Insight

Resisting Temptation to "Like This"

2012-05-16T19:08:52Z

As I mulled this post while prying my seven-year-old out of bed this morning, I also wrestled with all of the brouhaha surrounding the pending Facebook IPO. Something just did not sit right. Then it hit me. I have seen this show before.

Facebook's global adulation is understandable, and well earned. One in eight people on the planet use it. That's an unfathomable audience that is now interconnected. But as the reports during the IPO process reach their crescendo, two large questions loom: 1) Does Facebook's advertising really work; and 2) Should the company be valued at $100 billion?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the company succeed, badly. I am dying for some good news. But the more our collective anticipation builds, the more I worry. Is there a clear rationale for this target valuation or is it hubris? Are we more enamored of simply breaking an IPO record, or are investors using sane judgment? And should California really be thinking it can potentially narrow its budget deficit with increased taxes from the many new resident millionaires that will materialize from this transaction? I get the feeling we are putting too much value on this event, and we might be in for some disappointment.

As my son and I had our breakfast, an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal titled "Jenkins: The Zuckerberg Challenge" sustained my anxiety. The author too postulated that apart from enviable 2011 ad sale revenues totaling $3.2 billion, a chasm exists between this and Facebook's estimated target valuation. He also provides heaps of praise for the seemingly endless possibilities that lay before the company, which I can't deny.

But as a newly public company, Facebook's iconic leader Mark Zuckerberg will need to be more transparent with the company's operations and growth strategies than ever before. Demonstrating that its ad engine provides real value to its customers and a putting a keen focus on generating profits will be paramount. He now has to answer to many more people that own his baby, and should the stock price fall below the IPO level, the barbarians surely will arrive at the gate. Which makes me wonder why the company is aiming for such an immediate high valuation in the first place. "Under promise and over deliver" has been a mantra that has served many CEOs well.

As I make my final inspection of my son's school clothes it also occurs to me that Mr. Zuckerberg might want to leave his signature hoodie at home and don a suit now and then. Growing up is hard, but if you want a $100 billion valuation, you need to play the part.

-- Rob Whetstone, rwhetstone@pondel.com

Presidential Celebrity Appeal

2012-05-11T15:19:24Z

President Barack Obama discusses the situation in Sudan with actor George Clooney during a meeting outside the Oval Office, Oct. 12, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday, President Barack Obama flew to Los Angeles to attend a fundraising dinner hosted by actor George Clooney. The $40,000-a-plate soiree is expected to bring in $15 million for the president's reelection campaign.

While that's a nice chunk of change, it really is a drop in the bucket to anyone either running for president or trying to get reelected. The media buzz, however, can be worth a lot more--or not.

The Oval Office has had a long love affair with Hollywood, starting back before the famed 1938 meeting between First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and 10-year-old actress Shirley Temple. Celebrities and presidents always got along nicely, as long as they shared the same politics.

Americans love movies and the star actors that shine in them. A litany of entertainment-based TV shows and magazines demonstrate a huge market opportunity for the celebrity segment, which means lots of potential voters like to watch or read news about their favorite actors.

No doubt there is a risk-reward factor by aligning with a celebrity, especially if you're the president. Fortunately for Mr. Obama, George Clooney scores high in the DBI Index, a ranking that measures the ability to influence brand affinity and consumer purchase intent. Basically this means Clooney is an admired, trusted source.

The reality is that an alliance with Clooney probably won't get President Obama more votes this November. The American public hopefully will vote on a presidential candidate's political platform, rather than solely by the company he or she keeps, although George Clooney seems to be a pretty cool guy nonetheless.

What Thursday's fundraiser will do, however, is give the president more cache and a broader reach to voters who may not necessarily tune in every Sunday morning to get the latest scoop in Washington, DC.

Just like in the corporate world during proxy season, in politics, votes are the highest currency, too.

-- George Medici, gmedici@pondel.com

Remembering George Rathmann

2012-04-24T17:25:48Z

AMGen Corporate Logo, 1983 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thankfully, it's not often that PWInsight publishes obituaries. But this week, George Rathmann, 84, the founder of Amgen, one of our early biotech client companies, died, and I cannot let his passing go without acknowledgment.

