Toyota's Image Re-Building: The Start of a Long Haul
The headline from the past two days of Toyota testimony before Congress is clear. Toyota has finally shaped and disseminated a message of corporate contrition: we grew too fast, focused on revenues and profits instead of quality control and the customer, and we forgot what got us to the top in the first place.
But corporate messaging aside, predicting the outcome of the crisis for the world #1 carmaker remains dicey. Here are some thoughts on the Toyota testimony from the past two days:
1.Toyota was well advised that the Members of Congress were the stars. Toyota executives did not attempt to upstage elected officials. They knew this was political theater.
2.The apology from Mr. Toyoda to individual customers and their families appeared sincere, but did not give any additional information or ammunition to the plaintiff attorneys. Apologies are not admissions of facts. Still, for one of the most powerful Japanese executives in the world to apologize to the public in person before another country's governing body is a powerful statement given that country's traditional culture of organizational pride and personal accountability.
3.The pledges to do better also appeared to be sincere but the recent documents praising the victory in dodging U.S. sanctions for minimizing recalls were very scarily damaging.
4.It's unclear what impact the hearings will have on the audiences of existing customers and potential customers. Customer decisions will depend on whether the "fixes" work and when and if the bad news stops.
5.There did not appear to be any "Japan bashing" from the US lawmakers. Reasons: Toyota has worked hard to integrate itself into the U.S. Its American workforce and its impact on domestic suppliers is significant. Furthermore, lawmakers - despite the government ownership of GM and Chrysler - have no inordinate love of U.S. owned auto makers. Toyota played the Congressional game the way any domestic company would. Asking why the early memo and signals of problems weren't communicated to the U.S. subsidiaries was more questioning of corporate communications incredulity than any xenophobia.
For the moment Toyota may be stabilizing its seriously damaged corporate public image. But the automaker still stands on shaky ground. Fixing mechanical problems will only be part of the next challenge. Rebuilding confidence in its products, and regaining the loyalty of customers, dealers and suppliers is going to be a much longer haul. My biggest question: What impact does this continue to have on the next generation of auto buyers? The current ones wouldn't buy their parents Oldsmobiles. Will next gen buy a Camry or a Lexus just because it was in the driveway?
What do you think? Has the corporate image band-aid worked? Will it translate into renewed trust in the Toyota brand and its products?
Why Toyota is Not Tylenol: Victim, Villain or Vindicator?
In 1982, I was privileged to work with Johnson & Johnson during the first Tylenol crisis. I was asked to prepare CEO James Burke for the critical "60 Minutes" interview that was a key component in communicating the comeback strategy for the brand and the company. I also worked with other senior executives who fanned out to local markets throughout the US to create a local presence in key cities. Other than SARS and 9/11, I can't think of another crisis that matches the unique circumstance of Tylenol. This is because J&J and its Tylenol brand did nothing to cause this crisis. In almost all other crises, there is an aspect of what lawyers call contributory negligence to the events. No company or organization willingly causes a crisis. However, most of the time, there is an event that precipitates the crisis.
Due to the size and scope of its current crisis, some are comparing Toyota to Tylenol. I don't believe there are many comparisons. Please read the analysis of Toyota vs. Tylenol that appeared in PRNews Online. http://bit.ly/dwZ1gv
Assessing Mr. Toyoda's Role Through the Ongoing Recall Crisis at Toyota
As the recall at Toyota turns from a crisis to a long term saga that impacts the company's reputation, the company is finally doing many of the right things and trying to avoid missteps. The full-page advertisements in 20 national newspapers, the helplines and emails, the updates and webpage buttons are all well and good and necessary. While these efforts may be too late to pacify many disgruntled customers, dealers and stakeholders, apologies are finally coming from North America heads (namely North American CEO Jim Lentz) and other company spokespeople. CEO Akio Toyoda was even quoted as recently as this past weekend saying he was "very sorry" to a local Japanese auto trade publication.
But this is a saga, not a flash-in-the-pan crisis, which means that there will be much more to deal with. There will likely be lawsuits and other legal actions, uncountable criticisms, and now there will be a congressional investigation.
Communications professionals and advisors like us are particularly interested to monitor and discuss ways in which Mr. Toyoda should and shouldn't be utilized as the company attempts to weather this storm. The similarities and differences with the Tylenol crisis have been well established. But, how is the Toyota crisis different specifically regarding the CEO's role? How should the CEO be utilized differently than Johnson & Johnson's Jim Burke?
In July of last year, when Akio took over from his father, Shoichiro Toyoda offered some sage advice to his son. The new CEO was taking the wheel at a time of a global retrenchment of the auto industry and significant sales slump, even for this well-esteemed and trustworthy 70+ year-old company. At the same time, critics discussed how there had been a shift in focus from the customer and reliability to increasing volume, market share growth and profits. Shoichiro advised his son that he should consider these great challenges -both external and internal - as opportunities to emerge as an even stronger leader.
Just a few months later, the accelerator pedal problem is now a full blown crisis that threatens to hurt sales by over $1B, and cause immeasurable reputational damage.
