Our long in the tooth President, George Dubya Bush, recently said “So long as I’m the President, my measure of success is victory — and success.” While the statement clearly does not make any sense, it sure explains a lot. If success is measured in success, and he’s the one measuring it, I’m just lost. We are all lost. And according to former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, that’s really the point.

The entire Bush Admin is going gaga over McClellan’s 341-page collection of anecdotes making money off Bush and Friends’ love of spin. This timely (okay maybe a bit late) memoir accuses Bush and the cronies of going easy on the truth and hiding behind propaganda. Who can blame them? The truth, she ain’t so pretty.

McClellan believes we were lied to and claims that he once fell for the propaganda rather than face the issues they pulled out their PR guns. He thinks “[Bush] and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.” Instead of carefully determining whether or not a war was necessary, they thought of ways to spin it to the American people. (BTW – how’s that working for you guys?)

McClellan blames the permanent campaign culture – terrific new buzz term – for the spin and untruthyness. I am constantly stressing the fundamental need for corporations and brands to employ smart PR. However, smart PR is not lying, it’s communicating. Welcome to an outstanding example of the tactic, let’s not use PR to communicate! Let’s use it to obfuscate!

Dubya is proud of the campaign culture. He recently explained “that in 2000 I said, ‘Vote for me. I’m an agent of change.’ In 2004, I said, ‘I’m not interested in change –I want to continue as president.’ Every candidate has got to say ‘change.’ That’s what the American people expect.”

With that we expected the truth – maybe even a message with a little bit of honesty. But no.

The former First PR Guy claims he was lied to by the Administration that is known for deceit. After being assured from top to bottom that Karl Rove and BFF Scooter were not involved in leaking agent Valerie Plame’s name, McClellan spoke to the press to defend them Of course we all found out that they did leak the name and someone forgot: “The first rule about Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club.” Mr. McClellan was made a liar.

When Scott McClellan went to the White House Press Corps with that statement of “fact,” he was unknowingly fibbing. Some may not get why a PR pro would be so upset but it’s really simple: that lie cost him media street cred. At the end of the day, which is about 7 p.m., the only thing PR peeps have is their credibility. Yes we spin some (sometimes even at the gym) but the core of the message should always be true. When you lose it you’re out.

The White House is angry he wrote this book and much of the public (and the press) seem pissed it took him so long, but a lot of us know how slow the publishing world is. Personally, I think it’s a step in the right direction. As GW himself once said, a bit too cheerily, “All of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice.” Who doesn’t, really?

Really. Who doesn’t?

The skyscraper is the original Hummer. When a major corporation (or Donald T) wants to prove importance and wealth it takes to the skyline to “peacock” its greatness by erecting a giant building.

During a trip to Estonia—which has light all the time, incidentally—I got to see up close what was considered the biggest building in the world in the year 1530. By today’s standards it doesn’t even measure up to your college dorm room –a not that impressive hall at age 18.

Point is, as the world expands so does its aesthetic. An old building from 16th C. is almost like a Mercury Sable from the 1980s –seemed cutting edge at the time, sank faster than the year’s TV ratings. (I’m convinced that in 2500, people will write essays like this about the Empire State Building, only they’ll do it through mental code.)

As new trends grace the cultural zeitgeist they are inevitably going to change the look of the world. Thanks to the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Larry David’s ex-, it is considered cooler to appear environmentally aware and favor a Prius over a Hummer. (I guess you could say Larry helped to “curb” our perception.) It’s not about being flashy because now it’s about being thoughtful.

And it seems the green trend is seeping into architecture as well. Perhaps the building with the slick architecture and big ol’ green stamp will soon trump (pun here) the skyscraper.

Green hasn’t only become the new black, it is in fact the new EVERYTHING. …And why not? Just like the Hummer, Skyscrapers have negative effects on the environment by altering the surrounding atmosphere they occupy. The aforementioned EmpStaBuil (its abbrev in the White Pages) will always be a beacon of pride for New York, but it will represent trends of what was, not what is.

