Hasta La Creative!

According to Ad Age, Belgium-based, Brazilian-run InBev not only has largely succeeded in controlling the media’s narrative of its $46 billion takeover bid for Anheuser-Busch, it’s also managed to emerge looking more sympathetic in the process.

Public-relations experts, analysts and journalists covering the saga attribute InBev’s public-relations coup to an open and aggressive approach that has involved a barrage of well-placed leaks, public appearances and online video messages from its CEO, Carlos Brito, as well as a torrent of public letters to A-B and its board making a case for the deal. By contrast, A-B resorted to a reactive, bunkered-down posture. And when it has spoken out, it hasn’t always helped itself.

InBev even has a site–Global Beer Leader–dedicated to the takeover bid.

Just how typical are guys like Mark Penn in your industry?

‘Cause the controversy du jour today is this story in the LA Times about Penn’s role in the Clinton campaign:

As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had “no direct authority in the campaign,” describing himself as merely “an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.”

“I have had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas.”

Howard Wolfson, the campaign’s communications chief, answered that it was Penn who had top responsibility for both its strategy and message. Another aide said Penn spoke to Clinton routinely about the campaign’s message and ran daily meetings on the topic.

He’s the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a big-time global PR firm and WPP subsidiary, so I’m sure he’s got some skills, but watching this election season I’ve never seen anyone try so hard to convince the world that up is down, night is day, and 1+1 is 3 — and be so seemingly bad at it.

I mean, PR people are usually incredibly effective at what they do. What am I not getting here? What’s the deal?

Former PRWeek writer, Hamilton Nolan, now at Gawker, isn’t big on PR.

Here he is speaking directly to Richard Edleman, the man Ad Age named its 2007 PR Exec of the year:

Like I said, you’re a nice guy. But much of your work— Wal-Mart being the best example— is just objectionable on philosophical grounds, like a lot of things in the PR industry. If every multinational PR firm crumbled to pieces tomorrow, the world would be a slightly better place. Just my opinion!

The backstory is Gawker received a tip from “a high level advertising and marketing executive” accusing an Edelman trainer of encouraging staff to lie on the client’s behalf.

The following is given as evidence by Gawker, although it’s hard to say how credible it is, not knowing the source. The trainer allegedly said:

“Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and lie. Make the audience or the reporter believe that everything is ok. How many times have you heard a CEO stand up and say “No, I’m not leaving the company” and then – days later – he’s gone. Reporters understand that you “had” to do it and they won’t hold it against you in your next job when you deal with them again.”

Edelman asked Gawker to delete the incriminating post.

Gawker refused.