Is AI the Newest Entry on Your Public Relations Org Chart?

David Gallagher (00:05):
Well, hello, I am not Farzana Baduel. She's at a conference in Sicily. Good work, I guess if you can find it, but you have found your way into The Week Spun. This is our weekly live look at the world through the eyes of the PR professional from around the world. I'm David Gallagher from London. 

Doug Downs (00:23):
I'm Doug Downs, somewhere in Canada's Rocky Mountains.

David Gallagher (00:26):
And we are pleased to have my dear friend, former colleague and President of the PR Council Kim Sample, joining us as our guest host today. And Kim, I'm going to come back to you in a moment and ask you about your very busy week in Chicago and maybe a little bit about the PR Council for some of our viewers and listeners who don't know about that. But just a quick look at what we've got in store for you today. This is our mailroom episode, very popular. A look at questions and comments from the audience. Our superstar producers, David and Emily, have gone through a selection and pulled out a few short videos for us to take a look at. I think I've seen most of them, but I know we're going to look at what’s up with Apple and their support for podcasts. We're going to take a quick look at a backlash from a Halloween campaign by a popular lighting brand.

(01:12):
 There's a confidence problem that many of us in PR might have about our own personal branding, a look at one year into the Trump administration, and then a quick look at the Mandami transition team. So that's what we've got in store. As always, we welcome comments and questions from our audience, so please put them into the chat on any platform and we will do our best to pull them up on screen. Kim, over to you. I know you were at the Provoke Summit. I saw your post in Chicago, so maybe a few quick highlights from what you took away from that event. I think it's one of the bigger ones in our industry. And then just maybe a word about the PR Council for people who may not be familiar with your work.

Kim Sample (01:51):
Sure. Thank you so much for having me. Let's start with Provoke. Congrats to Paul and team for another great conference. There was a lot of conversation about this thing you might've heard of called AI. I think there were some interesting takes on it, a little bit of redundancy, but super interesting sessions. One of the sessions that I thought was incredibly interesting was on this consumer obsession with fairness. And I think that's really important for us as communicators to understand that we have to make sure we're being fair, our company actions are fair. I thought that was super interesting. I learned a new phrase, FTE. When I first heard it, I kind of winced, but the more I thought about it, I thought, I don't like the word synthetic, but maybe there's something there.

Doug Downs (02:50):
Kim, with synthetic FTEs that your audio might've cut out a little bit.

Kim Sample (02:54):
Yeah, synthetic FTEs.

Doug Downs (02:57):
Okay, gotcha.

Kim Sample (02:59):
Yeah, so we're going to have all these new colleagues.

David Gallagher (03:04):
Is an AI reference.

Kim Sample (03:07):
Wouldn't that be fun?

David Gallagher (03:08):
This is an AI reference obviously.

Kim Sample (03:10):
Yes, yes.

David Gallagher (03:11):
Okay. I didn't mean to cut down cause I think you had maybe one other thing you wanted to mention, but I want to come back to the fairness doctrine question too, but sorry, we didn't mean to cut in.

Kim Sample (03:19):
No, no, no, that's okay. I'm just trying to think what else. Let's go back to the fairness.

David Gallagher (03:25):
Yeah, so what's that about? I heard a little bit of chatter about rounding up on pennies. Was that what provoked this reaction or was there a broader theme at political?

Kim Sample (03:36):
Well, I think it's a broader theme and it's some work that Maslansky and Partners has been doing. They're the firm that specializes in sort of language, which is just so super cool. But they used this example of pennies going away in the U.S. They're too expensive to handle. So McDonald's, some franchisees have moved forward with deciding they're going to eliminate pennies early, and so they round up or they round down and consumers were outraged and it created a huge problem for the McDonald's brand because it was perceived to be very unfair. So I think we have to take into account moves like that, that might seem benign and oh yeah, you win some, you lose some. People don't want to lose some.

Doug Downs (04:29):
Kim, when I was looking at the agenda, the panel that really caught my eye and I wish I was there for was the one on corporate brand. And they were talking about enterprise value increasingly depending on the depth of a brand's communications, how well its purpose shows up beyond ad campaigns. So from your perspective at the summit, did you get a sense that brands are ready now finally to invest in deeper, more substantive content like podcasts or long-form storytelling? Are they finally moving toward owning their channels instead of renting space on social media or billboards or clickable ads?