So, how does a communicator assess and utilize Mr. Toyoda throughout this crisis? Is it time for Mr. Toyoda himself to speak on the national and local stages in the U.S., or is it better left to Mr. Lentz (http://tinyurl.com/yjkutsz) and others? Is Mr. Toyoda adequately skilled, articulate, and would he be embraced by a U.S. audience? Mr. Lentz has already posted at least two video updates on the Toyota YouTube channel, (http://www.youtube.com/toyotausa). Should that have been done by Mr. Toyoda or should his communication best be limited to a Q&A with a global business publication like the Wall Street Journal? Should he tour the facilities where they are implementing the fix, and visit the factories where there has been a work stoppage to talk to the workers?
If the company is really serious about refocusing on the customer, they should enlist dealers on a grass roots level to reach out to customers and employees. There is evidence that the dealers are doing that already, but how much support are they getting from HQ? Should Toyota consider developing a new "best practices" in assessing defects, faulty parts and testing that go well beyond the current NHTSA guidelines and industry norms? If so, than those efforts should be documented and turned into a communication campaign that Mr. Toyoda can begin to articulate to all audiences. Perhaps therein lies the opportunity Mr. Toyoda's father spoke of.
What are your thoughts about Mr. Toyoda's communication role here? Should it be expanded or curtailed? Should Toyota actively seek to emerge as a leader in safety or just hunker down and get through the crisis and hope that time will heal this wound?
Toyota's January 2010 massive recall and sales stoppage of vehicles has been quickly compared to the recall by Johnson & Johnson of Tylenol in 1982.
Most of the similarities are in the enormity of the recall and the proactive nature of the effort. However, there are more differences in the nature of the problem and the current similarity than there are similarities.
SIMILARITY: Similar to J&J, Toyota is going beyond what it may legally be required to do in recalling vehicles. J&J went further than what was required by the FBI to pull products from the shelves. Toyota is getting a big splash from total sales and production stoppage.
DIFFERENCES: Tylenol was a different product, a different situation and a different environment. The difference between Tylenol's facts - and perhaps including SARS and 9/11 as crises - is that there was no "contributory negligence" on the part of the brand or J&J. While no product manufacturer ever wants to have a problem or defect, the fact is that TOYOTA did something that caused the problem. In the case of Tylenol, these were well made tablets that "someone else" tampered with. No one at J&J has ever been accused of doing anything wrong.
And of course, the media world is profoundly different from 1982. While J&J didn't think so at the time, the company had a relatively easy time of controlling the story and the message. The media was print, radio, TV and advertising. Now, it's the kitchen sink, with YouTube, chat rooms, Twitter and blogs the most difficult to control. J&J was hampered by not having a web site to post its information, Toyota is using its http://www.toyota.com/ for releasing information. I'm personally a bit surprised at the relatively small size of the button on the home page.
One more item. During Tylenol, J&J Chairman Jim Burke was the face of the brand and the company. So far, no one from Toyota has emerged to give this terrible event a human dimension. In addition to the web site, I'm surprised that Toyota is not using its YouTube channel with even a brief statement. Now that the crisis has gone global, it would be appropriate to have a faces of the company and post in many languages to reach more customers.
The Rev. Pat Robertson, one of America's best-known evangelist broadcasters, created a firestorm Wednesday night even as he was busy soliciting donations for earthquake-ravaged Haiti on his Christian Broadcasting Network's flagship show, "700 Club." Robertson intimated that Haiti had been cursed by God for making a pact with the Devil to kick out the country's former French colonial masters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXiyceNZmiU
"You know ... something happened a long time ago in Haiti....They were under the heel of the French...They got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you get us free from the French.' And so, the Devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out," Robertson said. "You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."
It didn't take long for the statement to create tremors of its own. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham (son of evangelist Billy Graham) condemned the comment. "He must have misspoken," Graham said of Robertson. "But we need to get on the path of helping people right now. God loves the people of Haiti. He hasn't turned his back on Haiti." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "At times of great crisis there are always people who say really stupid things." White House advisor Valerie Jarrett said on ABC that she was "speechless at that kind of remark. Our heart goes out to the people of Haiti....That's not the attitude that expresses the spirit of the president or the American people, so I thought it was a pretty stunning comment to make."
The Christian Broadcast Network website today contained an official statement claiming Robertson was speaking objectively about Haiti's history that has led "countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God's wrath," the statement reads. "If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson's compassion for the people of Haiti is clear."
There are times when efforts at "clarification" ring hollow, and this is one of them. At CommCore we advise our crisis communications clients that timing is one crucial factor among many when deciding whether to apologize for a public statement that created controversy, intentional or not, or whether to try to explain it away.
With the very real possibility of tens of thousands of fatalities in Haiti at this very moment, and the prospect of a rebuilding effort that will take years to complete, now is not the time to parse phrases and try to convince an audience of what Robertson may or may not have "meant" to say.
Now would be a time to come right out and apologize immediately for making a statement that regardless of whether it was interpreted correctly, was ill-conceived and inappropriate.
What do you think? Can you come up with other misguided efforts at revisionist history after a controversial public statement created an uproar?
