Apple Public Relations: 1984 Meets 2007

An instructive little spin drama played out over the past few days.

Back on November 9th, Benjamin Cohen of Channel 4 did a lightly snarling piece on the UK roll-out of the iPhone. The report ended with an interview of marketing boss Phil Schiller being cut short by Apple flacks after Cohen re-raised the obligatory "monopoly" issue.

Last Thursday, Gizmodo hoisted the footage, followed quickly by Valleywag. Under the hed of "Great Moments in Public Relations -- Apple Flacks Caught Acting Like Control Freaks," Valleywag said:

"This is why Apple is really screwed if it ever loses Steve Jobs: He's the only guy at Apple who can actually pull off this act and handle the press convincingly while parroting the party line. Everyone else at Apple who's even allowed to speak to reporters just ends up looking robotically defensive when they try to erect a Jobsian reality-distortion field."

A couple days later, Fortune's Philip Elmer-DeWitt, drug the footage into the MSM arena by having his own fun within his "Apple 2.0" column.

As with anything Apple, all three stories drew plenty of comments, with most of them bickering about the monopoly issue. The same was true of the YouTube posting, which has racked up 40,000+ hits. That's no Soulja Boy Dance, but it's more than just a few eyeballs.

Jack Flack is bored by the monopoly argument, but completely enthralled by the spin implications, and offers four observations.

1. The Fourth Wall is crumbling. This is an early symptom that the hermetically sealed TV interview will become a thing of the past, particularly as mojos become more common. After all, what makes for better TV -- a rote interview with a core-message-spouting executive, or a little drama that let's you see behind the hype curtain? Thus, flacks and their bosses need to assume they are open game all the time, and make sure they're not one character when on camera, and another one when off. (BTW, wouldn't the easiest way to make that happen simply be to behave genuinely the entire time?)

2. The irony could not be more profound. The incident incited the usual arguments about Apple positioning itself as the champion of the individual, yet often acting like any other heavy-handed corporation, if not worse.

Apple is, of course, the enterprise that once gave us Ridley Scott's "1984", a still-provocative warning about letting a corporation control your choices.

It's also the company that is currently running a TV spot that positions the other guy as the one who has to rely on flack protection.

3. The Apple flacks are old-fashioned gate-keepers. While most flacks have to sell/pitch/beg every day, the appeal of Apple's products means that the company's flacks spend most of their time "managing access," deciding which interview requests to entertain and under what rules. Thus, their genuine-conversation muscles have atrophied, and their language betrays a mindset that doesn't understand the odd interests of non-drinkers of the Kool-Aid.

"We're getting way off track here. This (the iPhone launch) is so exciting for us."

"You're focusing on a different agenda. And we'd like you to focus on iPhone."

Even when sensing things probably aren't looking too good on the other side of the camera, the retreat language is still completely self-centered.

"We can do an interview another day. We've just got so much going on today, and we're really excited about it. And we want to stay focused."

As a result, the Apple duo don't seem nearly as skilled as the Apple commercials' PC flack, who at least attempts -- though, duplicitously -- to speak in language that recognizes the listener's self-interest.

In fact, the Apple flacks could not appear any less like the espoused positioning of the Apple brand. Physically cutting off the interview is one thing. But doing it while toting matching Starbucks lattes conjures the image of the uptight bourgeois couple from Best in Show.

And yes, Reporter Cohen comes off as a bit petty. But that's OK for him, because he's selling the personae of a tough investigator, not the brand-image of a free-wheeling enabler of personal expression.

4. Who are those guys? Now, Jack Flack loves his growing flock of iPods as much as the next guy. But the strength of the Apple brand with its core loyalists is downright scary, as the commentary on the stories feature lots of devotees defending the company and criticizing the journalist for violating the rules of the spin game. Try to think of another corporation that would get that kind of defense for such clumsiness in stage-managing media coverage? Yes, the uniform is different, but the rigid zealotry -- or maybe it's the zealous rigidity -- actually seems quite familiar.

Big-name brand consumer-product companies like Apple always seem to be the first to experience newly emerging dynamics that change how news happens. So look for similar video ambushes to become a common staple. Also look for the better flacks to take it in stride. And that's a very good reason for the people who brought us "1984" to consider that we are now living in 2007.

Addendum: As referenced in the comments, Jack Flack's "Cousin The" (aka Peter Himler) long ago offered helfpul advice to the shrinking Apple marketing wallah.

So why was Schiller, as Himler notes, a "deer caught in the headlights?" (And it was indeed a preciously helpless look.)

Jack Flack's observation is that senior executives in big, successful organizations become so accustomed to seeing smart people's heads bob up and down in agreement that they forget how to deal with a logical challenge from a lowly reporter. The CEOs who handle those challenges best are often those who came up through the sales organization, and thus tend to remember that no matter how much everybody agrees with you internally, there's always an important customer out there who's going to call you on your weaknesses... and that you better find a way to engage.