Lessons for Business Leaders from the Massachusetts Election

The talking heads and columnists will analyze/spin the politics behind the Massachusetts upset by Scott Brown (R) over Martha Coakley (D) for Teddy Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat.

At CommCore, we think there's a lesson or two for business leaders in all this: First, know your customer. Second, celebrity CEOs don't necessarily win over buyers.

In the first case, Coakley and her team ran a weak campaign that never connected with voters:
- She lost the sound bite war. Her gaffe was calling Curt Schilling Red Sox star pitcher and blue collar hero a New York Yankee. In contrast, Brown had a slam dunk with the line, "It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the people's seat."
- She made tactical errors like going to Washington to meet with lobbyists and major donors a week before the election. The cumulative effect made it appear she was elitist, out-of-touch, didn't know who the voters were, or understand their angst about so-called Big Government and Fat Cats.
- She never introduced herself with a compelling storyline to back her law enforcement credentials as a prosecutor. How many people knew her husband was a cop? How come he wasn't out there in person and in TV spots touting her toughness and caring for everyday citizens?

Can you imagine a business successfully touting its product or service without a thorough understanding of the customer, the market, and communicating a compelling brand message that resonates? That's what Coakley failed to do. Wealthy suburban lawyer Brown, meantime, drove around in a highly-visible old pickup truck with 200,000 miles on it, and was portrayed as a hero of the people.

The second point, about celebrity CEOs, reminds us of the old line from Tip O'Neill, a Bostonian and former Speaker of the House. O'Neill's mantra: "All politics is local." So while "national CEO" President Obama is personally popular in the state, he couldn't convince Massachusetts voters to change their minds about the candidates/products in front of them despite his star quality and oratorial skill.

Lesson number two for business leaders: senior executives' popularity and celebrity are assets to be tapped carefully and selectively. They are not substitutes for an enterprise properly framing and communicating strong brand and product messages that meet a target audience's needs and wants.

Can you think of businesses and their leaders who have made the same mistakes as the Coakley campaign? Conversely, which business leaders have learned the communications and public relations lessons and managed best to connect with their target market?

In Crisis Communications Perception Is Reality

Point One: The only thing that matters as much as a leader BEING in command of a dangerous situation is whether he or she APPEARS to others to be in command.

Point Two: The only thing that matters as much as what you MEAN to say is what other people THINK you meant when you said it.

These are tried-and-true lesson of crisis communications learned once again the hard way by the Obama Administration in the wake of the failed attempt by an alleged Nigerian terrorist to blow up an American jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.

Regarding Point One: The administration waited three days to have President Obama address the nation from his vacation in Hawaii. Before he spoke out on TV about his order to security agencies to re-examine the entire terror suspect watch-list process, weekend news reports had him "monitoring" the situation while he was played golf. By Sunday and into Monday morning reporters and commentators on several networks and in some major newspapers were openly questioning the president's judgment on that score. Of course the President was on top of the situation. But sticking to your tee time for a round of golf is not the media image you want of your Communicator-In-Chief in the 24 hours following the potential loss of close to 300 lives in a domestic terror incident.

Regarding Point Two: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday TV talk show was marked by one sound bite that could come back to haunt her: "The system worked." Huh? The alleged terrorist got on the plane despite missed warnings to American security agencies that he was considered a potential threat, including a warning phone call to US authorities several weeks ago from the young man's father. He carried explosives and an incendiary device through security in Amsterdam. He managed to light the device, but failed to cause an explosion apparently because of a detonator malfunction. And he was taken into custody when a fellow passenger tackled him, preventing him from trying again to cause the blast. The "system" worked? Shades of Alexander Haig.

Of course what the Secretary MEANT to say was that the post-incident response worked, and the nation's security operations remained intact and on alert. She was trying to reassure the American public. But that's not what the sound bite conveyed. If anything, it made government leadership appear to be disconnected from the reality of a near-miss caused, in part, by the failure of security agencies to spot the threat in advance.

In times of crisis perception IS reality. At CommCore Consulting Group we counsel our clients that how leaders appear and what they say is as important as what they know and what they are doing. What do you think of the President's and Secretary Napolitano's handling of their responses to this crisis?

Value vs. Values: Is There Anything We Should Know Before We Pay You A Gazillion Dollars?

A recent harvardbusiness.org article published by Bloomberg used the Tiger Woods fiasco to question the value of celebrity endorsements (http://bit.ly/6kzMMy).

