The government has mandated that by the end of 2006 most American homes must be able to receive digital signals from their local broadcast stations. Some cable television executives are calling this a marketing dilemma for their industry–and a self-described “crisis manager” addressed attendees of last week’s Cable Television Public Affairs conference in Washington to help prepare them for the worst.
That’s what happens when the public doesn’t trust an industry, even if that industry is only tangentially involved in the issue.
First, the background: Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcast stations are required to surrender their analog frequencies to the government by the end of next year. The government plans to raise billions of dollars by auctioning off the frequencies. But many broadcasters have been slow to convert their signals from analog to digital, due to the cost, and their lobbyists are asking for an extension.
Cable subscribers who have digital set-tops in their homes are automatically in the clear, but at last week’s conference, some executives worried whether the industry should mount a major marketing campaign in case the public blames the cable operators for any loss of signals.
“This is not a technical issue. It’s a marketing issue,” insisted Court TV chairman Henry Schlieff. “Joe Lunchbox is not aware of this. He couldn’t care less how is TV is working–he just wants to see it work. If it’s not working, he’ll blame everybody, starting with the cable operator because that’s where it comes in. We’ve got to get ahead of the curve and market it.”
Not so, said cable operators, who want to keep an arm’s length from this contentious issue. “I don’t think this is the cable industry’s fight. It’s the broadcast industry’s fight, and let them fight it,” said Michael Willner, vice chairman of Insight Communications, the nation’s ninth largest cable operator, with 1.3 million customers.
The problem for cable is that few industries are less trusted than cable operators, if years of J.P. Power & Associates surveys are to be believed. So the industry has to proactively gain credibility and the confidence of consumers, according to Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of media services and Crisis Communication at Cone Inc. To prepare for the worst, build a strong brand, he advised; if the worst happens, be available and tell the truth.
Cable operators have faced a series of crises in the past 20 years ranging from constant system outages, rate increases that were triple – or more – of the Consumer Price Index, and most recently disputes with cable networks over fees that resulted in the loss of popular channels to their customers.
Cable executives understood their dicey PR position. “You’re bringing TV into people’s homes. You’re held responsible for people having problems,” said Patrick Esser, executive vice president/chief operating officer for Cox Communications, which has about 6.3 million cable customers in the U.S.
“My father says, when the cable is out, ‘what’s wrong [with the cable]?’ noted Michael Willner, vice chairman of Insight Communications, which has 1.3 million customers. “Well, the lights are out. The first thing he thinks about is cable.”
For example, when Cablevision Systems and the YES Network were unable to come to terms on carrying New York Yankee games in 2002, the public largely blamed Cablevision even though some in the media acknowledged the validity of its stand in trying to keep cable rates down.
That’s why Lawrence’s message seemed to resonate so well with the audience of cable public affairs and PR executives.
He urged them to communicate more openly and resolve the issues as quickly as possible: “Be reachable at all times. Explain in more detail, honestly.”
For example, if contractors are trampling on people’s rose bushes, a common occurrence in the early days of cable, the public will judge the company on how fast it can shut down the builder as well as being prepared to answer such questions as “Did you do a background check on the vendor?”
Open communication extends from the top to the grass roots, Lawrence warned–from the head of PR getting a call from a television station to a customer rep knowing what to say on the phone.
On disputes such as the Cablevision-YES matter, Lawrence said that the cable operators may think they are on the side of the angels but the public only sees “school kids fighting in the yard, throwing mud at each other.”
Just as important, Lawrence said operators can improve their image by adopting “cause branding” campaigns rather than the “cause marketing” promotions that are more prevalent among local systems. The difference is that with cause branding, companies gain a sort of halo effect by consistently taking on a particular cause.
Cause marketing, in which companies promote individual events and causes, such as a March of Dimes walk-a-thon or American Cancer Society 5K run, is less effective because the public will not tend to identity the companies with any particular cause. Lawrence cited surveys that show the public see companies with a cause in a more favorable light then those linked to a specific campaign.
Cable networks such as VH1, Lifetime Television, and MTV have done effective jobs with cause-branding campaigns for “Save the Music,” “Stop Breast Cancer for Life,” and ”Rock the Vote” respectively.
Good PR can only go so far, however. Cautioned Lawrence, “A cause related program is not a substitute for other areas,” such as answering the phones or showing up on time.