Kim Sample (05:13):
It's really all over the place. I think that was a great panel and really terrific to hear what those two companies were doing. I think one thing that's super interesting is all of the interest in GEO has companies understanding that owned is a super important channel. So many people have talked about the corporate blog being new again after they killed it 20 years ago, or not like that long, maybe it was 10. But that’s fact that's super important. And I think we're hearing more and more stories about companies that undergo a crisis. Somebody even talked about this at the conference, Elf—I don't know what the crisis was, I meant to look that up—but they had a crisis recently, but nobody talked about it because that brand has been so consistently adhering to its values of inclusivity that it's built this super strong reputation so it can weather that. And we know that is true about brands. I think sometimes the short term gets in the way though.

Doug Downs (06:18):
Isn't that amazing? There's like a reputation bank and if you own your channels, you build your bank faster, like your portfolio. Okay, Kim, ready to go to the mailbag here? We got some. Okay. The virtual mail, the synthetic mailbag, if you will. So the first one, I love this point from my pal, Greg Wasserman, who lives in Hollywood. It's about Apple's role in the podcast world. I have to set this up a little bit. A few years ago, Apple basically was podcasting. I mean, every iPhone came with the podcast, the little purple podcast app, and that's how most people listened. But lately, Spotify and YouTube have been making big moves into video podcasts and Apple has been quiet, shall we say. So the question that Greg is asking here is, does Apple even care about podcasts anymore? And if they're not saying much, what does that silence mean from a public relations perspective?

Greg Wasserman (07:17):
Right now, Spotify's teaming up and looking at how they take on YouTube. So they've partnered with Netflix for video distribution. This whole time that we've been talking about video in the podcast space, Apple's been relatively quiet. A lot of us in the industry are discussing it, but does that mean that others are talking about it? A lot of people are talking about how they need to get their videos on YouTube and Spotify and join these media companies in pursuit of their audiences. Apple has such a massive audience built into podcasting and they've built HLS, which allows them to have the video capabilities. Why are they staying quiet? And then from a PR standpoint, what does it mean that they are staying quiet and we're allowing others, YouTube, Netflix, Spotify, and other video platforms, to own this conversation?

Doug Downs (08:11):
My initial take is that this is Apple's MO. They sort of have a mystique about them. They don't follow what Spotify and YouTube are doing. They set the trends and people follow Apple, that that's how we behave. The risk is if the silence goes on too long, the narrative hardens into Apple has fallen behind.

Kim Sample (08:33):
I think this is very much Apple, such an Apple move, but I agree with you. How long can they wait? I hope they have something brewing that they're going to announce. David, what do you think?

David Gallagher (08:48):
I mostly agree with you. I did ask, this is what I do, Kim. When I don't know about something, I go ask, I dial a friend, and usually Doug asks me about something I don't know. But I did ask someone inside at Apple who asked not to be quoted, but his view was one, Apple would probably disagree with that characterization, that they've done a lot for podcasting, and in fact, the word pod comes from the iPod pre-streaming, so not named by them by

Doug Downs (09:12):
Someone else, but yeah, yeah.

David Gallagher (09:14):
But they introduced the technology that introduced the format. So his view was that they probably would dispute that characterization that they're not doing enough. He said it might be a reflection of what value they think they can or cannot offer on top of all the content that's there. I know in my own past when I've worked on, Kim, we've had clients that had a vast array of products and services. Sometimes you have to select a champion brand, product, or service, and that's where you put your resources in, especially if the budget is more marketing-focused than corporate-focused. And I would suspect that maybe Apple’s done the calculation and said, this isn't where our real money is going to come from, or we could add something discernibly different. And that might be hard to hear when you're in the podcasting business, but I suspect that this wasn't just an oversight or a slight, it's just where they think they can add some value.

Doug Downs (10:10):
That's amazing. When one in three Americans has a podcast habit, it's amazing that they would come to a conclusion that audio doesn't fit for them. But you're right, at some point the silence sends the message itself.

Kim Sample (10:23):
Back to David’s point, the monetization is at an interesting stage because those super well-known podcasts, many of them are asking for subscriptions, they're offering benefits. So there's an issue with how everybody's able to monetize the podcast.

David Gallagher (10:46):
I think it could be a bigger conversation, Doug, about the switch or the absorption of video into the format in addition to audio. And that's kind of what he was asking about. And even this little show, I think we get as many YouTube views as we do Spotify or Apple listens. So there is some value, I think, in moving to video. Maybe that's part of the equation as well. But speaking of podcasts, I did catch your show with Farzana this week, Doug, and I'm sorry, I forgot the name of the person you interviewed, but she's a brand

Doug Downs (11:17):
Jo Jamieson on Stories and Strategies. Yeah.

