It’s always dicey ground when a political leader has a personal matter on the go. Where does the line fall between the public’s right to know - and a human being’s privacy – and the person’s right to decide how to handle whatever it is that’s going on? The big one this week was Newfoundland & Labrador Premier Danny Williams’ “unspecified” heart condition, and his decision to have it treated at an “undisclosed” hospital south of the border. Those were the words used by media across the country, honing in on the unanswered questions – which were immediately turned into political footballs both here and in the US - as Williams’ condition became the latest flash point on Canadian vs. American healthcare policy. Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it with whatever gets sucked in through the first breach in the weakest spot of the barrier – and the same holds true with a hot media story. Leave large blanks in the information you release, and it will immediately be filled with speculation, informed or otherwise, by commentators and activists alike. That’s exactly what has happened with “Danny Millions,” as his detractors love to label him. Even setting aside previous political comments he has made with respect to Canadian medicare, the real communications Fumble was the simple fact that his office made what was really only half an announcement about what was wrong with him, where he was going and the nature of his treatment. Rather than laying all of those facts out at once with a single round of reportage, Williams has instead initiated a game of cat and mouse with the national media, all of whom were quickly immersed in trying to be first to find the Premier, the hospital and the specifics on his condition and the procedure which will address it. It will all come out eventually anyway, so why endure a thousand cuts in the media before the scalpel even finds its mark in the OR?

What’s your call?

Did you hear the one about the Hollywood star whose personal foibles threatened to overshadow his box office bankability? This is hardly a new concept or concern – just ask Tom Cruise, Gary Busey, Russell Crowe, Michael “Kramer” Richards … so you’d think Mel Gibson wouldn’t exactly be surprised to be asked about his tabloid-documented misconduct during the period between his last starring roles ie drunk driving charges and anti-semitic rants. More to the point, anyone who works in the public spotlight who has been the focus of such reports should be locked, loaded and ready to deal with questions about personal conducts in the context of their next career steps. So it was with astonishment that I watched Gibson get his back up and then some during a satellite interview to promote his new movie with a Chicago-based TV interviewer who asked an entirely legitimate question in an entirely non-obnoxious manner: did Gibson think that his publicly reported personal issues might still be on the minds of moviegoers, as he promotes his first starring-role film since those matters went down? First, he ridiculed the interviewer, twice calling him “dude,” for some reason, challenging with “What are you referring to specifically?” then shaking his head in mock amazement as the list of transgressions was specified. “That’s almost four years ago dude. I mean, I’ve moved on; I guess YOU haven’t,” was the response, followed later by “I’ve done all the necessary mea culpas … let’s move on, dude.” Then, the capper – switching from “dude” to “a**hole,” after he thought the satellite link had been closed. For an often brilliant public performer, this was worse than amateur hour. Anticipate the tough/likely questions ahead of time, and be prepared to deal with them with aplomb. Gibson’s push-back tactics might have worked with his die-hard fans who have stuck by him through thin and thinner over the past several years, but that’s not the audience he needs to reach – and reach out to – today.

What’s your call?

Joe is currently busy running with the Olympic torch in Whistler, BC! Be sure to check back next week to hear Joe's perspective on the latest Touchdowns and Fumbles!

You’ve probably heard the old saying, “Advertising you pay for, public relations you pray for.” Well, the PR Gods must be smiling over Toronto restaurant Mildred’s Temple Kitchen, which is spicing things up for Valentine’s Day by encouraging people to skip dinner and head straight for dessert. Mildred’s is inviting customers to, ahem, have sex in its bathrooms. In an email sent to customers, the Liberty Village restaurant claims its large unisex bathrooms are among the "101 places to have sex before you die." It’s a rather cheeky way to get attention at a time when all kinds of restaurants are flirting for your Valentine’s Day business. The typical routine becomes a bit of a seductive blur after a while – the complimentary box of chocolates with dinner, the candlelight dinner complete with a rose for the lovely lady. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Okay, maybe not the t-shirt but definitely the complimentary rose. So it’s no surprise to see the buzz around Mildred’s saucy promotion. The story has gotten huge traction in mainstream media and has also become the subject of many foodie blogs and generated significant radio chatter. Courting customers is a bit like dating. You know you have something great to offer but you need a way to stand out. PR is a key ingredient in the recipe for success. A public relations campaign can help you break the ice and get their attention. A great experience will keep them coming back and if they like you, they’ll introduce you to their friends. Mildred’s certainly knows how to cook up some business. Touchdown.

What’s your call?

Aliya Jiwan is a former TV journalist and communications consultant. She is now an account manager and media coach at Veritas.

Amazon is facing some very public backlash from the publishing industry of late. Seemingly unprepared for the launch of Apple's iPad, Amazon has waged a very public battle with publishers. With hopes of positioning the Kindle as the de facto ebook standard, Amazon has been buying publications for between $10-14 wholesale and selling them at a loss for $9.99 for use on the Kindle. Unsurprisingly, publishers are publicly concerned that Amazon is undervaluing their publications with hopes of gaining market traction and developing a better negotiating position to push for a lower wholesale cost per publication. Confidently (as usual), Steve Jobs announced that publications would be sold to iBook users for the iPad for $14.99, going so far as to say publishers weren't happy with Amazon's tactics and that in the end, prices would be the same across the board. Given the success of Apple's iPhone, App Store and iTunes, its not surprising that most people believe Jobs. In a refute of Amazon, Macmillan, one of the largest publishers in the world, took out a full page ad in Publishers to voice their side of the spat with Amazon. The iPad and its implications have been widely discussed for months, ad nauseum. It's hard to believe that Amazon wasn't more prepared for this eventuality, having discussed and prepared with business partners, most especially publishers. In the end, Amazon is put in a position where it looks as though they are holding publications hostage to justify their Kindle device. The iPad has taken away their leverage and put them in a position where they need to communicate and negotiate. For Amazon's sake, the sooner the better.