Zoo Boo-Hoo Worked
Over the weekend, headlines in the Boston area read something like, “Franklin Park Zoo to close and euthanize animals.” A letter from Zoo New England was sent to Beacon Hill, as well as to various media outlets. The public ate up the news, and before long, all major news organizations in the area were leading with the story. To sum it up, Governor Deval Patrick was blamed for deep budget cuts, which would result in the death of dozens of zoo animals.
But the governor took to the airwaves himself, blasting back the negative press, stating in an impromptu email via a spokesman that, “Like families throughout the Commonwealth, the state must cut back, and the $4 million reduction to the zoo budget is just one example of spending decisions we’ve made to live within our means.”
(Animals killed because of budget cuts?! Say it ain’t so! / Courtesy Globe Media)
Yet, the damage was already done. House Republicans and Democrats alike took to their soap boxes to decry the move and call out Patrick on his budget moves. Some called it “reckless” and others said to stop picking on “easy targets,” but nearly everyone agreed that this was the wrong move.
Fast forward to today. House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray received overwhelming phone calls and emails, from the public and public officials alike, and declared the zoo would find the necessary funding in the budget. Though Patrick promised to veto such a move (in a press conference where he was visibly upset), it seems like there is enough support to overturn such a move.
How did this all happen? How did the governor’s decision become a headline story, which eventually outraged enough people that it helped save the zoo?
What happened was a psychological trick: zoo budgets can be cut and nothing would happen - but if animals die? Well, that’s a horse of a different color.
(Zoo budget shrinks - who cares? Wait, they will kill the cute little things! Oh n00z!)
To my readers, I can assure you that no animals were ever going to be killed. Again, I repeat, it was a lie that animals were going to be euthanized. Other zoos and rehabilitation centers were able to hold many, if not all, of the animals. A scare tactic was issued, but perhaps more importantly, it worked.
So, again, how did such a lie get legs? Read this Globe snippet:
When a Globe reporter visited the offices of zoo president John Linehan yesterday, he declined to meet, instead sending out a communications aide who said that Linehan would have no comment and referring questions to the zoos’ private public relations firm, Marlo Marketing/Communications.
Marlo Fogelman, the head of the firm, declined to comment despite repeated phone calls and a visit by the same reporter. Last night, Fogelman issued a brief written statement from Linehan that said: “We are working very hard with the state Legislature and the governor’s office to resolve this very complex issue, and we’re hopeful of a positive outcome. We are grateful for the tremendous outpouring of support we have received.”
Ah, a public relations firm. See, the reality is, most media coverage isn’t actually covered by investigative research. Instead, certain businesses make it their mission to tip off certain information at certain times. This kind of story would normally be buried deep within a newspaper, but found a headline in tricking thousands of people, stating animals were going to die from this budget cut. Dirty? Perhaps. Results? Obvious. Losers? Gov. Deval Patrick (especially with his own seat up for election).
In my opinion, Marlo Marketing should be held liable to their claims. It was an obvious tactic that netted results, but at what cost? It should be noted that Marlo Marketing has not made another comment and refused to follow up with media contacts on the issue. Interesting. They got what they wanted and now they are done? To me, that is bad public relations.
I think the Governor should demand an investigation from the AG to see how valid these euthanasia claims were. Perhaps then this firm would disclose how this conclusion was made.
(Could this PR Case Study turn ugly if the AG got involved?)
It is always my opinion that truth, no matter how hard it is, needs to be presented in the most accurate and flawless way possible. To manipulate the news in such a way may decieve the public for the short term, but what about the next budget? What about the next time the governor has to pick between the zoo, and say, a hospital? When you go out and make enemies, you will soon find how little allies you have.
Just another day in the world of public relations amongst animals.