What was once grand is now antiquated. The building in Estonia – a prideful church, then a Russian holdover, now a historic church–was thought cutting edge and so were the idea of skyscrapers. The former will always have a huge place in the evolution of architecture, efficient for the times as a space that allowed more people to climb inside. However, compared to the green building of today every old skyscraper is a real Hummer.

In 2005, state of Washington took the national lead by enacting exciting green building legislation. As time goes on more and more states and cities follow suit. This is far from a national trend that we invented: whole countries take environmental responsibility via architecture by building green.

Environmentally-conscious buildings save energy and water and better utilize all our resources—not to mention some of those designs are crazy sleek and modern. I guess the creators behind the Jetsons cartoon had it right when they drew a world that is colorful, full of zest, quicker, cleaner and—boy oh boy—shall we say conscientious…

So in the end, cartoonists are our politically correct visionaries!

As the CEO of a PR agency, I can’t even tell you how many potential clients ask “Do I really need PR?” Usually I just answer with a simple and slightly aggravated “Why Yes!” Today, however, I will answer with an example of what a smart, finely crafted and well-timed PR campaign (with strategy) can do.

The past few months we have seen historically vilified Microsoft attempt to take the current underdog, Yahoo, over with a slow hand. During the war Microsoft was seen as a Goliath, a heartless corporation out to bully Yahoo, a company determined to stand on its own.

Here’s the thing, PR frames reality. When the deal fell apart, Microsoft was smart and engaged the press early. Their PR team reached out and massaged reporters, putting the blame squarely on Yahoo.

The press painted a picture that made Microsoft seem reasonable and open to negotiations. Microsoft’s flexibility was met by an unwillingness on the part of Yahoo to negotiate or cooperate. The reason the deal fell apart had nothing to do with the suddenly valiant Microsoft; it fell apart because Yahoo was unreasonable.

While talking to the press Microsoft might have mentioned –naturally, off the record –that when you’re dealing with the takeover of a publicly traded company there are certain rules that each company must follow.

PR is more than spin. In case I forgot to mention this (wink plus wink), when done right, PR frames reality. The reality here is that the Yahoo board put the best interest of their shareholders aside.

And there are some real legal implications here. Right or wrong, the perception exists that the Yahoo board failed in their responsibility to their shareholders. When shareholders lose faith, stock price goes down. When stock price goes down, Yahoo will not be able to stand against Google. When that happens…well…there won’t be anyone left to go Yahoo! (one place where Yahoo!’s exclamation point works!)

People still may not like Microsoft (here’s a clip of Bill Gates taking a bullet to the dome in the South Park movie), but MS has framed reality to their benefit with some smart PR. Unlike Yahoo, Microsoft was out there–immediately. Yahoo’s CEO did not make statements or address the press until days after Microsoft’s well-timed and brilliant PR-strophe hit. By the time Yahoo hit the streets, people weren’t buying their story – the minds of the public were already made up.

Yes, Yahoo stressed their willingness to negotiate. They also said they were fulfilling their obligations to their shareholders. But alas, it was too late. The reality was already framed and the story already set.

Yahoo’s delay invited enormous share holder Carl Icahn in there panting and aiming to launch a proxy fight to remove the current Yahoo board. His argument? Same as Microsoft’s. There’s a good shot Yahoo will win over Icahn, but the battle to keep him away will cost Yahoo time and money, and time and money, and maybe even a little more time and money.

So you have to ask yourself, even if Yahoo did spurn Microsoft, had they controlled the story would Icahn have this window of opportunity? I don’t THINK so. All he is doing is taking advantage of the perception that Yahoo’s board is irresponsible – the perception Microsoft’s very own PR team put out there.

Lesson is, you need PR and you better be deft. The effect PR has goes way beyond people liking you, your product or your company. Always be the first person/company/whatever talking to the press. If it’s not you it’s your competition. Beat them to the punch; put your brand, your spin and your ideas out there.

And be smart about too, will ya?

Facebook. It’s a verb, it’s an adjective, it’s a voyeuristic bonafied stalking tool. I can’t get enough of it nowadays.

When I cannot fall sleep, instead of counting sheep or watching latenight reruns of poker shows, I travel to Facebookland. I visit profiles of friends, then friends of friends, then friends of friends of friends and so on. I look through photo albums and compare movie taste. Don’t judge, you do it too – admit you love it.