He led the push for groundbreaking drugs. He was a cheerleader for everyone who surrounded him. He changed lives. And he never let his well-deserved medical celebrity go to his head.

"I'm George, not Dr. Rathmann," he told me upon our first meeting in the late 1980s. I vividly recall showing him a six-minute video we produced for investors about Amgen's first-approved drug, Epogen, which treated severe anemia for kidney patients. He wept. And when we showed the film weeks later at an investor conference, he wept again.

George had soul. He is survived by his wife of 61 years, five children and 13 grandchildren. Ironically, he developed kidney disease in his late 70s and took Epogen to help him survive.

-- Roger Pondel, pondel@pondel.com

What They're Still Sayin' about Payin'

2012-04-16T17:42:44Z

PAY (Photo credit: tind)

With proxy season nearly upon us, a couple of thoughts may be in order about Say on Pay, one year after we first blogged about these new guidelines going into effect.

On the positive side, last year nearly all companies had their executive pay plans approved by at least a majority of their shareholders, according to a recent research report from IR Insight in a survey of 181 companies. Moreover, the vast majority of the companies received a "yes" vote from 70 percent or more of their shareholders on their executive pay plans.

With only two companies surveyed receiving a majority of "no" votes, Say on Pay is nevertheless not lessening in importance.

"Egregious pay packages are by and large a thing of the past," according to Robin Ferracone, a consultant with Farient Advisors, an independent executive compensation firm. Ferracone believes that investors were "forgiving" last year. She said institutional investors are set to grade companies' pay plans "a lot harder" in 2012, although if companies' performances and the markets improve, investors may not question executive pay much at all.

Narrowly approved pay plans may not be out of the woods. Modest changes to the investor base could put these companies in jeopardy of receiving enough "no" votes to reject the pay plan. Executive compensation experts advise corporate secretaries and investor relations officers to contact top holders at these companies to learn about investor concerns, and either explain the purpose of the questionable provisions, or modify the plan.

Going forward, the expectation is investors will more closely scrutinize how executive pay is determined. They want to see companies disclose how they have appropriately aligned performance with pay. Ferracone believes this means more use of objective criteria, benchmarking and third-party diagnostic tools.

Finally, the SEC has delayed until the second half of 2012 the final rules on a number of pay disclosures under the Dodd-Frank Act. Ira Kay, managing director at Pay Governance, a firm that provides independent executive compensation advice to boards, says the "pay versus performance" disclosure rules are difficult to craft, and the SEC may get ideas from companies tackling the issue on their own. We'll soon see.

-- Robert Jaffe, rjaffe@pondel.com

Wage Disparity Rages On

2012-04-06T20:25:38Z

A recent study by GMI Ratings showed a $215,000 disparity between the salaries of male and female CFOs.

CFO Magazine noted that the study looked at several factors that impact CFO pay, including company size, market cap, age and tenure in the position. Total average compensation for the men, including salary, bonus, and stock awards, was $1.54 million versus $1.32 million for women.

Why do women earn less? Is gender discrimination at play? One of the study's authors surmised that, "It is possible that women are more likely than men to advance through promotion from within a single company. Many firms tend to pay more when making outside hires, which could lower women's compensation levels." The report also cited possible shorter work histories for women, even when they are the same age as men, because they are more likely to interrupt their careers to raise children.

Steve Tobak, a consultant and contributor to CBS, has some ideas of his own. He believes that, among other things, women and men may not negotiate in the same way and that compensation is a complex discussion at the CFO level. He also noted that women and men may not be similarly motivated by the same factors, with women weighing non-compensation factors such as work flexibility, security and benefits more heavily than men.

Based on 2010 census data, Bloomberg recently reported that the six jobs with the largest gender gap in pay are in the financial sector, with women earning 55 to 62 cents for every $1 made by men. However, it appears the gender gap is starting to close with the median-pay disparity for all occupations at 77 cents for every $1 earned by men, an improvement from 61 cents during the last 50 years.

Whatever the reason for the inequality, the debate about why it exists rages on. While on the surface it certainly seems that men and women should be paid the same for the same job function, there are clearly many factors at play.