Using celebrities to promote a brand, product or service has been a tried-and-true marketing strategy for decades. Celebrities have reveled in the publicity from image-building campaigns; in turn brands, products and services have harnessed the push-and-pull between celebrities and the public to drive awareness and increase sales. Everybody wins, right?

What has changed? As the article notes, increasingly the personal lives of many celebrities raise ethical dilemmas that - when made public - harm not only them, but the reputation of any associated brand. Skeletons in the celebrity closet are as old as the hills. But here's the not-so-new twist: there's no privacy any more. The explosion of the Internet in the past decade, and of social media in the last five years has taken care of that.

You might say that's "duh" obvious. Yet sometimes it takes a monumental crisis to get a message through. (PS: As we at CommCore Consulting Group like to ask, "Is your brand crisis plan up-to-date?") Just ask former Tiger sponsor Gillette (http://bit.ly/5aWD7Q). It was only a matter of time before a run-of-the-mill Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears-type embarrassment struck a truly global figure and marketing phenomenon of the stature of Tiger Woods. And now that it has, the question posed by harvardbusiness.org is a legitimate one - is the risk of human frailty being exposed worth the return? If this Paragon of Everything can crumble so quickly before our eyes dragging himself, his family and associated good brand names with him, then what chance does your standard everyday celebrity endorser have?

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it IS time to revert to marketing and messages that link customers directly with brands, products and services without the filter of a famous figure. In a time of increasing skepticism about institutions and leadership in general, maybe the best way to communicate a brand story and value proposition these days is simply to say what it'll do for you.

What do you think? Is the marketing and messaging slogan for the next decade going to be, "Ask Not What a Celebrity Can Do for Your Brand; Ask What Your Brand Can Do for Everybody Else?"

Tiger and Headline Writers

Arrested for NOT Tweeting?

When Tweet Time Becomes Jail Time

It's probably a first, getting arrested for NOT tweeting. This also falls into the category of: be careful what you wish for, especially if it's on a social network.

Last week Def Jam record label executive James Roppo tweeted that 15-year-old Canadian pop singer sensation Justin Bieber would be signing autographs at a Long Island, NY mall clothing store. Screaming teeny-boppers began lining up as early as 7 hours before the event.

As the day grew longer, the crowd -- mostly pre-teens and teens -- reached an estimated 10,000. A sudden surge forward caused a stampede of youngsters worried they would not get in to see their idol. Police, fearing injuries, asked Roppo to re-tweet that the event was cancelled. He refused. It took tweets by Bieber himself, who was prevented by authorities from entering the Mall, to get word out to social networks for teens stay away from the event. "They are not allowing me to come into the mall," Bieber tweeted. "The event...is cancelled. I don't want anyone hurt."

Only minor injuries were reported. But Roppo was arrested by authorities and faces potential charges of reckless endangerment, criminal nuisance, obstruction of government administration and endangering the welfare of children. Def Jam Records later issued a statement citing the safety concerns of "the police and the Fire Marshal" that "prohibited the event from taking place."

Could it be, however, that the cause for the cancellation was the use of social media in the first place that excited young fans into a frenzy? The instantaneous delivery to thousands of tweeters enamored with the teen heartthrob, and their subsequent real-time re-tweeting of news of the Bieber appearance, might well have been its own firestorm in the making.

Another question -- about both the medium and the communication -- is what responsibility did Roppo or others have to continue communicating?

One of CommCore Consulting Group's first rules of communication is to consider all potential implications before you decide how to reach out. On reflection, might not Roppo and Bieber realized that exciting thousands of impressionable young fans at an instant on their mobile devices and computers could proliferate into a potential crisis? We wonder if Roppo was in essence shouting "fire" in what became a crowded theater, one of the exceptions to First Amendment rights. What do you think?

Will they be flexible?

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on Social Media. The formal name of the hearing is Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22618.htm).

Catchy name huh? But there's hope in the government speak. We all know how the internet and social media have dramatically changed our lives. They have provided access to information, research and data for patients and caregivers. We can be much better informed on almost all aspects of health and wellness.

Yet this explosion scares regulatory agencies such as the FDA. The Agency has enough on its plate with drug approvals, monitoring what's being used, tainted products like peanuts and spinach, dealing with approved marketing and promotion of products within label.

The hearing is the hottest ticket in DC this week. Only 60 speakers allowed, and 800 people asking for seats in an auditorium that only seats 300. From what we've heard, the FDA first wants to listen to different views - ranging from large pharmaceutical and medical device companies and their associations, to Google and Yahoo, to web site and content developers. The first day is more general, the second day is more focused on Adverse Events. After the hearings, the speakers will also add comments for the record. If you can't get there go to http://www.fdalive.com/webcast.cfm for the streaming video.