Yet while we revile in Facebook’s awesomeosity we must pause to note Emily Post never penned a screed on such netiquette. There are dos and don’ts and today we review them.

Friend Requests:

I have at least 14 pending friend requests. Testament to my aloof coolness? Well, duh. But a testament to other people spazzing out when they join. Listen, buddy, just because you’re friends with one of my friends doesn’t mean I want you posting on my wall.

Got it?

FB is a powerful networking tool and we cannot abuse it. And if anything, trying to network by creeping people out – yes, it’s a little creepy to get a friend request from someone you vaguely recall possibly meeting once in a meeting you forgot about long ago –is counter productive. So don’t do it.

Newsfeed:

Two keywords: privacy setting. Learn it, manage it, love it. Really, you’re not a fan of Grey’s Anatomy anymore? Suddenly over the reality craze? No longer a member of the Lactose Intolerant League? Great. But every time you add or subtract a group, preference, etc. your friends see it on their newsfeed. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad, but you better be the one making that decision.

“Think That’s Scary?” Check out this unbelievably real mini-doc about Facebook that explains what is truly going on while you type away… Yikes, right?

Relationship Status:

A friend of mine just separated from her husband. Understandably freaked out! Not so understandably, she RAN to Facebook and changed her status from “Married” to “It’s Complicated.” Did everyone need to know that right away? Was that good for her or her husband—with whom she obviously hasn’t worked it out? As her shocked brother-in-law wrote to me, “WTF?!!” Translate that to “Please be prudent and sensitive in the future.”

Newbies & Pros:

The pros are FB guinea piglets and I love them so. They went to High School and college when FB was first coming up. It’s as much a part of their lives as cable is for me. By now we’ve all heard the story about the job applicant who got turned down because of a randy pic from a frat kegger. You know why we’ve all heard it? It’s not apocryphal. People please, check yourself before you wreck yourself! What makes sense at 19 is wrong at 23 when you’re at your first job, friending everyone in your office, and have a humorless boss wondering why his newest hire was tagged in a photo last weekend making out with a dude in a monkey suit (or worse, a monkey sadly placed in a dude suit).

While the plight of the pros is well known, the saga of that amateur is hardly documented. These are the 30+ year olds who joined to stay relevant, to network professionally, or because they read about it in Parade. I’m not naming names (take that, Kazan!), but I heard about an entertainment bigwig who signed up to connect with his “perceived audience.” This media maven, who barely knows Web 2.0 from “Charlotte’s Web,” actually posted his home address and phone number in his profile. Facebook asked, so he answered… makes sense?

[Note: If you answered yes, please don’t join FB without first consulting with a non-snarky niece or nephew or read “Facebook for Dummies,” a very real and useful title.]

Meaning of the above: For two dramatically different reasons, both the pros and the amateurs are ignoring some common sense rules here.

Let’s sum up so you can click off and get back to you social networking mania: 1) get to know how the darn thing works, 2) learn your netiquette, 3) know all audiences, 4) think about yourself, and please, when in doubt, just repeat the mantra less is more 5) err on the side of privacy and ponder the future of whatever* is unerasable (everything*).

If you must, absolutely MUST join Facebook (really, we need to get our Scrabulous on) be your ingenious self and take your time, and if you aren’t able to figure it out, take your intern to lunch and make him do it for you!

I’d like to hear your experiences. Write on dude.

In “Exit Ghost,” Philip Roth’s alter ego Nathan Zuckerman informs a young writer: “No one reads anyone when you think about it.” It’s a good line but not true. Steve Jobs was a fool to emote how people have no patience for books. I get 100 letters a month from people taking something from what I write. People would read even more if publishers were even a tiny bit more forward-thinking.

In my book “Punk Marketing” one particular thought appears incessantly: don’t do what you’re doing because it’s the way it’s been done forever. Publishing industry needs that advice in an overt way.

