Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Deb Brown.

This blog is, in some ways, a follow-up to Repman Steve Cody’s blog from August 25th.  In that    blog, Steve talked about how the media really hyped the earthquake we felt here in NYC.  Although the quake’s epicenter was in Virginia, you would have thought it had to be in midtown Manhattan by the way the media were reporting.

Now fast-forward to the news yesterday morning, in which the debate discussed was “Did the experts and media over-hype Irene?”  This blog from Washington Post blogger Jason Samenow captures both sides of the story.  

Some will argue that the news media truly over-hyped the approaching storm, especially here in the NYC area whereas others along the East Coast will disagree.  I believe a lot of the sentiment depends on where you’re standing (hopefully on dry ground).  My husband and I were evacuated during the storm since we live on the East River.  Manhattan pretty much got by without a scratch.  New York Harbor overflowed a bit, but otherwise windows stayed intact, electricity and cable stayed on, and for the most part, we were all fine.  But, it could have been much worse.  And, one point that was mentioned on the Today Show Monday morning was that while it’s easier today for meteorologists to accurately predict the path of a storm, the intensity is not always as accurate. 

Were my husband and I inconvenienced?  Of course.  Am I complaining?  No.  I’d much rather have the experts and elected officials tell us to get out of the path and find out it wasn’t as bad than to have the opposite happen.  I think much of the hype, so to speak, was because they were trying to tell us how deadly a Category 1 or even a Tropical Storm could be.  By the time Irene reached Connecticut and Vermont, it was a Tropical Storm.  Yet, by Monday morning, half the state of Connecticut was without power and Vermont suffered some significant damage. 
Jason Samenow has a poll on his blog and the majority, to date, believes the storm was hyped.  It wasn’t that long ago when we, as a country, condemned the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, and the Federal government, including “Brownie,” for not doing a good enough job getting people out of the way in time. 

I think we’ve learned our lesson.  And, I would much rather have our local officials err on the side of caution.  The media had a different role to play in this scenario versus the earthquake.  The earthquake hit and was barely felt in most parts of the City.  Yet, they definitely hyped it after it happened.  No one knows how Mother Nature will ultimately react.  And, the media, in conjunction with our elected officials, did the right thing in warning of the approaching storm’s potential fury and trying to scare people enough so they would move.  The problem with the media’s image is that if something minor is talked about in the same breath as something major, people become skeptical and think of the boy who cried wolf.

I think New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said it best and was the most direct when he saw that people were still on the beach in Asbury Park Friday afternoon:  “Get the hell off the beaches.”

Today's guest post is by Courtney Chauvin Ellul, Director, Peppercom Europe.

Suppose your organization just spent $1mm to become a sponsor of the London 2012 Olympic  games? How would you feel after the rioting of the past two weeks?

That's the image and reputation dilemma facing Olympic organizers, sponsors and, of course, Britain's ruling class in the wake of last week's carnage. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that London was, and remains, a very scary place.

Last Saturday, I got off the tube a few stops early after a gang of about eight young men started screaming, jumping on the seats and kicking the doors in. They might have just been ‘chavs’ (English hooligans) on their way to a football match, but I wasn’t leaving anything to chance.

The London riots have left us all looking over our shoulders and feeling downright angry. There was no economic, political, or Stanley Cup reason for last week’s horrific events; this reckless field trip was born out of greed for sneakers, branded sports apparel and flat screen TVs.

In addition to the disgusting behavior of the rioters, it was shocking to see how the police handled the situation. You almost felt bad for the officers as they stood on the sidelines helpless, with their shields out and batons neatly tucked away, while rioters burned and looted shops, businesses and homes in more than 20 areas across London.

In some communities, citizens took matters into their own hands. When the rioters came to attack shops in a Kurdish and Turkish community in Hackney, the owners were waiting for them with sticks and knives.

If the police weren’t equipped to handle the situation, then why wasn’t the Army called in? And where were the country’s leaders? 

