That time when Shark Tank laughed a surgical mask designer off the stage [Abbott Media Group]

When you make a mistake, own it. That's a solid public relations principle far too few in business, politics, and entertainment follow, probably because it's difficult.

Shark Tank's Daymond John recently demonstrated just that principle, however, in a video and post on his Instagram feed.

Barbara Corcoran also says it was a missed opportunity

On September 6, 2009, Irinia Blok, a 32-year-old American immigrant from Russia, had appeared on the ABC show "Shark Tank," then in its first season.

She was pitching her unique business idea, "Face Blok," surgical masks that are whimsically decorated. She told the sharks that there was actually demand for them in hospitals, though she had only sold a few hundred.

She was met with uproarious laughter from all the Sharks almost immediately.

Her segment, when it aired, was clearly played for laughs, with "circus clown" music heard on the show when she spoke.

The Sharks were incredulous at the concept, some even refusing to try on the masks when Blok offered. Kevin O'Leary tried on a mask featuring a pig snout, doubting openly whether anyone would wear such a thing. Daymond John mockingly wore one on his head.

She said she received 700,000 hits on her website after media coverage. But O'Leary noted that the Swine Flu epidemic earlier that year was "an epidemic that came and went," and prophetically said, "You need a new epidemic to get that kind of hit profile again." Prophetic.

Jump ahead to Aug. 26, 2020, when that same Daymond John posted a video of the segment to his Instagram feed titled, "hindsight is 2020." He wrote:

"As we've come to see, many entrepreneurs have visions/ideas better way ahead of the times. Sure, the ideas may seem ridiculous or even comical, at the time, but as we're starting to learn, we shouldn't dismiss them altogether because one day, they may prove to be useful, such as these novelty masks. 

There didn't seem to be a purpose for them back then, but Irinia Blok was definitely on to something because look at us now... we're all wearing masks. The joke is on us now!"

Shark Tank’ star Barbara Corcoran similarly recalls her ‘worst missed investment’: ‘If only I knew then what I know now!’ she told Grow investment magazine in 2021. 

The bottom line is that it's important to admit and "own" your mistakes, hasty judgements, and oversights. Kudos to Daymond and Barbara for doing that so, publicly!

As for Irinia, she's doing just fine. Before her appearance on the show, in 2007, as a member of Google's graphic design staff, she had independently created the now-famous green robot logo later adopted by the company for its Android phone operating system. It became synonymous with the product in the 2010s.

She no longer sells the designer masks, but has a full-time job as design lead at Google Research/AI. Not a bad consolation prize!

Online: https://www.irinablok.com/

About That Controversial Gillette Ad - Should Corporations Engage In Social Commentary?

About the controversial Gillette ad, it's beautifully filmed and one could argue that it simply calls on men to step up and do what's right when they see men bullying and belittling women. Great. Long overdue, and there's nothing wrong with that general sentiment.

But the #MeToo movement the ad references often devolves into anti-male hate and a generalization that all men are inherently aggressive by their very nature, and need "fixing." This turns this into a politically-charged ad, and a socially polarizing one.

Should corporations be involved in political ads and "virtue signaling" about social issues at all? From a #PR point of view, these kind if ads can appeal to one side of an issue, but repel others, so they are inherently risky, and divisive.

Gillette, and its parent company Procter & Gamble, likely assumed that everyone would be on the side of not being rude to women, but the perception of the ad as an attack on all men, as some in the Me Too movement have sometimes sounded, seems to be overwhelming this benign interpretation of the ad, leading to a massive #boycottGillette effort, emerging on the social platforms Twitter and Facebook.

We have of course seen this before, as when companies such as 84 Lumber have waded into the immigration debate with a Super Bowl ad featuring illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Gillette now faces a boycott from men, their primary users, while getting praise from women. A dangerous economic strategy, and a warning for other companies that are tempted to wade into divisive political issues.

Stephen Abbott
#AbbottMediaGroup

Fair Dealing And #PublicRelations [Abbott Media Group]

Reputations in business, as in life, are built on fair dealing: by treating customers and employees well, by paying employees what they have earned and on time, and by giving customers friendly attention and fair value for what they purchase.

Without this culture of fair dealing, employees grumble, are dissatisfied on the job, and are disloyal, and customers simply leave and never return, making sure everyone knows why they have taken their business elsewhere.

But when a culture of fair dealing is fully embraced, employees are enthusiastic and do all they can to make the company successful, and customers reward it with loyalty and positive recommendations to their neighbors and friends.

Fair dealing cannot be faked. And it is not the job of public relations to pretend a company that is not dealing fairly actually is doing so. Public Relations can never allow itself to be used to paint a false picture of fair dealing where none exists. Employees and customers alike will see through any such attempt at whitewashing. Lying always makes things worse, in the end.

But when a company that has damaged its reputation by not dealing fairly begins to deal fairly in all aspects of its corporate life, it's a pleasure for public relations consultants to tell all who will listen about this more positive attitude towards doing business.

- Stephen Abbott
www.AbbottMediaGroup.com

Is Print #Media Dead? (Not Another Obituary) [Abbott Media Group]

Is print media dead? I just read yet another post online saying just that. It's not difficult to draw that conclusion, given the decades-long slide into oblivion by many major and minor players in the field of print journalism.

Print publications large and small have long struggled with rapidly diminishing ad revenue, fewer eyeballs, and stiff competition from online media sources.

Public Relations consultants for business and political clients have more and more utilized and relied upon online media and social media to the detriment of print publications.

In politics, especially, print media has shot itself in the foot by failing to consistently offer balanced and responsible journalism. Given the slash and burn nature of the economics of the newsroom, it's not surprising that coverage has suffered. But there's literally no reason why this must necessarily result in shoddy, unbalanced coverage of political candidates or mere "horse race" and process stories.

In business, too, pay-to-play (stories for payment) have become the norm in many cash-starved papers. I recently went to the press release submission page of a prominent Florida newspaper, only to find that it offered publication for a "subscription." Whatever that is it's not journalism. It sure isn't "earned media."

So print media, if it's not dead, exactly, may be on life support. There's actually no solution to this problem except a complete re-dedication to journalistic excellence in the print media profession.

Papers, however cash-strapped they may be, must recommit to sending out reporters to actually cover the business community, political leaders, elections, and the people and places that are committing hard news within the readership area. Fluffy feel-good stories and police blotter stories have their place, but over-reliance on these tends to cheapen journalism.

I have seen political candidates who either have gotten perfunctory coverage, or none at all, because the newspaper had a favorite candidate or party, and decided on its own to filter out all candidates who did not meet their standards or biases of its editors. If they believed this would prompt ad sales, this has actually had the opposite effect, in many cases.

Many political campaigns, for example, have simply ignored the dead tree media and have focused almost entirely on new, online media, especially social media, which is becoming increasingly popular among voters as a source of both news and political information.

Businesses and the consultants representing them are also less enamored with the negative changes in print media, and are turning to alternate ways of reaching out to present and future clients and customers. And of course, ad revenues spiral ever more downward as a result.

And instead of "pay to play," which is ethically revolting as well as defeating the idea of earned media, news releases that are sent on behalf of candidates and businesses (and are actually timely and news-worthy) should actually prompt news stories that are balanced and fair.

Does Print have a future? Sure. But it can only have one if it re-dedicates itself to the fundamentals of journalism, including fairness, balance, and equality of access by all parties involved in an issue.