Anderson Cooper Comes Out: A CNN Ratings Push or PR Play?
By Ben Piper, President, Ben Piper Consulting
I must confess that I don’t watch Anderson Cooper and haven’t in a couple of years, but I do keep up with the news and Cooper’s ratings have been in the tank for about that long.
Marketers often talk about the importance of being authentic. The philosophy is that if you are just yourself and convey that to people, they will flock to you. Perhaps Cooper’s public announcement of his sexual preference is a ploy by the marketing folks at CNN to boost ratings by having him suddenly come across as “authentic.” Couple that with the fact that he is currently trying to boost interest in his daytime talk program, Anderson. Before you respond with negative comments here, let me point out that Forbes ran a piece claiming that Anderson Cooper’s coming out “Will Help His Brand.” So why couldn’t this have been actively planned?
And if it were, what’s the problem with that?
The problem is that authenticity can’t be faked.
Authenticity Must Be, Well, Authentic
Part of being authentic is being consistent. Abruptly going from being deafeningly silent about his personal life to dropping such a personal bombshell on CNN’s viewing audience after his two-decade long career in broadcast journalism hardly qualifies as being consistent. Cooper’s “coming out” only serves to cement his image as a person who will do anything for ratings.
There is a lesson here for individuals who are in the public eye: Authenticity is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either present yourself publicly the way you really are, or you try to convey a particular image. The line gets blurry when you are trying to represent your employer publicly while still letting “you” shine through. But blurry lines are unpleasant to look at, and people will not deign to look for long when there are much clearer figures with a much clearer message.
CNN’s overall image fares no better. Cooper has long been one of the primary faces identified with the CNN brand. While everyone knows that Cooper is not the official face of CNN, consumers nevertheless judge media outlets by the company they keep. If CNN will resort to such pathetic and transparent attempts to boost ratings, can viewers really rely on them? Viewers expect Hollywood to resort to shock tactics to boost the bottom line. But respectable news media outlets are expected to offer better, more compelling and relevant content to their viewers. Failing this, CNN has dredged the bottom of the barrel by rousing people’s curiosity about what Anderson Cooper will say and how he will act differently now that he’s “out.” And people will watch, for a time. Then the novelty will wear off, and Cooper’s ratings will continue to decline.
Making the Shift
I don’t know what CNN’s motivation was, but assuming it was to make Cooper more authentic, they went about it all wrong. If you’re going to make the shift from canned delivery to an authentic personality, you can’t just make the leap in the way CNN did. You have to follow some common sense guidelines:
First, communicate clearly and often. Your audience wants to know what is happening and more importantly, why. CNN made a mistake by failing to explain why Cooper’s announcement was relevant to the viewers or the network. Consequently, they left the reasons to the public’s imagination. That’s never a good idea.
Second, don’t offend your audience. CNN did not consider that some viewers might be offended by Cooper’s public pronouncement of his sexual preference. Many viewers who subscribe to traditional values received it as a slap in the face. Slapping your own viewers in the face is never a good idea either.
Finally, but most importantly, have a good reason for everything you do, especially if the public will see it. This is almost as obvious as not offending your audience, but it needs to be said. Wanting to boost ratings is a fine rationale, but the steps to achieve that objective that should be executed haphazardly. If you are the least bit unclear on your objectives, your audience will be utterly confused.
###
Ben Piper helps transform information technology organizations into investments that deliver unprecedented returns. He is President of Ben Piper Consulting and can be reached on the web at benpiper.com; via email at ben@benpiper.com; or via telephone at 678-561-4236.
You may also be interested in...
I agree with your assessment, but the big issue for me is that his sexual orientation has at least been speculated for some time now. So when I heard this in the news, my reaction is “so what”? I wasn’t watching and I won’t watch now!
If it was for PR, he would not have done it in July.
Ha! Very true.
It is hard for me to conceive a more befuddled, uninformed or offensive commentary than Mr. Piper’s.
None of us can say with confidence why Anderson Cooper chose now to disclose his sexual orientation (Note to Mr. Piper, it is not a “preference” as you oddly insist.)
The fact is that Mr. Cooper did not work very hard to conceal his identity for the past few years. Like many celebrities, he already was hiding in plain sight.
Despite wild speculation as to his motive (or oddly to CNN’s which likely played no part at all in his personal decision or its timing), it is encouraging for us all to know that Cooper believes being authentic and open are ways to strengthen his professional standing, rather than diminish it. That’s a bet I would take too. It is inconceivable, at least to me, that CNN management had any say over his truthfulness.
Worse yet is Mr. Piper’s bizarre suggestion that a journalist’s candor about his sexual orientation “offends his audience.”
I remember growing up in Virginia in the 1950s when some ancients vowed never to watch black faces on television. For most of America, and for news organizations like CNN, these concerns are long ago settled.
If audiences with so-called “traditional values” cannot stomach even seeing an honest and open gay person on television, I suppose they will learn to love radio again or perhaps silent films.
Mr. Piper, I am reminded this is 2012, not 1962. LGBT people and gay men in particular are everywhere in American society, including on air and that also explains why most Americans seem to yawn at this so-called “bombshell.” It doesn’t really get any more authentic than that.