Power of LinkedIn Groups for Entrepreneurs and Communicators
Here's an ongoing case study of a great use of LinkedIn Groups that solves the entrepreneur's issue of where to go for inputs and advice.
I say ongoing because fellow professionals are still chiming in with advice.
Here's the issue: A solo PR practitioner has a delicate and challenging crisis situation. The details are less important than the concern that unless handled well, the situation could get blown out of proportion through media coverage, negative blogging and community activism.The practitioner doesn't have 4 partners down the hall to brainstorm with, so she put out a request on a LinkedIn PR group for help ASAP. Unlike too many LinkedIn postings which are paper-thin marketing pitches, this one was a genuine request.
Over the past 18 hours I've seen 20+ thoughtful responses, with both analysis and practical suggestions. The responses refer to each other and build into real consultative help for the practitioner. Here's a sample of what the requesting PR person wrote to her colleagues: "You are all amazing! I'm sending a few of you private responses to your questions...We now have solid plans in place for just about every situation we can think of. I can't thank you all enough."
Seems to me this is the essence of what social media - especially among professional communities - is supposed to be about: less self-promotion and more genuinely useful conversations that leverage the knowledge and skills of a particular online professional community. As professional communicators, that's something to remind ourselves about the next time no one responds to a LinkedIn posting.
Anyone else with such a good experience with LinkedIn?
If the Washington Post didn't hear or see the tree fall, it still may have happened.
Remember the riddle: If a tree falls in the woods and no one was there to see or hear it, how do we know it really fell? The new answer is because of cell phone camera and Facebook and Twitter. Take the recent snow storm in Washington, DC was not only big news in the U.S., it made headlines in Europe. So did the Tweet-up Snow Ball fight with the gun toting off-duty officer. http://bit.ly/7Xz6kW
I saw it as a story and photo in a London newspaper. I was first struck by the fact that the Washington snowball fight was a web and Tweet-up public event. And I thought that 20 somethings didn't use Twitter. Not sure how many text messages played a part, but probably not very traditional land line calls were involved.
Fast forward to the snow ball fight and the off-duty officer didn’t like his Hummer being hit by snowballs. It wasn't a reporter from the Washington Post that saw him draw a weapon, it was a snowball revelers with cell phone cameras. http://bit.ly/7yiCSR
The cops issue the usual denials that he drew a gun. Not so, because photos and videos are on YouTube, blogs and pasted on a Facebook page and pretty soon the "traditional media" is picking it up. http://bit.ly/8ccFSh So, a London newspaper writes a story about a tweet-up and Facebook postings and calls it reporting.
Remember the more serious Virginia Tech shootings and the first videos on CNN were from a shakey cell phone. The early videos from demonstrations in Iran were from cell phones. The first information on the point is that in today's world every cell phone is a camera and every tweet could be global news.
Crisis communicators can't relax if an incident doesn't make it to traditional local news. Don't be paranoid, but monitor the news, Facebook, twitter and blogs.
Tiger Woods was the best thing that happened this week to the still nearly-famous (will they soon become infamous?) Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the Virginia reality-TV aspiring couple who "crashed" the White House state dinner last week and didn't show up when invited for Congressional testimony.
First Tiger. He didn't know, forgot or wasn't told: Get it over early. The sin is rarely the deed, it's almost always the cover-up. His belated apology and statement took the heat off...temporarily. Next time he tees off at a tournament watch out for a few errant golf shots aimed at the press. Long term damage to Tiger the Golfer and Brand Tiger and is unclear. In a game known to be as much about mental discipline as physical prowess, will Tiger be able to focus as much on the dimpled white ball? For the Tiger Brand, as a private public figure, Tiger's prior great reputation is helping him now.
Second, the Salahi's, who can't seem to retreat from the news. Let's look at the other involved parties (sic). Start with the Secret Service, which has been candid and forthright with owning the problem: "Bottom-line: We're responsible. It could have been very easy to make a phone call or get on a radio and verify if someone was on a list. This is still our responsibility as we've said from the beginning," said Secret Service spokesperson Edwin Donavan.
Note to Tiger: If you make a mistake, direct and rapid acceptance of blame, works. According to media reports, the security breach occurred when Secret Service personnel at a first check point thought that the Salahi names would be checked at a second check point. Playing the game of "Alphonse and Gaston" with security - even with a crush of well dressed party goers - is not acceptable.
Crisis response is also about what did you learn? Assume that there has been analysis among the President's protective detail there will much tighter controls for anyone getting into the White House for any occasion.
The White House Social Office is also in a higher state of Crisis Response. Reportedly, in the Bush administration there would have been a staffer at every entrance with the social list (and perhaps photos of guests) comparing notes with the Secret Service. At the entrance used by the Salahi's, no one from the social office double checked the names on the invite list. Columnists have been having a field day about the social office being more concerned with being scene at the State Dinner than doing the quasi-security job.