Here’s my story:

I’m a writer - outside of my work running RLM PR, the aptly-named 19 year old public relations firm that I’m damn proud of. Anyway, in the new one titled “2011” there are 77 funny and non-methodical chapters where I pour my heart out about our own outlandish future. To witness the future is to rethink the past and learn something from it. That’s what I’m doing.

I am seriously down on the publishing world (even though I do like McGraw-Hill, I’m still down on it). It’s starting to make little sense why I would write something that while widely read could be given out in a “cleverer” format. Doing a book with a major corporation just starts to seem…odd, given the proclivities in which I do everything else now. With that far-reaching statement, and by means of explaining my thought process, here is why publishing, as the kids say, needs to man up and change itself quickly. Here are some questions I hope will make you go, “I see.”

1. Who’s in charge here? How can a 22-year-old editor bid on a book? What does a post-graduate $32,000-a-year fresh-out know what will hit with the public? Why does this frequently appear to be a case of the nuthouse leaving the inmates to decide! People in publishing (except those that are up top and doing well) are not really supervised, but there are tons a folks who say, “I have to make sure they are in charge of these decisions.” Adorable when they were six and playing with the Easy Bake Oven.

2. How do you expect people to pay 25 dollars for a book!? It’s ridiculous. Economics of publishing need to be studied. And no, “Do paperbacks” is not the answer because Amazon doesn’t feature them. I watch publishers skimp on what’s important—like Web destinations for books —and outsource a lot to India and cheap-labor countries. This is all in the name of corporate salvation. I guess.

3. The editing is done exactly how far in advance? If I write a book that is to come out in say December of 08– they have to have it in February. Why? ‘Cause they have a “schedule to follow,” but it would seem with digital technology you should be able to write right up to the deadline (like we do online).

4. Marketing is something that happens when? You probably know this but publishers basically print and cross their fingers–unless your name is Grisham, King, or Winfrey. But to market them is the REAL waste of money… their fans will find their books like a stampede. It’s obvious that publishers publish way too many books, and have no faith in anything. They just hope something will stick. It’s all teflon!

5. You give nothing away? Every now and then a maker of books announces “Here’s a chapter” gratis, or introduces a limited time free download for online consumption … The limited part is what makes people go “how old-fashioned.” GIVE IT AWAY NOW. (And if I were allowed, you’d get free chapters all the time, but alas I’m not!) My advice is to force those boatloads of readers who may not even know they are readers to think, “That’s something I got to get.” Witness the music business’s sudden realization that yeah they can’t hold onto content anymore. Labels will try anything to get folks hooked on an artist they’re trying to break, but except for some random (House) gimmicks like announcing to the media that last week something was available for free and lookie lookie, we tried something “cool,” book people are afraid to let anything digitized get out there and fight the concept tooth plus nail.

6. Bookstore chains are difficult corporations? Let’s be real. Borders, Amazon, Barnes & Noble are just as scared about the economy as publishers are. So I say work with the little stores just as hard as you used to with the biggies. Every little venue needs handholding and we authors will help get the word out, but everyone in pub is so afraid to say anything that might be construed as “insulting.” At Harper-Collins I wanted to offer free marketing advice to stores who bought, “Punk Marketing.” And as a marketer I’m pretty damn expensive. Some consultant there said, “We can’t do that—someone will think it’s demeaning.” What? Grow up. No one cares about being insulted—they care about getting something for free. See 5.

7. Why is everyone so afraid to make waves? Isn’t that the only way to rise above the noise! Retail seems to be dying—and yet the stores scare publishers in ways that shake my head involuntarily. I’ve done books with most of the big publishers, and no one ever said to Barnes & Noble: “We want placement, what’s it going to take to get it? This book is important!” I know that BN is LOOKING for ballishness. They want publishers to get behind authors. Especially those who can promote themselves with some help. Honestly, those big corporate publishing behemoths have power, but don’t use it. Gosh. As my 9th grade teacher once told me: “Prove you are the one who can take the ball and run with it.” Publishers need to take live ones - authors with big mouths - and make them stand out as new discoveries BEFORE they are already discovered.

