Ah, the delicate and complicated dance between journalism and PR. We tempt them with our pitches. We run campaigns, events and sometimes stunts to get their attention and coverage. Many journalists say they are beyond our influence and ignore our pitches and campaigns. Yet every once in awhile, the temptation is just too great.
This was the case yesterday, when many covered a light story, one that provided welcome relief to late summer doldrums and "hold your head" headlines about the economy.
I grinned as I read several articles about an Abercrombie & Fitches press release that explained that the company would pay the Jersey Shore show cast not to wear their clothes. The company had executed a brilliant campaign, and the media were all over itt. For example, it got covered in not one but two Wall Street jorunal articles, and a NY Tmes piece.
And it wasn't just the media that were having fun with it. The NY Times story – Abercrombie wants off 'Jersey Shore' (Wink-Wink) – mentioned that the A & F CEO interrupted a quarterly earnings call with Wall Street analysts, incredulous that they wanterd to discuss other things:
“Is no one going to ask about the Situation?” Mr. Jeffries, the chief executive, asked after a series of questions about Abercrombie’s finances and strategy. Finally, an analyst did, and Mr. Jeffries explained the background.
Of course, the media need to let everyone know that they are in on the joke, as the "wink wink" headline in the Times indicated. And they all had to seemingly justify their coverage by interjecting real world concerns. The article in the Journal's Money & Investing section, of all places, raised the real issue of brands getting tarnished through association with the wrong crowds:
It appears Abercrombie is merely trying to stir up publicity. After all, the company last year sold a Tshirt printed with the words "The Fitchuation," an obvious reference to the star of the reality show nicknamed "The Situation."
But brand image isn't all fun and games. Flashback 10 years to England, where Burberry clothing and accessories became the uniform of certain hard-partying young Brits. Sales in England were very weak by 2005, when Burberry acknowledged that the brash new customers had alienated some of its higher-end traditional shoppers. Tommy Hilfiger had a similarly unpleasant experience in the U.S. in the 1990s, when it became a hip-hop staple that no longer clicked with preppies.
