TruthyPR

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.