If you're a woman who wants to earn more than your male counterpart on Wall Street, Bloomberg recommends (tongue in cheek, of course) that you set up a shoe-shine stand in Lower Manhattan. Female personal care and service workers earn $1.02 for every $1 made by their male colleagues. Go figure.

-- Laurie Berman, lberman@pondel.com

This Time, It's Real

2012-04-02T16:53:19Z

On this, the first business day of the second quarter of 2012, everyone seems to be writing and talking about the spring in this year's early spring. No, not the weather, but the economy and how, this time, the rebound finally seems real and sustainable.

In early 2010, we, and most others, thought things were turning around. We even asked our landlord about the two vacant offices adjacent to our suite in Century City. Glad we didn't sign on.

Then again in early 2011, the economy once again appeared to be heading in the right direction. But, alas, hopes were dashed, and it stalled again.

Today, it not only feels different, but the facts seem to be saying so, too.

Jobs are being created and unemployment is falling. According to our client, Greg Palmer, CEO of staffing industry advisory firm Greg Palmer and Associates and his Palmer Forecast™, the use of temp help among businesses throughout the nation is on the rise, one indicator that good things are in store.

Last week, nine companies went public, the most IPOs in one week in more than 15 months. More than 200 companies have filed with the SEC and are waiting in the wings.

Even James Surowiecki, who writes the Financial Page column in my favorite magazine, The New Yorker, recently wrote, "...there are at least a couple of reasons to think that, this time, we aren't looking at a false spring."

The two reasons, according to Surowiecki, are autos and housing.

Pent-up demand for autos is morphing into active demand. Our client, the nation's largest wheel manufacturer Superior Industries, is operating at near capacity. And client Autobytel just recorded its first full year of net income since 2004 fueled by many positive changes within the company but also buoyed by the industry's recovery. New car sales fell from a pre-recession annual peak of 17 million to just over 10 million in 2009. The seasonally adjusted annualized (SAAR) forecast of new car sales for March is estimated at 14.3 million, down from last month, but up from 13.0 a year ago and the highest since August 2007.

As to real estate, things look better there, too. PondelWilkinson client Market Leader, which provides more than 100,000 real estate professionals throughout the United States and Canada with online technology and marketing solutions, delivered 39% revenue growth last year in what can conservatively be labeled a challenging, aka, stinky, environment. The latest National Association of Realtors forecast predicts that existing home sales and prices, along with new home sales and housing starts all will be up for 2012 and will rise even more in 2013, with continued low (but climbing a little next year) mortgage rates.

The 2012 first quarter was outstanding in the stock market as well, to the tune of 900 points on the Dow. In fact, it was the best Q1 for the Dow in 14 years and the best for NASDAQ in 21 years.

So welcome to Q2. Let's all do our best to keep the momentum going and not let the media pundits in yesterday's newspapers, television shows and blogs dampen our enthusiasm with their commentary about the prospect of a slip and the anxiety that is creeping back into the markets, as New York Times' Nathaniel Popper and others believe. After all, yesterday was April's Fool day.

-- Roger Pondel, rpondel@pondel.com

JOBS Act to Jumpstart IPOs

2012-03-23T19:53:59Z

By most accounts, the JOBS Act will likely become law and the rules for new issues should help to streamline and ease the IPO process.

Yesterday, the Senate passed he Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) (73-26 votes) with broad bipartisan support. Its version of the JOBS Act will require approval from the House of Representatives (remember that a few weeks ago the House voted 390-23 in favor of a similar version of the law), after which it will go directly to President Obama's desk for signature. The White House has previously endorsed the legislation.

According to a recent report from the legal minds at Latham & Watkins, the JOBS Act, which is a combination of several different bills, contains certain IPO-related provisions related to corporate governance and financial reporting standards that should:

make it easier to go public;
provide significant cost savings for the IPO process;
allow issuers to gauge investor interest before filing a registration statement;
permit confidential initiation of the SEC registration process;
streamline the requirements for financial statements;
permit analyst research immediately after the IPO; and
provide transitional relief for some companies up to five years from more costly requirements such as hiring an independent auditor.

Those supporting the bill believe it will encourage small businesses to grow and hire more workers. Further streamlining the IPO process enables companies to gain access to needed growth capital to fuel their expansion needs. Reducing red tape should give an added boost to entrepreneurs seeking to launch new business start-ups, but it also could spur others to illicitly benefit from less stringent rules at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While this should be viewed as a positive step forward, it also reminds investors of all stripes to carefully seek out and read all company filings before laying down the green.