8. You won’t publish me even if I’m the next Tolstoy unless I have a platform of my own? Yeah I get it. I’m all about the podcasts, the blogs, the articles, the mini-tours, the loud hawking, what is dubbed “relentless” push for my product…. In 2002 I got myself booked with the then-adorable Katie Couric on Today Show for “trendSpotting” and I told the people at Penguin-Putnam who thought I was kidding (”Well, let’s see”) —and when I was scheduled they didn’t bother to alert sales force, stores, or anyone. So 20 million watched me cavorting with that perky thing, and a dozen books were in stores. Publishers don’t know how to sell, that’s the fact. They wait. Very Darwinian. If something takes off THEN they start pumping out the marketing.

9. What about the number of books? Publishers will have to “break” artists like the music biz does and don’t just publish whatever sounds good … Save your money and invest in a few key artists. A final thought here: Since so many people (not me, I say with my arms folded) write books so they can buy thousands to give to prospects or customers, let’s not allow them into mainstream channels any longer. You guys stick with the professional writers.

10. The agents are working for exactly whom? Lit agents I’ve met, with few exceptions, though none I can think of as I type, are beyond frightened of pissing off the editors, so they won’t fight like Hollywood agents will for the clients. They say things like, “Well yes, it’s cheap money, kiddo, but think of it as an annuity.” Or, “I wish I could do more but they’ll never budge” or this one (breathe deeply, Richard): “You’re lucky to get it.” The lawyer I use in La La Land would teach those foohs mottos like: “We’ll cut them off at the knees—since gees they act like they deserve less of one.”

11. What’s with all the titles? Who’s the editor, who’s the president, who’s the publisher, who’s the director …? And who’s the marketing director of strategic planning? The world’ most successful businesses don’t sit around having meetings all day - Google? - and golly, turf wars are so 90’s! Publishing geeks seem so afraid to step on one another’s toes. “Let’s have a meeting to see how X feels about it.” Garrrrrh! All that endless chitchats around oak tables. I say let’s fan out, make trouble, be disruptive, start our own religion … anything,. Plan less — do more. Rise up. Be aggressive. As Fred Trump once said, “No one gets any work done in the office.”

12. Small publishers? Nah, don’t think so. I found they were just as cheap-headed as their older brother, and only provided support when the author paid his own way. Seems like the small publisher is a misnomer–like indie film. Neither exists except as marketing gimmick. In the long run, small comes knocking with finger-in-air offers like the Midwest publisher who nervily said “Here’s five grand” advance for a book about the porn industry’s history of influencing business decisions thru history… (Where’s Judith Regan when I need her!!!)

13. Finally, and for the good of the readers, shouldn’t everything be made available online? We’re inundated with material to read online and that takes our attention. Having a book in hand – even on the excellent Kindle, which is really fun—isn’t the most efficient way to digest someone’s work. Like when I read a book offline and want to share a passage with a friend, I have to type it out, yeah! That’s almost as frustrating as not being able to send my DVR moments to pals who absolutely need to see that sucky ad I witnessed.
Whatever comes of publishing—chapters online via micropayments, baby—I can look backwards and remember with glee when my first representation, “Native’s Guide to New York.” came out 19 years ago and that arrogant publisher sat me down and said to his staff of onlookers: “Let’s hire a PR person and get this crazed nonstop talker into as many outlets as we can get him to do before he’s worn-out!”

Those were the days, my friend, hoped they’d never end. They did. I want them back.

[Stay around Laermer.com for the second part of this 3-part essay titled, “Whither Product?”]

The Masters golf tournament opened Thursday. It is, in some ways, like Passover. It falls sometime in April, matters a great deal to a small segment of the population, and everyone else kind of looks up and thinks, “Oh, right, it’s probably time to take off the snow tires.”

But in recent years The Masters has been a somewhat bigger blip on America’s socio-cultural calendar, and for one reason: 11 Aprils ago, a man of mixed race months out of college went out there to take on the world’s best golfers (on a course, it should be noted, that for decades hadn’t allowed black members) and coolly destroyed them. Destroyed. Them. And ever since Tiger Woods put up the biggest winning margin at one of golf’s majors in over a century on its grandest stage, the tournament and the game have never been the same. The history from there is known. Tiger became the face of the sport and its best player. There were Nike ad campaigns, higher television ratings, swarming hordes in the galleries, etc. Blah blah-de-blah.