As to the Salahi's, aka "Facebraggers" for using Facebook to post their photos, we still don't know where their saga will end. The Washington press has been replete with stories about their personal lives, efforts at social climbing, family feuds and debts. They are vehemently claiming that they were invited to the ball but decided once again not to prove the claim when asked by Congress to tell their saga. And the MO is all about playing the American celebrity game and trying to get paid for their appearances in the news to tell their story. Stay tuned, PT Barnum will probably raise his head and there will be a media sucker who can't resist the habit for the "exclusive". Then we’ll have the crisis of the press that pounds on the media that gets the exclusive (and bemoans the ratings hit).
Carrie Prejean - not a good moment for Media Training
Talk about programming and bad media training, Carrie Prejean gave a bad name to a serious craft last week in the interview on the "Larry King Show." See YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek
While we weren't part of the prep, it was pretty obvious that the former Ms. California USA was pre-programmed to not answer any questions about what went on in the actual negotiations between her side and the Miss USA pageant. When Larry King asked about what motivated Carrie to enter mediation, Ms. Prejean immediately went to default mode and interpreted the question as one asking about the content of the mediation, which was off-limits.
Not answering certain questions is an appropriate response in specific circumstances, i.e. when asked about proprietary information, classified information, studies not completed, litigation, personal information and several other subjects. But it should not be invoked when asked other questions.
Couple this with the pre-preprogrammed stunt of taking off the mic and walking off the set and we have to conclude that Carrie was poorly prepped and coached.
There's a reason there are terms of "earned" vs. "paid" media. If Ms. Prejean was willing to "use" Larry King, then she should understand and/or be counseled that the ticket for "free" publicity is the credible answer to some questions.
The good news about social media is that it expands our information sources. The bad news is that the lack of editing and filtering can cause repercussions.
Take for example, professional athletes, who have taken up blogging and tweeting. We now have insights into training camp, games and other aspects of the sports and are not beholden to sports writers, and electronic media coverage for all of our information.
Now let's drill down to Washington Redskins linebacker Robert Henson. He tweeted his reactions to being booed by the hometown fans, calling the Redskin faithful "dim wits".. He also tweeted: "The question is who are you to say you know what's best for the team and you work 9 to 5 at Mcdonalds." http://tinyurl.com/y9sb2pk
Now that's a sure way to go viral and the equivalent of a referee's whistle (dare we say "tweet") for a 15 yard social media penalty. In soccer, this might get at least a yellow card, maybe a red card.
Where are the sports agents and managers who work so hard to get the big contracts? The sports world believes in extensive practice to develop skills for maximum performance in a game. Why wouldn't athletes think and reflect for a second before tweeting.
There's more and more instant replay and review of sports - football, baseball, hockey, tennis, horse racing - all have ways to review a call and get it right.
Maybe athletes and celebrities should take a page from their own practice books and think before tweeting.
Separating the CEO from the Brand - Better Luck Separating the Wet from the Water
Whole Foods tries to manage potential fallout from CEO John Mackey's Wall Street Journal OpEd on ObamaCare.
Last week, the often outspoken John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, wrote an OpEd piece in the Wall St. Journalopinion criticizing the President's public health initiative. He went as far as to declare that healthcare is not a right any more than food and shelter are rights for Americans.
This week, spokesperson Libba Letton, said the company was responding to emails about Mackey's article. "We're trying to explain that it was intended to be a personal opinion and not on behalf of the company."
Good luck!
The CEO of a company is always inextricably linked to the brand. What ties Mackey even closer (if that's even possible) are two factors: First, he is known for speaking frankly and "from the hip." Second - and specifically in this instance - Mackey sites several Whole Foods examples to prove his points on healthcare reform.
It may be too early to tell the extent of the fallout. Several groups have tried to organize consumer boycotts of the company.Those who follow the company and industry closely also expect these efforts to have some impact. Robert Passikoff, branding expert and founder of Brand Keys Consulting said: "Whole Foods has a particularly large segment of consumers who have a politically liberal tendency. That group looks at Whole Foods as a liberal brand. For them, this is now an issue of brand dissonance."
Michelle Chang, an analyst with investment research firm Morningstar boldly states: "Any concern about its image would damage sales heavily."
The general public may either strongly disagree with or align themselves tightly to Mackey's opinion. Marketing, branding and communications professionals may offer conflicting advice. And some industry analysts may predict deep loss where others say it'll barely impact the company at all. But one thing all will agree on is that what a CEO says reflects directly on his/her company.
We wonder if Mackey will ever learn - or wants to. It is nearly two years now since Mackey was "outed" for anonymously posting disparaging blog and Yahoo bulletin board entries about his competitors, namely, Wild Oats. His own communications team was forced to admit that was a blunder, banned such postings and revised policy. What will they do now?
What is your opinion? Do you believe there is any way for the CEO's opinion to be separated from the brand? What advice would you give Mr. Mackey and what precedents would you site? ______________________ Check out: CNNMoney.com's article: Whole Foods sweats CEO's health care manifesto at: http://tinyurl.com/kpqlv8
Media mogul Peter Guber ought to know about storytelling and succeeding in business. It's the world he has been operating in most of his professional life. Guber -- chairman of Mandalay Entertainment Group -- is the former studio chief of Columbia Pictures, former CEO of Sony Pictures, founder of Polygram Pictures, and founder of Casablanca Records and Filmworks.