-- Rob Whetstone, rwhetstone@pondel.com

]]>

Video Killed the Radio Star

2012-03-16T17:45:13Z

How much is a YouTube view really worth if the view comes from hiring a marketing firm? Earlier this month, the L.A. Times reported that Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich paid for YouTube views for his campaign videos promoting his run for district attorney.

His videos boasted 725,000 views, with the most popular clip surpassing any campaign video from GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, according to the Times.

Sounds like payola to me. But I wonder if some videos need "primer" views to promote organic views. Consider the psychological effects of viewing a clip with tens of thousands of views versus a couple dozen. The more people that view a clip the more likely other people will view the same clip. Before you know it, the video goes "viral" and begins to prompt some sort of social movement. And then, perhaps, a politician is elected, a brand gets sticky, or a warlord is overthrown.

By now, many of us have heard about the Invisible Children video that net almost 80 million views in about a week. Are all of these views organic? Beats me, but the video's content is very compelling and probably could have drummed up at least a million views without any help from fluffers.

The bottom line is that the digital world values transparency, and if you are going to hire a marketing firm to bolster views, perhaps disclosing this fact in the first few seconds of the video would actually enhance the credibility of your message. After all, it's a lot easier to disclose upfront that you are artificially inflating video views, as opposed to suffering the consequences of someone else, i.e. the media, disclosing this fact.

Even better yet, how about producing video content that is actually worthy of bona fide viewership?

-- Evan Pondel, epondel@pondel.com

Cash isn't King

2012-02-13T23:52:40Z

As companies dealt with the challenges of the most recent recession, many hoarded cash and strengthened their balance sheets. According to CFO Magazine, cash reserves for U.S. nonfinancial companies now total nearly $2 trillion. With the economy seemingly on slightly better ground, are they now ready to deploy this cash rather than save for the next rainy day?

Forty one percent of nearly 1,000 financial services, consumer and industrial products, technology, media and telecommunications banking and securities, and energy and resources industry professionals said their companies plan to dip into their cash reserves and resume spending in 2012. The Deloitte survey results showed that planned uses of cash include acquisitions, capital budget increases, share repurchases, one-time dividend payments or dividend increases. Even Apple, who has amassed an incredible $98 billion in cash after years of spending reluctance, may be reconsidering its strategy.

Interestingly, one-third of those surveyed by Deloitte believe that investors want them to conserve their cash instead of spending it. This didn't appear true last April when one hedge fund manager told the Associated Press that "We've been in a bunker mentaility for too long," and the Chairman and CEO of Legg Mason commented that, "The best use of cash is to deploy it." Or in a survey conducted by The Boston Consulting Group in May, where investment community respondents noted that the time had come for companies to start utilizing cash to create shareholder value by investing in profitable growth opportunities or returning it directly to shareholders.

Only time will tell if the purse strings have been loosened, but it seems as if that's just what may be needed to help stimulate the economy.

-- Laurie Berman, lberman@pondel.com

Enslaved to Technology

2012-02-04T00:27:19Z

Is technology an addiction? Well, spend a few hours around my 17-year-old who treats her iPhone like it's her first born and you'll have your answer.

On a typical weeknight, I come home after a day connected to my computer and "Smart" phone to find the family in the following positions:

Wife: On computer with headset or Skype-ing with someone on the other side of the globe.

Image via Wikipedia

Son: Sitting on couch watching TV, playing games on iTouch with laptop nearby.

Daughter: Holed up in bedroom video chatting on her MacBook Air while Tweeting at speed that crushes the sound barrier.

These are the reasons I could enthusiastically relate to Bill Davidow's recent article in The Atlantic, "Technology Addiction Will Lead to Our Evolution or Enslavement."

After reading Davidow's piece, I'm not so sure that machines enslaving the human race someday is so far-fetched. I'm certain Newt "Fly Me to The Moon" Gingrich might agree.

Anyway, one of the most captivating points Davidow makes is that "for the past 150,000 generations, evolution has designed our minds, brains, and body to live in only one world at a time. When we attempt to live in two simultaneously - the physical and the virtual - the consequences can be very serious."