History and greatness and underdogs-cum-superstars attract eyes.

That’s old news, and has been the case in entertainment, sports, politics, and culture for the better part of forever. In everything there’s a pecking order. Bill Clinton will always draw a bigger crowd and a higher fee than Jimmy Carter. Meanwhile, that French lady who won the Best Actress Oscar this year will be forgotten by six months after THIS year’s telecast; Lindsay Lohan, with zero awards to her name, is roughly 20,000 times more famous. Just the way it is. And we like it that way.

But what’s interesting this particular week is not The Cult of the Superstar. It’s The Cult of the Narrative. It’s often said that we build up our heroes only to tear them down. And to justify the claim we hold up to the examples of Britney Spears and Eliot Spitzer and all the rest. But I think it’s only part of the story. It isn’t the downfall we crave - it’s the Grand Story. We are a culture of Fabulists and Fictionalists and Dreamers and Absolutists. Our mediasphere behaves accordingly. Sure, sometimes the Grand Story is a bit more tangled and harder to pinpoint (what is it, for instance, we eventually want Hillary to represent in the end, win or lose?), but most of the time we get a handle on it early and fit the facts to it.

Tiger Woods has failed to win four of the past five Masters tournaments. This, of course, does nothing to diminish his deserved status as the world’s best at what he does. But his superstar status doesn’t alone quite explain why 90% of the coverage and attention is devoted to him again this year. Yes, we get it, he has an exponentially better chance to win than any other single golfer, but somehow Las Vegas puts him “only” at about even odds to take the thing. Surely there must be some worthy stories out there among the dozens and dozens in the field?

In 2007, an unknown named Zach Johnson came from nowhere to win the thing. Catnip for a country that loves an underdog, right? Well, 12 months later, I think even Zach Johnson’s family is probably more interested in The Grand Tiger Narrative than they are in young Zach’s chances to repeat. And it’s because we like big, shiny, lasting arcs that we can take with us from one season to the next.

We like the Narrative. We like curling up and having ESPN (or Access Hollywood, MSNBC, you choose) filter out all those annoying subplots and details, the Zach Johnsons and the Marion Cotillards.

It’s the Narrative that is at work this weekend in Augusta, not the Known Superstar. And there aren’t many nuanced alternatives. Downfall is one, like what we’ve chosen for Britney. Glory is another, and it is Tiger’s at our behest. Some we build to tear down. But some we build to keep building and building and building.

Got an e-mail from a friend earlier today, pointing me to a curious little glitch on Thesaurus.com.

Seems if you type in “weaker,” you get two batches of synonyms: one grouped around the word “female,” one grouped around “lady.” Get it?

Yeah, not funny.

But sometimes the bar is set awfully low with these memes, and while the Roget’s hack was but a misogynistic ripple in the vast ocean of Internet phenomena on Tuesday alone, it proved “Hey, have you seen this?” enough to be linked by a major women’s media blog, Digged here and there, cross-blogged, and otherwise entered into the digital echo chamber by afternoon’s end.

And, of course, we’ve seen this type of thing before. Hackers get into a big, honking search engine or reference site and plant some seeds of mischief. Perhaps most infamously, for a long while hitting Google’s “I’m Feeling Lucky” button when searching for “miserable failure” brought up the Web page for the White House. Google bombs and link pranks are just a fact of life on these here InterWebs. They go with the territory. Sometimes amusing. Sometimes harmless. Sometimes distasteful. But while people chuckle and pass along the prank, they’re unlikely to believe that there’s anything at all credible about the joke.

(All real-life correlations between the current Presidency and failure notwithstanding.)