As a University of Pennsylvania alum and a communications consultant, I recently came across an interview Guber granted to Knowledge @ Wharton, an online publication of the Wharton School of Business & Finance. The topic was "Sharing Stories, and not Just Information, to Communicate Effectively." (Full interview at http://tinyurl.com/lvahxa).
I was struck by how his comments echoed the best advice CommCore provides our corporate, government and agenda-driven clients: that communicating business and organizational news effectively requires turning it into a story. In the interview, Guber argues that stories are more memorable and engaging than slide presentations, memos or sales pitches. The notion is not a new one. But what made this interview "sticky" was Guber's admission that it often takes a lifelong career for business leaders like himself to see clearly the obvious connection between their field of business and storytelling as a best practice of leadership:
"The conceit that I've come to believe in over the past 40 years of my career -- in virtually every part of storytelling, from writing books and speaking and teaching and being a newscaster and being a talk show host for 533 interviews and making thousands of movies and television shows -- is that we are all wired as storytellers. The amazing thing is we're all born as storytellers and story-listeners and somehow we don't venerate its value. It's only later in our life that we ... wonder why this [leadership strategy] is working or why it's not working."
Guber doesn't take credit for it. Storytelling is as old as social organization, he notes. What it's about is becoming aware that storytelling is the essence of our social world:
"It's really recognizing that [storytelling is] the way our tribe works, the way our society works....Nobody is wired to remember information. They're really not. What's actionable is when information is encoded or embedded into a narrative and it's emotionally rendered. They hold the information in a different way and it becomes memorable, more actionable, and definitely virally marketable....Every great leader is a storyteller. And I don't know how you can really be a good leader ... without having that as part of your portfolio."
As professional communicators, we all know the story is paramount to the success of any message. But are we consistent in finding the compelling story in a brand, a mission, a product or a service that will stick in our target audiences minds? Do we practice what we preach? How do we know if a story resonates with an audience?
Last Thursday, June 18th - First day of the US Open in Bethpage, Long Island and barely half of the players ever even teed off due to rain. But 50,000 fans certainly got teed off. What did the USGA initially tell ticketholders who ponied up over $100 per ticket, took the day off from work and slogged through the rain? Too bad, no refunds, nothing!
The New York Yankees happened to have a game at the same time, same day, but they chose a different tact: To all who paid for a ticket for the day game against the Washington Nationals - even if they didn't bother braving the weather to come to The Bronx - use your ticket (or stub) and you're welcome to come back for another game this season or next. And, if you did come to the stadium and you're sitting in the bleachers - come on down and sit in the good seats. Why not?
Why not indeed.
It seems unfathomable that any organization would not make some effort - any effort- to provide some kind of consideration for customers (fans) when forces beyond their control ruin the experience. From a communicator's perspective, this should be rule #1 in protecting reputations: give the customer something! Many will claim that this is an unfair comparison. The New York Yankees is a wealthy corporation with 80+ home games to spread out those 50,000 free tickets, while the USGA is a not-for-profit, mostly volunteer-based organization that only holds a dozen or so events each year.
We're not suggesting that the USGA should have matched what the Yankees have done. But, do something! Offer a discount to the next PGA event. Send them a souvenir. Grant them a year's free membership. The USGA has a good reputation, but in this one instance, they should actually have taken a page from the Yankee PR playbook!
Eventually, the USGA offered 50% refunds or the opportunity to attend the Monday final round to those stranded first-round ticketholders...
But the questions for communicators remain:
Did the initial reaction by the USGA damage to its reputation?
Did the USGA act too slowly?
Would you have advised differently?
What other recent examples have you witnessed or read about lately?
Twitter Accountability and Longevity: What's the Future of Twittering Versus Fact-Checked Journalism?
Twitter doesn't claim to compete with The New York Times or The Washington Post, but it can have similar influence on - can even be a maker or breaker of - an organization's or an individual's reputation. But, could "Tweets" soon be cast aside as rumor and unfounded hype? Or will tweets gain power and influence?
Tony La Russa seems to think that either way, tweets shouldn't be ignored. The St. Louis Cardinals manager filed suit in San Francisco, CA Superior Court claiming that Twitter allowed a fake account to be set up under La Russa's name with demeaning and derogatory updates about current and former players - that has caused irreparable damage to his reputation. Should Twitter and/or the person who opened the fake account be liable?
It seems that many people feel that tough-talk-twittering amounts to merely off-the-cuff, inconsequential speech as opposed to measured and leveraged assaults that can cause real damage. So, tweeters should feel free to say anything they want.
Apparently, you can even feel free to criticize the President. Sen. Chuck Grassley posted a scathing tweet about President Obama's demand for action on healthcare reform: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."
But, we're talking about just 140 characters max, so any damage would be limited, right? Wrong. As Time Magazine pointed out, Twitter is being used as a "pointing device," sharing links to articles and videos and other longer-form pieces. This all extends the interest and influence. In fact, let me point you to that interesting Time article: http://tinyurl.com/pr9qg5
Are there no consequences to tweeting? If there are none, should there be? Also, will tweeting last and even continue to expand? What is your opinion?