My “negative” comment is not in regards to your argument, which is certainly valid. I think it’s important to analyze whether or not the announcement was ratings/PR driven. However, I find your use of the archaic term “sexual preference” (not once, but twice) to be highly offensive. Please note that Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post style guides all steer clear of this term as well. You can find a further explanation here http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive or here http://www.glaad.org/reference/style. Your choice of words and use of hyperboles (i.e. bombshell, slap in the face) has the potential to come across as thinly veiled homophobia. Just something to keep in mind.
Don’t tell me what terms are permissible. Even the Daily Mail uses the accurate term “sexual preference.” If you have a problem with my facts, correct me. But don’t try to ram Orwellian Newspeak down my throat.
Ben, before you implode or threaten others with “Orwellian Newspeak,” as you did to Kristen, I suggest you also check the AP Stylebook. If you are a communications professional, you may be aware that the AP Stylebook is a far more respected canon than the Daily Mail will ever be.
Six years ago (in 2006), the AP recommended these usage updates — not yours:
gay preferred (3/13/06)
Lesbian is OK for gay women.
Use homosexual in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity.
Mention sexual orientation only when relevant to the story.
Avoid “sexual preference” or gay or alternative “lifestyle.”
There are a lot of terms that we don’t use anymore that few would call “Orwellian Newspeak.” There’s a whole constellation of terms around race that we don’t use, for example. Bonafide media & PR professionals understand that words have meaning and in this context – a PR subsection of a business website – there’s a reasonable expectation of basic comprehension of that.
“Sexual preference” is a political term, not a descriptive term, meant to suggest that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” and not an innate characteristic. The Daily Mail is wrong for using it and the vast majority of media organizations, especially those with the highest reputation, long gave up political terms when being descriptive. Using “sexual preference” in this context is either inappropriate (because the author doesn’t intent to be political) or completely appropriate (because the author is expressing political viewpoints, however thinly veiled the homophobia might be).
In this blog post, the language throughout is thinly veiled homophobia, the basic premise isn’t proven, and the “insights” around PR aren’t accurate. Frankly, I’m less offended at the use of “sexual preference” than I am at the bad arguments.
This is an ill-informed, biased opinion piece masquerading (oh so very thinly) as actual useful information. Frankly, it makes me wonder about CommPro editorial standards.
The entire premise – that AC’s coming out was an orchestrated event designed to drive ratings and visibility – certainly begs proof. Conjecture by Forbes about whether it will help his brand doesn’t prove the motivation. “Pathetic and transparent,” – “shock tactics” – “dredged the bottom of the barrel” … strong language about CNN and AC that doesn’t make sense in this context (though Piper’s own motivations become transparent later, of course).
One wonders if Piper even read the AC letter to Sullivan. Clearly, if CNN and AC were orchestrating a coming out event to create publicity, this would have taken place in an on-air interview, or on his show, or in some other way than a letter to a write for The Atlantic. As millions have also already noted, AC has been “out” for years – just not “OUT.” This might be new information to Piper, but not to anyone paying attention. No, this is just lazy research and lazy writing.
Then we have the simplistic definition of authenticity that’s being used to pretend this is a legitimate article. (“Authenticity Must Be, Well, Authentic”? Seriously? “..being consistent.” Seriously?) Except perhaps to a freshman PR student, this doesn’t even make sense.
First, you CAN certainly plan authenticity. In fact, it is what good PR and marketing people do all the time. It is certainly possible to authentically feel a way, but to decide when and how to communicate information. Heck, it can even be done with a marketing or PR purpose. (Incidentally, if your PR consultant doesn’t believe this, it’s time for a new PR consultant.)
So why all of the conjecture and the terrible thesis, not to mention the obviously angry language earlier? As a few have hinted, we learn that later in the so-called article.
I’m guessing the real motivation behind this article is discernable by Piper’s use of “sexual preference” twice in the article. He then doubles down on this by suggesting that having an out “public face” might offend viewers, especially those with “traditional values” as if, somehow, Cooper can’t have “traditional values” and also be openly gay. Ah. Now the “pathetic” language above starts to make sense.
I don’t think anyone is confused here, except perhaps for CommPro. What we pretty clearly have is someone who is an angry, anti-gay writer who has tricked CommPro’s editors into making them think this is an actual bonafide article.
It is not.
Bob Witeck and Kevin Boyer have done a wonderful job of succinctly responding to Ben’s drivel. What I keep asking myself is who is he and does anyone really care?
I find if profoundly interesting that Mr. Piper feels he has the “chops” to comment on Anderson’s success or lack thereof. Anderson’s consistency as a reporter over his 20 year career (that is successful in and of itself) has not had one once of impact on his personal life or vice versa. So why should he be judged as a reporter for making a personal statement? To now tie one to the other and make a claim of inconsistency is just that, a claim.
It seems as though we find the defensive individual that belittles others to be the grown-up bully from the playground that no one wanted to play with. Maybe Mr. Cooper’s popularity as an individual is what really got Mr. Piper’s goat, who knows what homophobes think?
Whatever his motivation for this piece I think it is apparent to all that when it comes to Anderson’s orientation Mr. Piper doth protest too much.
Google the term “homophobia studies hide sexuality” and enjoy yourself.
I am not a good judge of character, but I sense this issue is very personal to Mr. Piper. Anderson is a Journalist second to none,he genuinely love people,and he is wildly loved-despite the fact that he is Gay.
Peace!!