David Gallagher (11:20):
Well, it really struck a chord with me, and I think you might have a clip on it, but for me the takeaway was that PR people, comms people, as we're so used to building brands and profiles for others, maybe being behind the scenes, we're less comfortable doing that for ourselves in many cases and that we could probably do a better job of telling our own stories and building our own personal brand.

Jo Jamieson (11:42):
I think many people feel it's not the place for sharing that kind of personal story, but I do think there's still a dire need for content with personality. And I think there's a bit of a difference. And to kind of illustrate that point, I'm working on a Sales Navigator project for a client where we're targeting senior marketing professionals in the tech sector, and 95 percent of what they're writing is "read this white paper that has come from my business" or "look at these insights from my boss in some trade magazine" or "come to this webinar," and it's dull. It is horrendously boring, and they're doing it to tick a box for their employer, but it's not telling their network anything about themselves. So what's their point of view? What do they actually think? What's going to make the people in their network want to work for them? Because it sure as hell isn't that.

Kim Sample (12:39):
So funny because I just wrote some different pieces on confidence. What really struck me is I did a focus group with procurement executives at the end of October, and at the end I said, "What is one thing you'd like for me to tell my agency member CEOs?" And I thought it was going to be like, "Show me everything I asked for. I want to see all your financials, your rates."

David Gallagher (13:05):
Your rates.

Kim Sample (13:06):
And they said they need to be more confident. And I dug in on it a little bit. I don't know what it is, but they never come in with confidence, take the credit they're due. They're sort of hiding behind our executives. They're not telling us about other accomplishments and innovation. And I think this affects everything in the agency business. A big thing on my mind, because we are dedicated to helping agencies be more successful, be more valuable, be more profitable. Confidence in pricing makes me nuts. It goes all the way down to that. We have to be more confident as an industry and we have to do more thought leadership. We have to be out there talking about our industry. I think that's incredibly important to the reputation of public relations.

David Gallagher (14:06):
I can't add anything to that. Agree, agree a hundred percent. So thanks for weighing in on that. Doug, what's next for mailbag?

Doug Downs (14:13):
That's perfect. More from my pal Tammy Vineberg up in Edmonton. And this sits right at the crossroads of politics and public relations. So yay.

Tammy Vineberg (14:22):
We are approaching Trump's anniversary of being reelected for his second term that happened last November, and so much has happened since then. There's been shifting alliances to redefining political norms, and the narrative around Trump remains deeply polarizing. From a PR perspective, I'd like to know a couple of things. Can reputational damage from a leader's rhetoric be mitigated by strategic PR, or does it become part of the national brand? What lessons can pros learn from Trump's approach to media manipulation and agenda setting?

David Gallagher (15:09):
I'm dying to get in on this one, and we've talked about this question before, and I probably over-answer it sometimes, and I know Tammy didn't mean it exactly this way, so I'll take them in part because I think there were two questions. One is, what's the strategic response to the national brand that's being created? Personally, I think it will take a decade at least, maybe a generation, to reverse the damage that's being done to the American brand with trade partners, with security partners, with citizens of other countries abroad. I think that it'll take a long time to repair this. I don't know if that's a strategic PR move or a policy move, but I think that the brand is facing significant challenges and that's just where we stand right now.

(15:56):
 On her second question, what can we learn tactically? I don't think that's exactly how she phrased it. Why I flinch when this question comes up for me, it's like asking what can surgeons learn from watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Friday the 13th? I guess they could learn something, but I don't know if that's the lesson we want to repeat. I do think it's worth noting the changes to the assumption we make about the way truth and transparency work, which are the cornerstones of communications. And we're seeing how simple power makes, really, the media environment, the attention economy, something that's really hard to counter, to get our word in edgewise.

But to me, I'm going to say this after this week, the bigger question to me is are we mistaking the media environment for reality, and maybe we're losing sight of the fire because of all of the smoke, and is it actually working? I mean, Trump has lost, the Republicans have lost every election since he's been in power, his approval rating is sinking like a hot turd. So I don't know that it's actually working, and maybe we're assuming that there's something more going on than is actually happening in reality. So sorry, great question from Tammy. That's my attempt to answer a thoughtful question.

Kim Sample (17:04):
I do agree with David. The damage to brand America is going to be very difficult to overcome. That's going to be a very long time. It's so complicated because we need courageous leadership, but you can't be foolish about the implications of being courageous. So it's a very difficult situation.