We believe that if the FDA decides it needs to create rules for social media, they should be as flexible as possible to accommodate technological changes and new applications. For example, if FDA had created rules last year, the Agency would already need to adjust due to the explosive growth of Twitter.

Here are some of the questions that FDA must grapple with:

If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to communicate info on public health issues such as H1N1, why can't regulated drug and device companies use the same technology to communicate (perhaps with links to ensure fair balance)?

To what extent are companies responsible for technologies such as Sidewiki which make it look like information next to the company or product site might be viewed as company sponsored information? We doubt the FDA would risk a fight with Google and try to ban such web innovations?

How can Social Media help companies do a better monitoring AE's (adverse events) for their products?

Should companies be required to monitor the entire web for any mentions of their product?

We hope it's an informed and open discussion that helps FDA provide proper control and guidance for regulated products in a Wild West world.

Visit http://bit.ly/MWy5w for our Video blog on this subject.

FDA and Social Media

The Burger King Lie-Detector Ad: Future Communications Shock?

Ad industry tongues are wagging over the much-anticipated TV commercial and live webcast featuring NASCAR racer Tony Stewart. Stewart signed a lucrative contract endorsing Burger King earlier this year. On Oct 20 he will take a live polygraph test to prove that his mouth truly is where the money is - that he likes and eats Burger King hamburgers. http://tinyurl.com/nfb9qj

The ramifications of this campaign run far beyond the already-shaky credibility of celebrity endorsements. It makes me think about the super model we media trained who was endorsing a garden-variety department store cosmetic. Did anybody really think she really used that brand when walking down the runway or appearing in other product ads? Did anybody even ask her, much less suggest she take a lie-detector test?

Even if an incident is circumstantial, it could give a spokesperson's reputation a big hit. (Imagine if a hungry Stewart were caught on a post-polygraph video clip grabbing, say, a McDonald's burger at the racetrack because a friend picked one up and passed it to him.)

For professional communicators in PR, public affairs, and corporate communications, the notion of a public campaign like Burger King's built around "proving" authenticity is a sobering precedent. Though one innovative ad campaign certainly does not a trend make, how far-fetched is it to imagine a day when such "proofs" become de rigeur in product advertising? Then, could we see polygraphs or other litmus tests in the broader communications arena - for political ads, advocacy campaigns including attack ads, or any public statements by senior executives and officials?

OK, maybe that's a stretch. But on the other hand, the broad media industry has been known for seizing on trends that capture the public's imagination. The implications for reputation management could be enormous. What do you think? Is this a one-time gimmick? Or is it potentially a first step down a new road of high-profile executive and celebrity accountability, even if the initial Burger King foray is just for publicity?

For us, the bottom line for communicators is this: truth, transparency, and consistency of messaging and branding have never been more important to reputation than today.

Geithner on Meet the Press - Style and Substance

The Obama administration has been making a concerted effort to shore up the image and credibility of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. I won't attempt to analyze the details of the Administration's plan in this space, but I can shed light on the style and substance of his appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Style: Improving, but still needs work. The transcript of the program will be very positive, but in watching the program I noticed that more than half the time he leaned away from David Gregory when first responding to questions. Unless there is a Botox solution (bad move for a Cabinet Secretary) Geithner knits his brow when speaking which makes him seem worried. The voice at time is a little tremulous - a few exercises can cure that. And for some reason, the position of the chair made him look like he was peering down and a little dour. This doesn't make sense since David Gregory is easily 6'4" or more and the chair position should have enabled him to look directly across or even look up.

On the positive side, Geithner communications style has a number of strong elements that others can emulate. He did not succumb to the temptation of answering every question as asked. At least twice (not overdone), he didn't answer the "cross-examination" question right away and said, "Let me step back..." This phrase allowed him to frame the answer in an appropriate context. On another exchange, Geithner added a phrase "Just one more thing..." before responding to Gregory’s next question. It's perfectly acceptable in an interview to finish your thoughts on a subject before moving on to the next question from reporter.

Geithner and his staff did a good job of anticipating the questions. He knew he was going to be asked about the slow pace in getting senior officials appointed and confirmed at Treasury. Geithner was on the targe when he first framed the question in terms of the actions taken by the Department (despite the lack of senior posts filled). He also praised the people (career and appointed) who were working to produce actions.

