Retrospectively, each of these campaign front-runners is contracted with a campaign management and also a PR Firm to manage their reputations “on air” and most importantly, on the web. In an Era of post-Google anyone,anywhere can look up anything. This is how reputations are made, and also how they are broken.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager is Robby Mook. Bernie sanders’ campaign manager is Jeff Weaver and he also uses Digital Media Firm for PR. For Ted Cruz there is Jeff Roe and for John Kasich there is Beth Hansen. And lastly, Donald Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski who was recently charged with battery.
If you do your research you will find that for many of these campaign managers, it’s not their first rodeo. They have all either been on board with their current political client from the beginning of their career or campaigns amidst the House of Representatives,or served on the campaign team for someone else previously. The business of reputation management is methodical,and it’s also lucrative.
While Marco Rubio may have dropped out of the campaign, the statistical figures of his former campaign manager still stand, setting the bar for all the others as of current, and those to come. The stifling figures as reported by the FEC are insane.At $198,000 Marco Rubio’s former campaign manager Terry Sullivan took the cake.Rand Paul, Chip Englander was second with $129,000. And Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook’s earnings depreciated from previous quotes to $121,000, still ranking third hugest salary for campaign management.
The notation for the bill is fitted by descriptions of “consultation strategy” “travel” and “Equipment Purchases”. For example, Clinton’s 2008 campaign drew distinction through advertising stunts with Amtrak, business cards, and other marketing strategies. There seems to be calculated correlations between the advocation of getting out the vote and getting out the images of whom the vote is being advocated for.
While all of this is newsworthy,one might find the principle of a seemingly “gang-stocking presidential,campaign” to be obscured in the contempt of reason. And so you want to know why?
There was a very intriguing article published by Andrew Griffin entitled “PR Crisis,Issues and Reputation Management:A handbook for PR and Communication Professionals”. One of the definitions used in part of describing reputation as a concept and why it matte is as follows:- ” Reputatiion, as a concept, is becoming part of a normal corporate discourse, at least in large global companies”. Basically, reputation is dealt with on a senior level, strategist recognize that a company’s reputation is the underlining factor between value, and non-demand whereby asset management is concerned. Reputation is often thought of as “the most important asset.”
As Griffin points out,on many occasions a loss of reputation can greatly compromise a company’s “commercial interests, people, morale, customer base and share price”. And also to be noted,is that reputation is not confined to a world of business. This can be seen clearly by spectacle of the upcoming 2016 Presidential Campaign. Often times, one will find that continued support of a person, brand or organization is directly tied to its reputation whereby financial support is in essence of admonishment.
You never really can tell what PR management strategies exercises an admirable or adverse effect either. If you look back in 2008, the public reception of Barack Obama’s public engagement in terms of taking photos with Jay-Z and Beyoncé was generally positive. Now when you see Mrs. Clinton doing it,a sense of suspicion has been invoked.I mean I guess it’s all a lingering mantra of “different stroke for different folks” and whether pertaining to a public figure, a company or an organization, one must learn when to merge or stay in their lane.
Griffin,Andrew. Crisis, Issues and Reputation Management: A Handbook for PR and Communications Professionals. 1st Ed.GB. Kogan Page LTd,2014. Web.