Doug Downs (17:31):
I'm kind of with you on that. The only nuance I would add is that the brand for America to me is one of division. It's not blaming one or the other. It's that the country is extremely divided. So I got another one here from my pal Vince Nero. He's talking about the backlash against those Hatch lights. If you have trouble sleeping, you buy one of those Hatch lights. It's got some sound to it and the lights are kind of soothing. They did some very creative Halloween ads that ran for Hatch, but people, some didn't like the ads, and now they're boycotting them in response.

Vince Nero (18:09):
My topic for conversation is the controversy around the Hatch light. These are white noise machines, alarm clocks. I have two of them for my kids. And something came out on TikTok where people wanted to throw them away. They're kind of boycotting them after a couple of Halloween-related ads ran, and a couple of religious groups are kind of butting heads with the ads that ran. So yeah, I would love people's thoughts around this from a PR perspective and messaging from Hatch.

Hatch Commercial (18:45):
24 hours, fatigue. Long down, go to sleep. 48 hours, confusion.

Tammy Vineberg (18:55):
Again, Ava.

Hatch Commercial (18:57):
More than three days, psychosis. Just need to sleep. Ava, up.

(19:05):
 It won't stop until it gets what it wants. Hatch is demonic. If you have a Hatch, you need to throw it away right now.

Doug Downs (19:12):
All I can say is I love creative copy, and my only word to Hatch is keep going, keep doing it.

David Gallagher (19:19):
I don't see a crisis in this. I can see where you get nervous, maybe your social media dashboard starts to light up and you feel like you've got some sort of boycott coming, but I actually think this probably breathed life into a campaign that otherwise was a little bit strange, I mean for a lighting company. Totally agree. Well, as we move into our last few minutes, one last drawing from the mailbag, this was a little bit prompted. This is from my friend Fiana Tulip, who I do think has a name like a Disney princess. She too is a displaced Longhorn, and we were texting about the New York Mayor's election, which was the topic of this show a couple of weeks ago, and just thinking about what this means. And I said, these are some great comments, you should put this into the show because I'd love for other people to have a chance to hear your take and maybe we can have a quick chat about it. So

Fiana Tulip (20:13):
Hi David, I love your show and the way you unpack what's really going on behind the headlines. So thank you for asking the community to chime in. So my question for you is, and it might be a few mixed in one, but okay, so this week we saw some pretty remarkable stories from women winning major governorships and mayoral races, and then Zohran Mamdani, so excited, naming an all-female transition team in New York. Here's my question. Does this represent real progress in gender equity, or are we sometimes mistaking visibility for influence? How do we tell when representation actually leads to shared power? And what role does communication play in making that shift real?

Kim Sample (21:03):
There was so much packed into that. I mean, it was incredibly exciting what happened. There are a bunch of naysayers for sure, but I think this is what needs to happen to politics. Younger people need to come in with really interesting new ideas, excited about the female team. Diversity overall is always exciting to see. I think what this is, it's two steps forward, one step back. We're not there yet, but this is definitely progress and it's exciting to watch.

David Gallagher (21:41):
It was fun to watch, and you can look at it through a gender lens. You can also look at it through a generational lens. I mean, this whole newer age cohort coming in, which a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum have been saying they want to see— younger, newer voices coming into the conversation. Here, the big news was Lena Kahn being named to his, I guess, co-chair of his transition team, and that's probably shocking to a lot of people on Wall Street. If you don't know her, she was in the last administration, pretty tough on mergers. So it definitely shows a different way of looking at government power in New York. But thanks Fiana for that conversation, and thanks for watching the show. Kim, thank you so much. I didn't say this. We go way back too. Maybe I should have disclosed that as well. We've known each other since we were like PR children in New York, so it's always good to hear from you, and we all appreciate the work that you do for the PR Council.

Kim Sample (22:36):
Thank you. I really enjoyed it. I'm here anytime you've got an absence, you

David Gallagher (22:40):
Are welcome.

Kim Sample (22:41):
Back.

Doug Downs (22:42):
The Week on Spun is a co-production of Folgate Advisors, Stories and Strategies Podcasts, and Curzon Public Relations. Special thanks to producers David Olajide and Emily Page. I'll leave you with a last thought. This is from Rumi, the 13th-century poet. "Raise your words, not your voice. It's rain that grows flowers, not thunder." Have a great weekend.