover paid grassroots in Washington.

Last week the Wall Street Journal did an "expose" [subscription required] on AngryRenter.com, a website run by the conservative FreedomWorks Foundation, formerly well known in Washington DC as Citizens For A Sound Economy. 

The website is attempting to channel anger from renters about a housing bailout of unscrupulous borrowers. The tone of the Wall Street Journal article was shock and outrage. 

Foundations and advocacy groups are operating in Washington DC!  Doing the bidding of corporate donors whose identities are kept secret!  Horrors! The disbelief of the Wall Street Journal is similar to that of Captain Renault (Claude Rains) in the classic film "Casablanca" discovering that there is gambling in Humphrey Bogart's club. 

Foundations and advocacy groups in Washington are entirely political, that's why they operate here.  If they wanted to really deal directly with the housing crisis they'd be in Stockton or Irvine California, where foreclosure rates top the nation. Only deeper into the article does the Journal acknowledge that the letters are real, and from real people who are really angry about this issue, even if the people involved in the creation of the site are neither angry nor renters. This I believe goes to the crux of the issue. 

It doesn't matter very much who's funding the FreedomWorks foundation, nor does it matter if Dick Armey has lobbying clients with an interest in this issue.  For all we know this is just a "small government" initiative that FreedomWorks is running to show their colors and then fundraise off of.

What matters is that these letters are real.

For years corporations have fought their market battles in the policy arena in Washington DC and recruited consumers to their cause.  The unscrupulous ones made up consumers, or tricked them into writing letters without knowing what they were signing.  But we as consumers have always been a tool in these campaigns not only because we vote, but because we are affected as well, and usually one side or the other has enunciated our interest better to us.

It's not news, and it's surprising the Journal thinks so.

[Photo of Claude Rains is from the Internet Movie Database Page, and probably taken from a publicity still for "Casablanca"]

Virilion helps UNICEF amass 30,000 supporters on MySpace.

 Recently MarketingSherpa.com profiled one of our clients, UNICEF, in their efforts to gain more attention for their videos and podcasts.  Since Virilion worked closely with UNICEF on this effort, I thought it would be a particularly useful case study for people who always ask me to tell them a bit more about the work we do.  You can also read the original case study we wrote here.

Any organization that needs to amass an audience of support, either to activate an elected official or to raise funds, knows about the numbers game.  When you need your supporters to write a letter to Congress or give you a donation, only 1 in 10 or even 1 in 20 people comply. Therefore the more people who are familiar with your mission, the better your results will be.  It becomes paramount to get your message out to more people in advance of actually needing to activate them.

UNICEF produces amazing videos and audio podcasts that highlight their work and the demand for their work around the world.  These had traditionally always been posted on the UNICEF website, but UNICEF staff and Virilion strategists shared the insight that it didn't matter where people saw the videos, on their website or elsewhere.

They turned to MySpace as a sizable audience aggregator.  Though social networking websites go in and out of fashion, there's no denying MySpace's 110 million plus users are an excellent place to go looking for supporters.

UNICEF asked Virilion to review their production and distribution to increase their audience without disrupting their successful video "assembly line." Virilion created a process to upload UNICEF's videos to their MySpace page (and other online video sites) to begin aggregating an audience.  The page was in need of a lot of cosmetic improvements, and after it passed the 10,000 friend mark, UNICEF made an investment in having us redesign the page.
Today UNICEF has almost 30,000 people they can reach out to on MySpace alone, and the number keeps growing.  What's more they are exposing their message to people who might not otherwise visit the UNICEF website as often, if at all.  That is a key insight to remember: even your own supporters aren't visiting your website as often as you'd wish.  Why not bring the content to where they spend their time?

One of my business partners is fond of saying, "The era of big honkin' websites is over."   It's so true.  Today you should worry less about picking a server and content management system for your new website and worry more about producing the content you'll use to recruit supporters and donors where they hang out: on Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, and in their e-mail box.  Once you have content, everything else is easier.

Other Virilion UNICEF case studies:

• Read the original Virilion Case Study
• Connecting with kids 6-11 for US Fund For UNICEF

A response from Boeing

You might remember that last week I identified someone on YouTube named "demorra" who has the title "Internet Strategist" and is posting pro-Boeing videos to YouTube.  I have sent questions to both Boeing and the user "demorra" asking about them, and received an answer from Boeing which I said I would publish here.

To my question: "Can you tell me if you or any of your consultants working on this campaign have paid demorra or anyone else to put up videos like this?"

Boeing spokesperson Douglas Kennet responded, "we checked around and could not find anyone who has heard of "demorra".  Suffice to say that there are many people with no affiliation to Boeing who hold strong views on the tanker competition."

I'll wait to hear back from "demorra" themselves.

Faking it online to become illegal in the UK

Pretending to be a customer or supporter of a brand or cause online is generally shunned for two reasons.   One is that it usually doesn't work.  When someone online advocating a position is making arguments that lack substance, their mere presence isn't sufficient to change public opinion.  The second reason not to do it is because when you get caught, the blowback compounds your original problem.

As of the end of May there will be yet another reason to avoid faking support online: it will be illegal, at least in the UK.

As of May 26th, 2008 the UK's "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations" will cover buzz marketing and social network advertising. The ad industry trade group, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) is warning its members not to cross the line in paying bloggers for positive coverage without identifying them as financially compensated. 

This and other techniques where individuals masquerade as uncompensated consumers online despite being paid shills will not just be bad practice, but will become illegal at the end of May.

For more information on the new regulations in the UK, see this AdAge article.

Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman: YouTube battle examined

I am watching the conflict between Boeing and Northrop Grumman over the Air Force Refueling Tanker contract with great interest.  Not only are there serious policy issues at work here for how procurement works in the future, but there's so much money at stake that you expect to see some interesting tactics employed.

Generally people in public affairs don't ask me if they're doing enough online for their client. Either because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of money, they know they're ignoring some important elements.  While a full analysis of the conflict in every channel online is too much to do now, let's just take a look at YouTube and it's 62 million visitors (Mar 2008).

My general rule when someone says, "Should I be on Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/mobile ?" is to ask them two questions:

1. Are people talking about you or your topic/business/brand there?
2. Are your competitors/opponents there?

If either answer is 'yes', you need to adopt a combination of organic and paid online tactics to help get your message out in that channel.

Today I went to YouTube to examine it for presence of the fight over the tanker contract.  With a combination of videos by their proxies (some sympathetic and some possibly paid), Boeing owns the message in this channel.  To see what I mean, go to YouTube and search on "tanker contract" and sort by relevance.  Of the first ten videos, eight of them are pro-Boeing, one is neutral, and one is pro-Northrop Grumman.  The pro-Northrop Grumman video is actually a video put up by a TV station in the area, WALA, talking about the economic benefit to the region. The neutral video is also put up by a news website.

However the 8 pro-Boeing videos have been put up by a combination of Boeing employees (1 video), Boeing-friendly legislators (4 videos), and what appear to be Internet operatives working on Boeing's behalf.  The most prolific, a user named "demorra", has only five videos uploaded to YouTube, all of them pro-Boeing, and demorra's title on their profile page is "Internet Strategist".* 

If you'd like to follow this conflict more, you can check out the online presence from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

* I called and e-mailed Boeing to ask whether this person was compensated for uploading videos to YouTube, but they didn't respond in time for this article.

[Disclosure: Neither I nor my firm, Virilion, is currently working on behalf of Boeing, Northrop Grumman, or any entity with a stake in the outcome of this conflict.]