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?

Timing Isn't Everything, But It Counts For A Lot

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?

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?

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.

A Storyteller's Take On Corporate Storytelling

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?

Robert McNamara's PR Rule

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?

IR and the Larger Communications Picture

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?

PR Wins: Motrin

The rapid response from McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a Johnson & Johnson Company, to the controversy about the Motrin Mom ads is an example of a PR Win. Earlier this week, the blogosphere reacted swiftly to what mothers felt was an offensive ad. It was not reporters who criticized the ads, it was moms who took to tweets and youtube responses. There was no time for a poll by a newspaper or a review by an accepted expert.


The PR Wins part of the story was the speed with which the PR teams at McNeil responded. Knowing that this could damage the long term reputation of the brand, PR huddled with the other stakeholders at the company and quickly issued an apology and pulled the ad. While we are not privy to all of the conversations, this response indicates that PR had a seat at the table.

As we chronicle PR Wins, it is not intended to make PR look good at the expense of other departments. Our baseline is to help demonstrate the value of PR and when the PR team has a seat at the table for both good and bad news.

PR Wins

In an economy of scarce resources, PR, Advertising, and Marketing fight over tight budgets. Justifying programs, activities and ROI becomes even more important for each department.
So who gets credit for success is not to be trivialized.

For example, the customer-created commercials by Doritos which play during the Super Bowl are clearly an advertising story www.crashthesuperbowl.com. Yet this advertising idea was hatched by the Frito Lay (PepsiCo) PR group. The promotion was a combination of traditional PR spreading the word and the interactive world of viral marketing.

The phenomenally successful videos from BlendTec www.willitblend.com have contributed to a 700% increase in sales for the high end appliance. Who gets credit? Of course the company does. However, if PR can show it created the idea, maybe they do better in getting a seat at the table and increasing budget for the next big idea.

When a crisis plan created by the PR department keeps a story from getting bigger, who gets credit? Externally it is a non-event, but internally there should be some credit.

So we want to chronicle the PR wins. Share some with us on this blog so we can share them with others and help PR demonstrate its worth as well as provide ideas to other professionals. Let us know the situation, what you did and how it proved the value of PR, and yes in a competitive way, when PR should get credit over other departments in an agency, organization, or company.

PRSA Conference Comments

Detroit, October 26. Bob Lutz, vice chairman of General Motors, argued for PR over advertising (although he admittedly spends millions on advertising). He pushed for more assertive messaging that "says something" and does not get watered down by all internal efforts to be careful. He also touted the GM blog as perhaps the best and fastest way to tell the GM story and continue the conversation on any one issue.