Well, David Cameron, the prime minister, was in Tuscany on holiday and only returned to the UK on the third day of the riots. And when he did return, he came armed with a whopper of an idea: to outlaw social media, including shutting down Twitter, to stop the flow of communication between rioters. A bit like outlawing air, wouldn’t you say?  Of course, that never happened.

Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, was also slow to return from vacation and was criticized by angry locals in riot-torn areas for his tardy response to the attacks. And Theresa May, home secretary, continued to fuel the blame game by saying the police chiefs were at fault for causing most of the red tape that overburdens officers.

What message are we sending to the world, and to would-be terrorists, if we can’t protect the country from our own and we can’t agree on the underlying issues? With less than a year to go before London hosts the 2012 Olympics, the police and politicians need to gain some control to win back the public’s trust, and they need to do so pronto. 

Beyond the violence and leadership vacuum, London faces another challenge: how to quickly fix the reputational damage that's been done before it's too late (and sponsors begin pulling out).

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Deb Brown.

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch recently said publicly that it would “offer substantial payment to MTV’s The Jersey Shore’s cast members to stop wearing the brand on air.” Apparently, Mike “the Situation” Sorrentino wore the trendy clothes on a recent episode and Abercrombie & Fitch stated that his “association with the brand could cause significant damage to our image.”

Wow.  I had to think about this for a minute.  So, the famed (or infamous) retailer, which has had its own image issues with sexually explicit ads (among other problems), and which sells primarily to 18-22 year-olds (probably the only audience for The Jersey Shore) really doesn’t want the Situation strutting about in its clothes?  Are they serious?  Or, is this a way to drum up a fake battle between The Jersey Shore cast members and the retailer for more publicity?

So, then I came across another story in which Chief Executive Mike Jeffries said of the actual situation, “We’re having a lot of fun with it.”  Actually, Jeffries brought up the situation on an analyst call, saying “Is no one going to ask about the Situation?”  I think the reason the analysts didn’t ask is because they didn’t give a damn.  But then one finally took the bait.

So, that’s the answer.  They’re not serious.  They’re looking for a marketing gimmick to sell more clothes, but it’s not smart.  Think about it.  They’re pulling free advertising from their own audience and how long do they think this situation will go on for?  A few hours?  Maybe a couple of days?  Then what?  They’re out-of-sight, out-of-mind with their key audience with regards to this particular show.  Plus, Abercrombie & Fitch sells a t-shirt called the “Fitchuation.”  Really?  Their stupid stunt is so transparent it doesn’t work.

On the WSJ blog, they have a quick poll.  Is the stunt brilliant or a bomb? Believe it or not, it was pretty much even, with only a slight majority saying brilliant.  Sigh.  Normally, I wouldn’t be surprised since our society is filled with too many people addicted to reality shows, each of which manages to outdo the other to see how low they can go.  But, I was surprised since it was the Wall Street Journal’s audience. 

Smart marketing and publicity help to elevate a company’s brand and grow its bottom line.  At first, I thought Abercrombie was having problems with sales.  But, earnings released on Aug. 17th said earnings are up 64 percent and sales have increased in the U.S. and internationally.  However, on the analyst call, Jeffries talked about “entering a period of greater uncertainty” and shares dropped 8 percent. Or maybe the investors didn’t think the Situation situation was smart enough to invest in.

So, what’s up with this short-lived gimmick?  Who knows?  Probably an inexperienced marketing team that’s looking for quick attention to the brand rather than a well-thought out strategy. 

Mark Twain once said, “Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on society.”  In this case, Abercrombie & Fitch certainly doesn’t make the Situation…anything.  And, now Abercrombie & Fitch make believe they want out.  The clothing retailer and the Situation deserve one another.  Abercrombie & Fitch shouldn’t pay the Situation and other cast members not to wear its clothes; instead, it should be a major sponsor of this tasteless show.