If GM could convince drivers to buy cars as well as they communicated this week, the auto maker would come out of bankruptcy quickly.
From CEO Fritz Henderson, to UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, to other executives, to the rank and file, as awful as the bankruptcy filing was this week, GM spokespersons were consistent and united in their statements about a new GM. In full page ads, Henderson asks the public to follow the company http://www.gmreinvention.com/ GM sent letters to customers assuring them about quality and warrantees.
As David Leonhardt pointed out in the NY Times many of these promises of GM rebound have been made before. One of the questions is whether the public believes the company and will actually come back and buy, OR whether the younger generation of buyers - who have yet to be enamored with GM and who don't read the main stream media as much and see the ads - will put the GM vehicles on their desired purchase list.
Yes, the Harbor and JD Power reports do show that initial and long term quality has improved at GM yet, while the factual and statistical gaps between GM and the competition have shrunk, the perception gap has not changed very much.
What do you think? Do you think that GM can close the perception gap so that car buyers will consider Chevy, Cadillac, Buick and GMC in the same way that they think of other cars and trucks? Car buying is both a financial and emotional purchase. Can the turnaround hit us in the hearts and imagination, not just in the pocketbook?
As I'm writing, the European Health Commissioner has recommended that unless it is "essential," that Europeans should avoid traveling to Mexico or the US.
Not since SARS have we seen a public health concern and watch that matches the focus on Swine Flu. While the outbreak started in Mexico, confirmed cases have reportedly been seen in the U.S. and in Canada.
I was privileged to be able to help Health Canada and the Canadian Government during the 2003 outbreak. Here are some initial thoughts on what public health officials should do:
Develop a web site as a central place for information. Information should be in English and Spanish. The English site for Mexico we have found is http://www.health.gob.mx/.
Many U.S. news sites have information as does the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Here are a few recommendations that came out of SARS:
Use the web site and update it often
Health officials in any city, town or national organization should set up a war room
Health officials should hold frequent meeting to decide on messages of the day
Hold briefings and post to the web as necessary
Ask for technical medical and health experts to hold briefings
As bloggers, we know that social media is a fluid environment. When attacked, companies and organizations must decide whether to respond quickly to negative sentiment, or wait to assess their response.
Some argue that the percentage of the overall population actively engaging in social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and Digg - though growing - has not yet reached critical mass. But here's the question: is it already a significant enough number, or a critically important enough audience, to warrant constant serious attention by professional communicators?
Was it worth it for Johnson & Johnson's Motrin to pull its controversial ad because of the uproar it caused on Twitter and blogs? According to Ad Age, citing Lightspeed Research, almost 90% of women never saw the ad. Surveys show that more attention was paid to the surrounding crisis and swift corporate reaction versus the ads themselves.
"Too often, communicators act too soon without listening to who are doing the chatting and what it really means to their brand. Sometimes communicators are completely absent from the conversation," remarks social media expert Howard Greenstein.
In contrast, Amazon is currently in the middle of how to continue to react. They had to act quickly last weekend when angry authors (and supporters) of gay and lesbian books whose works were de-listed from the sales charts launched a Twitter-offensive over the Easter holiday weekend. Tagged #amazonfail, thousands posted angry online sentiments about Amazon. Even people who aren't necessarily fans of the de-listed books or authors joined the fray. So far, Amazon is claiming no policy change and that the de-listing was likely due to an algorithm glitch. Amazon called it "an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloguing error." (sic) Question: are they communicating enough? How much would be too much? And are they listening enough first?
In crisis communications, we often talk about the "Golden Hour" a period of time in which you can gather information and respond. It is a phrase from emergency medicine which says that you don't have tons of time, but a little more time than you think. The first five minutes of gut instinct panic responses could lead to the wrong actions in medicine. Taking a little bit more time - but not too much - allows for finding out more data and information, and a more informed response. In social media, we're watching to see if the "golden hour" principle is the rule or the exception.
What has your experience been with social media and situations involving businesses and their services or products that may, or may not, be crises? Do you believe that a quick corporate response is essential even if the scope and scale of the social media conversation remains unclear? Is it enough to respond quickly online, or is immediate corporate action essential as well?
Jumping into the fray, Jack and Suzy Welch opined on a President Obama Leadership Report Card in BusinessWeek. While not agreeing with all of the policies, so far the former GE CEO gives him an A for leadership.
The comments the Welch's make about Obama and communications can apply to almost any CEO. "You can't communicate too much, especially when you're galvanizing change."
In the midst of this economic turmoil and change, I believe CEO's need to keep communicating with employees, stakeholders, retirees, customers. There is a tendency to hunker down and come out only occasionally. Why keep sending out bad news, is one argument? That's not the point. Yes, there is bad news, but it's how you say it that makes a difference.
An effective CEO and his/her communications team can do a good job even with bad or "eh" news. There is bound to be some positive information to transmit; and you can figure out ways to demonstrate how the enterprise is working harder, more efficiently and maximizing opportunities.