Davidow highlights how technology can be a marvel (laptops in the operating room) and a menace (driving while under the influence of texting), and ponders whether or not Orwellian control over our technology use might actually be a good idea.

Frankly, if I had more time, I'd consider it, but I'm too busy answering my daughter's text, while simultaneously on hold with customer service about my Android phone, Tweeting about last night's dinner and drafting my blog item on my iPad.

-- Ron Neal, rneal@pondel.com

Greed: Good or Evil?

2012-01-28T01:29:42Z

Cover of Wall Street (20th Anniversary Edition)

Soon after the memorable line, "Greed is Good, Greed is Right, Greed Works," was uttered in the movie "Wall Street," much was and continues to be written about the economic and psychological impact of greed.

Economists persuasively argue that greed encourages effort, discovery, invention - it motivates us to take risks, come up with new products, enter new markets and make enterprises more efficient.

Evolution may have programmed us to be greedy, since greed keeps us motivated to achieve a genuine state of happiness, according to Jay Phelan, an economist, biologist, and co-author of Mean Genes. Echoing that thought, some psychologists say greed is the only consistent human motivation.

Today, however, increasing numbers of mental-health professionals are saying that greed is not nearly as good for people as it is for economies. Some have begun warning that greed is beginning to overwhelm conscience, reason, compassion and family bonds. Psychologist David Farrugia sees greed as a mistaken, empty and shortsighted goal that contains many seeds of destruction. In his article, Selfishness, Greed, and Counseling, Farrugia says, "a chronic orientation toward greed has been shown to result in inflexibility and diminished reality testing."

This likely explains the brazenness of Bernie Madoff, Raj Rajaratan and, now, the seven defendants recently charged in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan by Federal authorities with securities fraud involving insider trading.

SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said, "These are not low-level employees succumbing to temptation by seizing a chance opportunity, [but] .... sophisticated players who built a corrupt network to systematically and methodically obtain and exploit illegal inside information again and again."

Bottom line: While greed may indeed drive us in ways that have positive effects on behavior, it also has proven to wreak havoc and shatter lives.

-- Robert Jaffe, rjaffe@pondel.com

In Defense of 'Flaks'

2012-01-17T04:23:12Z

Image via Wikipedia

Entrepreneur Magazine recently published "Mark Cuban's 12 Rules for Startups." Many of the rules provide a common sense approach to starting a new business. But the eleventh rule made me woozy.

Here's what it said: "Never hire a PR firm." You can certainly understand my bemusement when reading these words.

Cuban qualified this rule by saying that PR folks are calling and emailing reporters and editors when, in fact, the founders of companies should be calling and emailing the same reporters and editors "who will welcome hearing from (them) instead of some PR flak." Gosh, that's harsh. I mean, calling PR folks "flaks" is the equivalent of calling a fresh piece of rye bread a "crouton."

Indeed, Cuban is talking about startups and not established companies, and hiring a PR firm isn't always a top priority when eating and keeping the lights on are hard enough. But if you cannot afford to hire a PR firm, you should probably ask a flak friend for some pro bono advice before banishing their firms altogether.

Here are my top six reasons why:

1. First impressions matter. If you send a lackluster pitch or sloppily written email to any self-respecting reporter or editor, it's going to be tough getting their attention.

2. It takes a lot of time and energy to cultivate media sources, so determine whether you have extra time to contact editors and reporters with punchy and seductive things to say.

3. Crafting your own messaging (basically how a company describes itself to the public) is about as simple as staring at yourself in the mirror and describing what you see.

4. It's not easy communicating a calm and cohesive message to employees, investors, customers and others who rely on your services when you find yourself in the midst of a crisis. That's when PR pros really come in handy.

5. The number of professional reporters and editors is shrinking due to consolidation in the media industry. That means startups and established companies alike are responsible for generating their own buzz, and at the very least, communicating with important constituencies. That's what PR firms do.

6. And finally, always question someone who criticizes the value of a PR firm when they themselves are billionaires, not to mention shameless self-promoters. From the Washington Post: "He (Cuban) is on television or the radio marveling at his charmed existence ... 'When I die, I want to come back as me,' he likes to say..." Unfortunately, we're not all Mark Cuban.