But . . . maybe we should start caring. Just a little. Not that people will actually believe that “female” is synonymous with “weaker” because Roget’s site says so. But because it signals a basic problem with the Net as we burn the last public libraries to the ground

and move all information online: How wiki will we be? Not just in terms of deliberate open source, but also our toleration of breached closed sources? It stands to reason that one day there will be regulation of the Web unimaginable in its current wild west-frontier

incarnation. The hackers will always be a step ahead, though, or at least always capable of being steps ahead. And if not outright hackers, than those meddlers who trick the search algorithms. It’s obvious that we can tolerate one or two Google bombs, one or two jokey thesaurus entries, a handful of graffitied corporate sites. But where do we draw the line? When do we start seeing them not as flies in the ointment, but as toxins poisoning the entire information pool? When the blatant misogyny of a joke Roget’s entry gives way to more subtle, less noticeable, and more assimilated prejudices on “educational” portals? When MSNBC.com is compromised once a month? Once a week?  Every day?

It’s a nightmare/worst case scenario, of course. The good and correct will always outweigh the bad and circumspect, at least with regards to ahem “trusted sources.” And there will always be watchdogs. And, just as the fun of a harmless prank like today’s is made possible by rapid response, so too is the Internet largely protected by the wisdom of fast seeing, fast-acting masses.

But as we put more and more faith into systems over which we have less and less oversight, some weird gamesmanship is in the offing. Ten years ago, if you cracked open the hardback Thesaurus and saw some lines crossed out and replaced with a joke, there was no disguising the act.

Today, as you use that hardback as a mouse pad and click around for answers online, the line between fact and fiction is still rarely crossed and mostly obvious. But ten years from now, when no one’s heard of a hardback and we stare through our Inter-goggles into a layered, niched-out-the-wazoo information landscape with infinite opportunities for sabotage, how will we ever know for sure? How?

Captain Planet, he’s our hero
Gonna take pollution down to zero
 
He’s our powers magnified
And he’s fighting on the planet’s side
 
Gonna help him put asunder
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder
 
Remember him?  He was a super hero, who, along with a posse of kids, aimed to save the environment.  CP is still around — he goes by a different alias and that is Al Gore.  And his posse of kids? They have grown up to become the Green Collar workers – out to save the world and maybe even the economy.
 
(I had a neighbor that got arrested for being a green collar worker in the 90s – different kind of green though…. More on that another time.)
 
Before the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” the concept of global warming was still up for debate.  Science was clear, but yet doubters persisted.  Dubya didn’t believe in the issue.  In his circle it was a cause for the liberals, the hippies, and the liberal hippy media.  Nothing serious.  Remember The Kyoto Protocol?  Don’t feel bad, neither do they.
 
But when that movie rose up, things changed.  Everyone seemed to take notice, and what environmentalists and scientists had been saying for years became almost overnight the new conventional wisdom.  Gore wasn’t that boring suit who awkwardly smooched Tipper, he was – yep - Captain Planet, the voice that moved the world.
 
The film itself made around 25 million domestically.  Great for a documentary, but that many Americans saw it.  The publicity more than the movie itself changed the zeitgeist so dramatically that even Bush didn’t have a choice and soon he had to cop that global warming was pretty real.
 
Just like Styrofoam, that publicity for Gore’s movement isn’t going anywhere – it’s spreading everywhere.  Now everyone wants the green seal of approval, and what’s fascinating to trend watchers is that, like the film, it’s the PR that’s leading the change.  When a company says it’s easy for it to be green, it takes increasingly large steps to be green.  Actions are now catching up with the branding.
 
Time Warner Cable tells customers “Going green is simple when your bills are paperless.” GE even launched Ecomagination campaign years ago to promote, among other things, how it works with wind turbines. Now even that monolith is doing more to maintain the momentum and integrity of those earlier promotional promises.  From NBC Universal’s Green Week – hardy har har – to the new Ecomagination.com site, GE’s own slogans are motivating behavior.
 
Frito-Lay and PepsiCo are flexing green in a funny way too: The product SunChips is about to transition into a “green brand” by transforming one of the seven plants that manufactures the chips into a “sun” or solar powered operation.  Their brand always seemed (a/k/a were branded as) earth friendly, now their policies are following suit.
 
The economy?  Well, stupid, who is making all of these changes?  In the wake of economic recession, the Prez candidates are talking about the promise of a “green collar” workforce. Urban groups are watching this as a way out of poverty, corporations see it as a the path to environmental favor (and a little bit of street cred) and environmentalists see it as the path to a better tomorrow!  Everyone is happy.  Thanks Captain!
 