Geithner was also ready with a good metaphor. He compared credit to oxygen in the blood stream; necessary for the body (or the economy) to live and flourish. He also communicated the oxygen metaphor at least twice. Other phrases repeated at least twice were: he notion that the plans for the Administration are for "going forward" and that the inherited economic conditions from the Bush Administration limited the "choices."

Now if Secretary Geithner could just do something about that baby face...

New Years Communications Resolutions

Happy New Year. I'm not a big fan of New Year resolutions, but the turning of the page last night on the calendar did make me think about a few ideas. Here are my initial top three Communications resolutions for 2009. Anyone with at least one?

Write the MEDIAtor blog more frequently.

Provide a perspective on the highs and lows of the PR/Communications industry.

Keep up the work life balance in a tough economy

Write the blog more frequently. By this I also mean staying on top of all the rapid changes in social media. From Facebook, to Twitter, to LinkedIn, there are only so many hours in the day. But if we don't stay on top of how all of us receive and send information, we'll be stuck in the days of 3 networks.

Highs and lows on PR/Communications. We'd like to hear more about PRWins (see earlier Blogs). It's not that PR should be a winner at the expense of other disciplines, in the communications efforts of companies, associations and government entities. However, when PR comes up with an idea and executes we should be sharing and crowing.

Work/life balance is harder in a tough economic time. As hard as we all can work, we can't recharge, reflect, think or improve without some time to relax and kick back.

Happy New Year. Anyone with a resolution?

Communicating If You Lost Money With Madoff

I guess if you haven't heard by now from your mutual funds, 401K or pension plans if your money was invested with Bernie Madoff, you're either in the clear or the fund communications department still has its head in the sand.

I've been looking for letters one way or another from different places where I invest. I'm attaching an email my wife received from her alma mater, Tufts University. It was direct , candid and straightforward. It reflects some of what we at CommCore Consulting Group cite as the best principles of crisis communications. Be direct, say what you can and then figure out a way to move on. This letter is consistent with other messages that Tufts has sent out regarding the financial crisis. Good work on their part:

"Dear Friends:
I have promised to keep you informed when the economic news of these extraordinary times has special significance for Tufts. The news this past week has been dominated by a financial scandal of unprecedented scale and scope. I am sorry to report that Tufts is one of a growing number of victims of the crimes allegedly committed by Bernard Madoff.

In 2005, the university's Investment Committee authorized an investment with Ascot Partners, which in turn invested the entire sum with Madoff Securities. We have written off the value of this investment, which totaled $20 million, or slightly less than 2 percent of our endowment. This write-off will not significantly affect our operations. We will cooperate with any investigations of this fraud and will work to recoup as much of our investment as possible.
It is personally painful for me to communicate this information to you. We deeply appreciate the trust and confidence that each donor places in the university. We also have an obligation to our students and faculty to manage these resources wisely for their benefit. You have my word that we will look closely at our experience in this case so that we can strengthen our investment process for the future.

I will continue to keep you informed as we work our way through these difficult times. For now, I send all the members of the Tufts community my very best wishes for the holiday season ahead.

Sincerely,
Lawrence S. Bacow
President"

What have you come across, or what have you as a communications professional done, about communicating news on the impact of the Madoff scheme?

Plausible...Or Implausible?...Deniability

Under fire from many quarters since President-elect Obama selected him to deliver the Inaugural Day sermon, the noted Evangelical Rev. Rick Warren has just removed anti-gay language from his Saddleback Church website.

This move comes a few days after his speech in Long Beach, CA to a Muslim convention in which he stressed his open-mindedness: "As-salaam alaikum....Let me just get this over real quickly. I love Muslims. (applause) And, for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

Kind of reminds me in style and tone of another sound bite from another recent highly-publicized appearance, the first press conference by embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in which he strode the podium and started off: "I'm here to tell you right off the bat that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. I intend to stay on the job and I will fight this thing every step of the way. I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong."

Seems to us at CommCore Consulting Group that both Warren and Blagojevich - different men in the spotlight under very different circumstances - have resorted to the same kind of communication by denial: If I make my point quickly and emphatically enough, the operative sound bite will erase prior history. In Warren's case it's a documented litany of intolerant pronouncements; in the governor's case it's the tapes of him touting how he's willing to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder.

What's your take on crisis response by strident sound bite when the operative quote contradicts documented statements and actions? Does passionate, dramatic knee-jerk denial work in today's short attention span media environment? Do these blasts ever signal a change of thinking or genuine softening of polarizing views? Or will such sound bites come back to haunt he, or she, who utters them?