Think about the ways you can communicate: speeches, walking the halls, town halls, media interviews, online chat rooms, old fashioned letters to the house. Who do you think is doing well?
The news that GM CEO Rick Wagoner resigned under White House pressure is time for both sadness and a quick gut check and time to get back to work for anyone in the auto business.
CommCore has been working with GM for more than 20 years. Some of my best friends in the business have come through the Detroit doors - and many are still working in communications, design, manufacturing and quality control. Almost all have been Wagoner loyalists - they have been inspired by his leadership and his low key hands on approach.
In the last couple of months, once Toyota started losing money, it's been clear that the GM, Chrysler and Ford problems are global in nature. At some point, consumers will start buying cars again, but they aren't doing it today. Recent news that Buick had better quality scores than Lexus doesn't create a stampede at the showrooms.
So in the absence of results, something had to give. For GM'ers it's important to pick up on Wagoner's optimistic note to employees. He implored: "Ignore the doubters because I know it is a company with a great future."
If I had the answer I wouldn't be blogging - I'd be in Detroit or working for the Government's auto task force. A Buy American strategy is a nice idea, but it doesn't work. It's critical to harness all of the creative efforts to get people to consider US cars and trucks and into the showrooms.
"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they (AIG executives) ought to be removed. I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make an apology."
That's what Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said in an attention-grabbing way Monday night on an Iowa radio station as a way of illustrating Americans' outrage at the news that more than 70 executives of federal bailout recipient AIG had been paid a total of $165 million in bonuses.
It wasn't surprising that news headlines and sound bites in the last 24 hours have highlighted the suggestion that AIG executives should kill themselves. The Senator's comments were a huge hit on the Internet thanks to viral and social media sharing. Grassley spokesman Casey Mills issued a statement on Tuesday: "Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to commit suicide but he doesn't want U.S. executives to do that."
Not surprisingly, Mills' "clarification" did not make headlines or rack up big viewership numbers on social media sites; Grassley's analogy did, which, we presume, was the whole point from a savvy old pol like the Senator. Or was it? Did he actually shoot from the hip when he could have been more artful?
In general, we counsel our clients to find an analogy that will make the sound bite memorable. Some analogies can go a little too far. What do you think? Did Grassley's remarks help a rising tide of popular indignation crest by capturing the national anger? Was it an effective tactic? Or did he go overboard by intimating that executives ought to commit suicide, even if he didn't "mean it" literally? And what of his characterization of Japanese business practices? Was it stereotypical and borderline racist, or an apt comparison?
The Stark Truth About Media and Communications Today
It's been a bad week for newspapers. The Rocky Mountain News closed its doors today. Earlier in the week The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News announced they are filing for bankruptcy less than three years after the current group of owners bought the papers. They join The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and The Minneapolis Star-Tribune as the latest major market print media casualties.
Other major market newspapers are in trouble: the venerable New York Times and established newspaper chains McClatchy and Media General have halted payment of stock dividends. The huge Gannet Co., publisher of USA Today, cut 4,000 jobs in 2008 and is trying to sell assets to stay afloat.
Smaller markets are not immune. Journal Register Co., suburban-Philadelphia based parent of the New Haven (CT) Register and 19 other small daily newspapers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, filed for protection from creditors a week ago. Smaller regional newspapers used to be the most profitable because of local ads, lack of competition, and broad community support; Journal-Register shares were trading at less than a penny on Tuesday.
As a former major market print and network broadcast journalist myself, my directory is filled with the records of veteran former journalists who were fired in the past year, or who took "voluntary" buyouts. (Too often if you're a journalist over 50, you take the buyout because if you don't, you may well end up on the street soon after with no package at all.)
This has huge ramifications for PR and corporate communicators. The fact is that a good number of your old media contacts in newspaper, radio and local TV newsrooms are either no longer in the business, are looking at new careers, or are too busy coping with diminished resources to have time to hear your pitches. Just as the news media business landscape is going through wrenching change, we communicators have to strip ourselves once and for all of the illusion that media is as media was.
There will always be some major newspapers and news broadcasters. But they will be fewer. Our interaction with reporters will change as they increase their own direct communication with the public via their traditional news organizations' online and wireless media platforms. And that doesn't include the exploding blogosphere and other non-traditional social media conduits for news, information and conversation. Your own clients or bosses are already reaching the public on their own via webcasts and podcasts, bypassing editorial gatekeepers.
As a professional communicator how are you adapting to what's happening? How do you define media relations today? What media skills and experience of the last 20 years do you find are still of value, and what do you have to throw away and learn anew? Does the blogosphere offer you valid media outreach options?
An online message only 140 characters long can create a world of trouble. That's what Ketchum PR's VP and Director of its Interactive Services Division James Andrews found out while in Memphis last week after he typed the following message onto social media website Twitter: 'True confession but I'm in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, 'I would die if I had to live here.' "
That he was on his way to meet with Ketchum client FedEx which is headquartered in Memphis seems to have been the catalyst for what followed.
