
So, about a year ago the New York Times pissed off an ugly little fish in New Zealand.
The venerable newspaper published an article on September 10th on A1 of the New York edition titled “From Deep Pacific, Ugly and Tasty, With a Catch”. It suggested that Hoki--also known as the main McFish meat at McDonald’s--was potentially being overfished. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, the industry association tasked with keeping exports of the fish alive and well, understandably chafed a little when the paper used their copyrighted image of the ugly creature to illustrate this screed.
This is where things got interesting. At the same time the New York Times was apologizing for the appropriation of the image, the association was hiring a defensive New York PR firm called CounterPoint to begin an online war against one of America’s largest newspapers. Hoki is a $151 million dollar part of the New Zealand fisheries industry, so it’s little wonder the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council found a firm that advertised itself as able to “...help clients confront volatile media circumstances. We shield clients and counter attacks. We hold press accountable and challenge adversaries. With unique solutions and proven tactics, we safeguard clients through a hostile public affairs marketplace.”
In short, these folks at CounterPoint have no qualms about placing ads targeted at journalists, on sites journalists visit, and intended to inflict maximum pressure.
Campaign Elements
Elements to the campaign as reported in the widely cited interview with CounterPoint principal Jim McCarthy on the Nieman Journalism Lab:
1) Google Ads targeted at reporters, featuring their names and “misdeeds”
“When you include their name in the search, it draws attention to it and lets the reporter know that you mean business and you’re going to hold them responsible,” McCarthy told me over the phone.
2) Blog Ads:
"Targeting reporters where they hang out online is McCarthy’s grating specialty. He went after ABC News, on behalf of the Formaldehyde Council, with ads on Mediabistro’s TVNewser. 'It was virtually a guarantee that they and all their competitors were going to see it,' McCarthy told me with more than a little relish."
3) Convert existing established landing pages with better content to rebut and include proactive messaging
“...the Times had linked to it in the third paragraph of the article (at right), and 78,000 people clicked though, according to Sarah Crysell, a spokeswoman for the council. Taking advantage of that incoming traffic, the group transformed its hoki page into a rebuttal of the Times story.” The ads also pointed to this same landing page.
4) Pressure
Remember that apology for using the picture of the Hoki without permission? CounterPoint used this as the main hook for their Google Ads and targeted MediaBistro presence: “NYT Apologizes for story - Fisherman hold NYT to account”.
5) Tactician with gumption to apply pressure
Channel V Media Blog spent some time with McCarthy and described him like this:
“... he has a little bit different approach from the rest of us. While most of us publicists are busy pandering to the press in our efforts to get coverage for our clients, Jim is all about taking reporters on and holding them accountable for what they write. Sort of a one man Media Accountability Office. Okay, so it's not exactly like he does this out of the goodness of his heart-he gets hired by companies to monitor media and journalists for biases, inaccuracies or less-than-whole-truth reporting about them. (Thus the name, CounterPoint. Get it?)”
Who is using “Hoki-tactics”?
The Sharp Agency in Chicago talks about how they used similar “Hoki-style” ads in their political work. They aren’t the only ones.
“We’ve used similar tactics for a recent political campaign here in Illinois, working with a local political consulting group to blitz all of the keywords surrounding the candidates for a key state election on the day of a candidacy announcement. When you searched for the candidate’s opponent’s name on the announcement day, the first thing you saw was an ad for OUR candidate, with a message designed to counter-program. When you looked up the current office holder’s name, the first thing you saw was an ad for the new candidate for office, with a link to a site for donations with a nice video commercial. The campaign had the effect of blanketing the digital landscape during a crucial period in the media cycle.”
But is this SEO style AdWords war really going to work? Is this how applying political micro pressure works? I think this is one way, but it’s basic and crass. Google Ads, Facebook Ads, and targeted placement work to get attention--this is true. You can easily watch clicks turn to converts and converts to donors.
But the value is decreasing as a younger generation grows up. Gen Y are digital savvy realists with a finely tuned bull shit detector. Allowing for more nuanced ways of creating the kind of links online that Google loves makes long-term sense. As does fostering a community of supporters and advocates online before you need them--or before you resort to tactics like the ones our ugly little fish friend uses.