The negative side to the environmental craze? Let’s quote Lewis Black: “President Bush said that he now believes there’s global warming.  As a result, I’m not sure anymore.”  
 

“2011” in Women’s Wear Daily last week…   ADVICE ON STAYING AHEAD OF THE TRENDS

Valerie Seckler

19 March 2008

Women’s Wear Daily

Live in the now is advice oft given to many an overstimulated, overwrought denizen of the 21st century. Don’t tell that to public relations pro Richard Laermer, though. He’ll probably start making the case for why it’s essential to look ahead, in order to avoid being swamped by new trends, as there are more things cropping up (or being reintroduced with a twist) faster than most can stay on top of.

Laermer, author of more than a dozen books, gives some tips for spotting trends with staying power in his 13th title, “2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade” (McGraw Hill, $25.95), slated to be published in April. The guidebook-style book seeks to prepare marketing and media types, among others, for a near future the writer marks as beginning on Jan. 10, 2011, a date he selected as it’s 10 years after former president Bill Clinton left office.

“Everybody I speak to, even kids, says, ‘I can’t wait until so-and-so,’ instead of ‘I’m excited about now,’” related the 46-year-old chief executive of RLM Public Relations Inc. “This is a mediocre time; a time to take a deep breath, look ahead and have some fun [doing so].” In fact, the writer, whose voice generally runs from colorfully anecdotal to good-natured gotcha, needles fellow futurist and competitor Faith Popcorn, whom he recalls in his book as having left him with “the impression she wasn’t that into her work. A little bored….Besides, she runs a ’strategic trend-based marketing consultancy.’ My personal goal is to rid the world of that kinda jargon,” he claims, even though his new book is subtitled “Trendspotting for the Next Decade.” (There’s only so much one can take too seriously, seems to be the subtext.) Informed of this take, Popcorn protests serenely, “I adore my work. I’m certainly not bored. When I leave my plane seat, it looks like a billy goat ravaged it,” she added, referring to the considerable pile of information she typically ingests in flight.

Among the notions - and wishes - the author of “2011″ has chewed on and projected himself are that people will start slowing down in their daily lives (”Why rush?”); customer service will finally become a “law” of sorts (”That’s enough of being put on hold.”), and the movement to stay at home will gather momentum. One reason we ought to care about such things is because it’s becoming “a little scary” for people who “don’t know at least a little about what’s going on,” Laermer said - and all the more so as commerce increasingly overwhelms culture. Notwithstanding his public relations firm’s role in greasing the wheels of commerce, the author said one result of commercialism’s onslaught is a growing cadre who are feeling like “staying in bed and pulling the covers over their head.”

In one of the book’s many how-to moments, Laermer devotes some of his “Dive Into Trends” chapter to a list of “What you can do starting today.” His advice encompasses several basics, which could fall by the wayside in harried times, such as: Get on mailing lists about things that interest you. Talk to experts - arrange to meet. Don’t ignore indicators. In 1929, the only ones who made it through the Crash were those who read newspapers. Just do it. (Fine, Nike had a point.)

Among the brands doing a good job connecting with the contemporary consumers Laermer considers “hyper-aware kings” are Apple and Verizon, while Starbucks and Victoria’s Secret are failing to make the grade. Apple gets his thumbs-up for its quick offer of a lower-priced iPhone when the first model sold at a less-than-brisk clip and its remake of Apple TV this year, enabling downloads of movies and music directly from iTunes for viewing on enhanced digital and high-definition TVs. “Would IBM have done that?” he asked rhetorically of the redesigns. Verizon wins “starting to come around” kudos for its 30-day, opt-out policy.

Victoria’s Secret is chided for product quality that doesn’t equal the brand’s hype, a problem acknowledged this month by the chain’s ceo, Sharen Jester Turney. And Starbucks is a brand Laermer loves to hate, most recently for its hype of employee training and most broadly because at the shops he finds there is “no local element.” Laermer ties up these threads with a trend, as well: “Since we are the most networked people in history, you can’t get away with stating anything sloppily anymore,” he writes. “When you communicate with your customer, be careful.”