Fox Feud an Obama Mistake

Damages Brand, Undermines Credibility 

In a rare misstep, the Obama communications team declared open warfare with news giant Fox on October 11.  The move had little benefit for the White House and plenty of downside.

Calling the Fox network ” … either the research arm or communications arm of the Republican party,” may have some merit and garner support in the Democratic Party, but it’s the type of encompassing statement that can be easily undermined.  Worst of all, the move to exclude Fox from major communications efforts severely harms the president’s carefully crafted brand of openness, inclusion and dialogue. 

It’s a classic case of scoring short-term public relations points at the expense of well-established and successful marketing.

First, let’s examine the universal nature of the charge that Fox News is a puppet of the Republicans.  This statement is far too general and is now being picked apart.  While it’s fair game to specifically name opinion shows like the Hannity’s America or the Glen Beck show, it’s a mistake to apply the label globally, because Fox will and is finding it easy to refute with many examples of fair reporting.  The statement essentially undermines itself and all who support it. 

The dramatic departure from the administration’s positioning as being open-minded and inclusive has both direct and indirect impact.  The immediate contradiction with previous rhetoric is obvious, but the statement also implies that the administration won’t talk to republican leadership either. 

After all, if the administration doesn’t include the communications arm of the GOP, then wouldn’t the leaders of the party also be inherently barred from conversation about national issues upon which they disagree?  Does the approach extend to international leaders too?  The above implications are known as the “meta message,” which is something professional communicators must always manage.

The statement made by White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, definitely resonated with the democratic base, but is that the group Obama needs to sell to right now?  Absolutely not.  The president’s communication team would have been far better served by embarking on a campaign of “a thousand cuts” against the less credible elements of the Fox lineup, even though it takes a lot more time and strategic planning to implement.  At least they could have avoided the collateral damage they’re now experiencing.

A brand can take enormous pressure from outside sources, but when undermined from within, even the most thoroughly established identity can quickly unravel.  The president’s team must now contain the damage, and there’s little that can be done except to back down from their earlier stance if they’re to avoid further erosion of their image.  That might add some humble pie to the equation, but the public’s perception of their trustworthiness is a more valuable asset than pride.

The incident is an excellent example for communications teams everywhere.  Whenever considering a public statement, evaluate the following:

• Brand - How does this statement relate to my brand?
• Meta Message - What larger implication might be derived from this statement?
• Vulnerability - How easy will it be for the opposition to refute this statement?

Naturally, the above three factors aren’t the only ones to be evaluated, but they are among the top five.  Public relations work is always a function of marketing, and those who forget that do so at their own peril.