Typically, I first found out about it via a tweet from Tweeter @davidhenderson. Andrews found out much more quickly than that. First, some Tweeters posted objections on Twitter, forcing Andrews to respond in typical (and in this case unclear) Twitter short-hand: "My commentary on my arrival was based on encountering ppl who didn't want me at hotel vs the city. Sorry."
Then came the big one: a fellow Tweeter and FedEx employee who earlier had attended a presentation by Andrews to FedEx, wrote an e-mail to Andrews that he also copied to the entire senior management of both FedEx and Ketchum.
He wrote in part: "We do not know the total millions of dollars FedEx Corporation pays Ketchum annually for the valuable and important work your company does for us around the globe. We're confident however, it is enough to expect a greater level of respect and awareness form someone in your position as vice president at a major global player in your industry. A hazard of social networking is that people read what you write."
He went on to write: "James, everyone at today's event, including those in the auditorium with you this morning, just received their first paycheck of 2009 containing a 5% pay cut which we wholeheartedly support because it continues the tradition established by [FedEx Founder Fred Smith] of doing whatever it takes to protect jobs. [M]any of us question the expense of paying Ketchum to produce the video open for today's event, work that could have been achieved by internal, award-winning professionals."
In a subsequent blog posting, Andrews apologized: "Two days ago I made a comment on Twitter that was an emotional response to a run-in I had with an intolerant individual. The tweet was aimed at the individual, not the city of Memphis. If I offended the residents of Memphis, TN, I'm sorry. That was not my intention. I understand that people have enormous pride in their hometown."
He then tried to spin the incident into an example of the constructive function of social media: "While some would say this is the evil side of social media, I would say its pure intention is to foster a back and forth dialogue between people rather than a shield to hide behind and replace human contact."
I imagine that in the emotional aftermath of an unpleasant incident he broke a cardinal rule of blogging: he transmitted his Tweet while still upset. While hardly an indictment of social media, it is a stark reminder of the importance of the evolving new social media communications rules and protocols that must be adhered to; ignore or forget them at your peril.
In truth, the rule that we at CommCore insist on for our clients applies to ALL communications: think before you speak. Remember Secretary of State Al Haig's "I'm in control here" gaffe when President Reagan was shot?
From what we can tell FedEx is keeping Ketchum on as its agency, and Andrews still has his job.
What's your take? What does this incident say to you about the risks and benefits of social media in general, and the short-hand micro-blogging of Twitter?
The November issue of Update, the publication of the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), features an article titled, "Corporate Transparency in the Internet Age."
Lynn Casey, CEO of communications firm Padilla Spear Beardsley, writes: "Performance first. Recognition, second, achieved by professionally planned and executed communication. At its best that means that a publicly held company walks its talk with all the people who are important to its success - customers, employees, Wall Street, lawmakers, special interest groups, the communities in which it operates. Then it communicates with them about its performance - clearly and consistently - so they will recognize that the company is trying to do what it said it will do."
In the same issue, Carol Metzker quotes an Investor Relations Officer as follows: "In this storm, you're not going to boost your company's valuation much by presenting your best case scenario. Instead, aim to maintain credibility by presenting a fair picture."
Both Casey and Metzker confirm what CommCore has been advising for a while now: in an age of 24/7 cross-platform multimedia and user-generated content, PR must have a strategic partnership with all communications functions. This includes on-point, timely and above all consistent executive-level messaging via IR, corporate communications, public affairs, and marketing communications.
Are Casey and Metzker preaching to the NIRI choir about the importance of cross-functional executive communications planning and skills - translation: transparency? What's been your experience of how IR and PR are changing and collaborating? What challenges do you face?
The travails of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler before Congress in Washington last week present painful lessons for anyone with a critical presentation.
How often do we get a chance for a "do-over" or make good on a critical business plan or presentation? Pretty rare. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as the possible implosion of the US automakers would the companies get a second chance. In essence, the school teacher (Congress) said that: "You students haven't done a very good job on your term paper. We'll give you one more chance. Otherwise, you'll probably flunk the course."
In CommCore's Presentation and Media Training seminars, we would never suggest cutting the preparation this close. What we saw was failure to analyze the audience and know what was expected, lack of preparation of a real plan and no one looking at the optics (flying in on three separate private jets).
Only the current economic situation, especially the unemployment figures, is aiding the auto companies request for financial aid. Very few of us will get such do-overs if we're not prepared.
What lessons are you learning from the auto companies request for aid?
With just a few days left before the presidential election it's time to consider one of the most important tasks facing the President-Elect: taking on the role of Communicator-In-Chief.
Barack Obama and John McCain have revealed different styles, attributes and messages in a tough campaign.
How either Obama or McCain presents himself in their victory speeches, during the transition and at the inaugural speech will make a big difference in how a new admistration will be able to lead and govern. Its difficult to imagine a time when more Americans will be scrutinizing every word, nuance and gesture of a president-elect
Given what we know how do you see the communications challenges facing the winner? What advice would you give? Should they stick to what got them here, or adjust and adapt their communication strategy, tactics and tone? And what about the loser? Will boilerplate congratulations and pledges of bi-partisanship suffice, or is something more and different required in these times?
MEDIAtor Blog
