Dan Janal | Publicity and PR Leads Blog

Looks like Carly Fiorina’s departure from Hewlett-Packard might be a momentary blip on her resume. She’s being considered to run the World Bank.

So, no matter how bad a job she did ruining one of America’s most inventive companies, there is still room at the inn.

Hey, do you realize the reporters are now calling her “Carelton” instead of Carly? What’s up with that?

Is this an image makeover? Rebranding?

Okay, no more badmouthing Carly, er Carelton. The point of this blog is to learn. So what can we learn from Carly’s fall from grace and Phoenix like resurrection?

Rule 1. It is okay to fail. We learn by failing. Failing is good. Learning from failure is better. Repeating mistakes is just dumb. Which are you?

After all, I made mistakes in my first PR job when I represented Prentice Hall . (I can admit if now. It was a long time ago and everyone who worked there then is either dead or working someplace else.) But I learned from those mistakes and that helped when I promoted Grolier. And the mistakes I made for Grolier helped me when I did publicity for AT&T. See, failing your way to the top is not only fun, you work with bigger companies!

Every second-rate speaker has used the story in Napoleon Hill’s book about JD Rockefeller NOT firing one of his senior staffers who messed up a $20 million deal (back when that was real money). “Why would I fire you,” folklore says, “I just invested $20 million in your education.” More folklore says that messed up miscreant was named Charles Schwab, who just might be related to the real Charles Schwab who seems to have done pretty well for himself.

Imagine if JD Rockefeller had kicked Old Man Schwab out into the streets of the Depression. Where would the world of discount brokerages be today? We’d all be paying full price commissions, that’s what!

So before you go firing employees and vendors who mess up, remember, their grandchildren could be the boss of your grandchildren.

So tell that to your clients the next time you mess up. I’m sure they’ll be delighted they got to know you on the way up!

Rule #2: Remember that you’ll see them on the way down. So be kind.

My friend Eva Rosenberg writes a great blog at http://www.taxmama.blogspot.com. This week she wrote an open letter to President Bush. Doesn’t matter what she said (I’m not about to play politics), the point is Google didn’t know what to do when it came to finding an appropriate ad to put on that page. So they chose a non-profit ad for some group that had a lot of initials and I didn’t bother to see what they were about.

So here’s the point.

If you are blogging for dollars (and who isn’t?) you need to get real ads on your blog, not these woosy public service announcements that don’t generate cash.

So I thought a bit.

That means if you want ads to appear, you have to have content that relates to real products and services. For some dumb reason, Google seems to put a lot of ads for freelance writers on my blog. That’s not okay for two reasons: 1. My content doesn’t appeal to freelance writers. 2 Freelance writers are pretty industrious so they probably won’t feel the need to buy anything from companies that want to sell them anything. So it is a waste for me, the reader and the advertiser.

So I thought a bit more.

How about writing about topics that relate to products, services that people want to buy? I could offer my opinions on the new iPod, for example.

So I thought a bit more.

How about writing about topics that generate lots of traffic? Like politics, or celebrities, or popular culture (TV, movies, music, etc.)

Hmmm.

Would that generate more traffic, as well as more targeted ads? More plus more equals much more. (I like that! I’m trademarking it. Don’t steal it. I’ll show you where you can by the T-shirt and bumper sticker soon!)

Hmmm again.

What about writing articles with liberal name dropping of highly searched terms, like Michael Jackson or whoever is popular or unpopular today.

I might add that I was one of the early predictors of “contextual commerce” as the killer app on the web. I did an extensive media tour on this topic more than 5 years ago. It is finally catching on!

I’ll share the results of this test over the next few weeks.

Seem like every media pundit is interviewing every PR person on what steps poor Martha Stewart will need to do to rehabilitate her image after she is released from prison.

Well, I have news for them.

She doesn’t have to do one darned thing.

She is the strongest brand in America today.

Everyone knows what she stands for — and that’s the keenest definition of good branding.

Love her or hate her, you know what Martha Stewart is, does, and acts.

A timeout in jail won’t affect anyone’s opinion of her. Go on, marketers, do a big, fancy, costly research study of the public’s opinions of Martha today, next month and last year and I’ll bet you the people who like her still like her and the people who hate her still hate her. So there.

One of the more interesting studies I’ve read recently says that people want to believe what they want to believe. No one wants to have their opinion contested. Whether it be their politics, their religion or anything else. More on that later, though. This tidbit offers the seminal point for anyone involved in public opinion research today. It’s not about changing people’s attitudes anymore, it is about solidifying your core constituency and mobilizing them to take the action you desire. As for the people who don’t believe in your cause, forget them. They’ve already forgotten about you!

Now, back to Martha.

If the classic definition of a brand is “a promise” then Martha has always delivered on her promise and has been true to her mission. While I can’t bake a cake, create a wreath from scratch or make a bed without 10,000 wrinkles, I know who I would turn to if I really needed the answer. And so do you.

Martha is the brand.

She is invincible because she is true to her brand.

(Editor’s note: No, don’t even get me started on her guilt or innocence; the injustice she suffered by the tabloid media, or the double standard that befell her as a woman compared to men who actually robbed and stole pension funds at Enron and other top corporations. )