The moral is don’t do pro bono work if you’re not going to stick around to stick up for the client or cause. That’s shameful. If they really believed in her, they would have stuck around. It’s clear they wanted to show they could do a good job so they everyone would know them and they could get the payoff of new clients down the line.

BTW, Charlotte’s right, that PR person *IS* an ambulance chaser.

Moral of the story?

Don’t do pro bono “PR” for whack jobs who think they look like Angelina Jolie (Brad Pitt won’t be marrying her!, but then again he DOES like kids…)

Brent Diggins
Mindspace PR
@bdiggs

I’m thinking that Suleman’s reputation was tarnished from day one…and cascaded downhill in a free fall downhill every day after that…especially once the PR firm got into the act! I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone go down that fast and with that much rabid and intense dislike from the public. Even the recently deposed Illinois governor (who name I’ll spare you from my spelling) had a few ups with his downs.

If the PR agency was a therapy group or life coach, I’d understand the comment but it seemed like taking credit for the sinking of the Titanic.

First, I don’t think she was the one who hired the PR pros. (I hope not!) I presume it was Kaiser Permanente/the hospital, who hired the PR help. If that is the case, Kaiser got exactly what they needed.

Let’s put our moral judgments of the mother aside for a moment and look at what PR people are supposed to do in a crisis: get out in front and present and defend the client’s side of the story so the client can focus on operations (i.e. what they’re really supposed to be doing).
Ideally, you turn public opinion in the process.

You had a hospital that was under siege from the press while doctors and staff were trying to do the delicate work of helping 8, 1-pound babies grow. You had a mother of then 6 kids who’s post-partum and trying to recover (from childbirth/surgery) and ultimately get adjusted to raising 14 kids.

Getting someone to coordinate this madness for 30-90 days was exactly the right call.

The PR people are not the problem – the client/personality is the problem.

Back to moral judgments – she is a nut-job on welfare and food stamps who thinks she’s Angelina Jolie and was enabled/emboldened by other nut jobs (fertility doc, sperm donor, etc).

Remember: “great product is the best PR” also works in reverse. If she was more aligned with societal norms like the squeaky-clean septuplet families who came before her or say, a widow, she’d be celebrated and the 8 would be awash in diaper endorsements and a big bucks photo exclusive in People magazine.

Hate the playa not the game.

30 years ago, it was run to the library, use index cards and spend hours doing a half-”done” job because all the information you can get today was not in your library.

The problem with our field is licensing. PR experts have pushed for this since the mid-’50s. 10 years in media, then into PR.

It takes more effort to get a driver’s license than it does to get in to PR. Barry Kluger told an excellent story on this site about last week a waitress, this week a PR pro.

Yet, it is employers, and clients like Nadya Suleman, that ruin the field. While nearly 200 journalists laid off last year in Phoenix are currently un- or under- employed, waitresses and secretaries are still getting PR jobs.

On the other hand, almost anyone can get a TV show – Larry King, Dr. Phil, Jerry Springer, Michael Hanity on and on.