-- Evan Pondel, epondel@pondel.com

The Real Deal on Public Relations

2011-12-14T00:16:02Z

New York Times advertising columnist Stuart Elliott may finally have given the public relations industry some needed street cred. His November 20th bylined article, "Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media," discussed why the Public Relations Society of America has embarked on its own campaign to change the definition of "public relations."

This blogger over the years has had several conversations with Stuart about the importance of public relations (PR) long before this recent column, prompting the need for more coverage on the industry since it has become more integral to the marketing efforts of brands and organizations.

The existing definition, "public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other," has been around for nearly 30 years. You'd be surprised at a few of the suggested changes being floated around, some worse than others.

Quite frankly, nothing has changed. Public relations still helps organizations "talk" to their constituencies. The only real change is the way these organizations communicate with key audiences since the rise of the Internet. Social media is just a new vehicle or another medium, whether it's a brand interacting with consumers, a business-to-business organization talking with customers or even a publicly traded company communicating with investors.

All this chatter about a definition change ironically is good publicity for public relations, which has gotten a bad rap now and then. The word "spin" has a negative connation and often is incorrectly used to help explain PR, which is only a small component of the broader discipline, although there may be no denying some truth to the negative sentiment.

Explaining public relations to those that don't really understand it always has been a challenge, whether educating a family member or even a new business prospect. It's very complicated to say the least and probably more art than science, not to mention nerve-racking. Coincidentally, public relations continually ranks high in surveys about the most stressful careers.

One crude yet effective way to explain public relations is to compare it to advertising. Advertising is an organization talking about itself and public relations is someone else talking about that organization. A client once said that people will remember an article in print or online but very rarely recall the ad next to it.

Selling PR to prospective clients may be a little easier as more people engage in the discussion about a definition change. The reality however is that people are talking about PR and for the public relations industry that's a job well done

-- George Medici, gmedici@pondel.com

New NASDAQ Market A Viable Alternative?

2011-12-06T01:26:43Z

Image via Wikipedia

Currently about 150 companies trade below the $1 NASDAQ continued listing requirement even though some are profitable with strong cash flow. Whether or not the economy is to blame for the low valuations, companies have very few options to maintain their NASDAQ status.

One option is to conduct a reverse split if a company doesn't receive an extension. Since 2005, 264 NASDAQ companies have completed a reverse split for one reason or another. The results of this action have been mixed.

Perhaps there may be an alternative sooner than we think. Next year NASDAQ will launch the NASDAQ BX Venture Market. This new exchange was recently approved by the SEC and will provide companies with a national listing above a standard OTC quotation.

Following are highlights from a recent conversation with NASDAQ's director of listings about the new BX Venture Market:

Eligibility for the market requires a company to meet a number of quantitative standards including a $0.25 per share requirement for securities that were previously listed on a national exchange;
$1 per share requirement for companies not previously on a national exchange;
Companies must know if the move will impact investors ability to continue to own shares;
Securities will need to meet the initial listing requirement of $4 to relist on the NASDAQ Capital Marke

While the BX Venture Market may be a viable solution, nothing beats operational performance. However, this new market can be a good platform for companies as they reestablish their footing in today's economy.

-- Matt Sheldon, msheldon@pondel.com

Wilkinson Scholarship Winner

2011-11-29T20:36:32Z

Anna Gaidenko, a first year graduate student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, has been awarded the 2011-2012 annual Wilkinson Scholarship Award.

Gadeinko is working toward a master's degree in strategic public relations, focusing on the global market. She intends to bridge her interest and experience in both the international arena and communication field post-graduation. Born in Kiev, Ukraine, Gaidenko lived in Cleveland before moving to Miami and completing a Bachelor of Arts degree in international studies and criminology at the University of Miami. Prior to applying to USC, she taught English in the Czech Republic, travelling the surrounding regions and doing freelance writing, which led her to discover public relations as a profession.

The Wilkinson scholarship is awarded annually in memory of Cecilia A. Wilkinson, an active USC alum and a principal of PondelWilkinson, who passed away in 2007.

The video above is Gaidenko's take on how social media can enhance public relations.