Channel Surfer: What’s Up at the “Brands That Defy Gravity” Blog . . .

Post:

The U.S. pork industry’s iconic marketing slogan, “The Other White Meat,” was crisp and clear and clever and to the point.

And when it was introduced 24 years ago, the slogan connected easily with a generation of American consumers who were becoming uncomfortable with the fat and cholesterol in red meat.

Will pork producers’ new campaign and slogan, “Pork: Be inspired,” make the same kind of connection? At this point, I am not inspired. What's your take?
4 days ago

Comment:

And speaking of generic foods given panache with marketing, we might speculate that on behalf of the Association of Milk Makers or whatever it is called, Mad Ave hacks couldn't riff on what the pork geniuses pulled (joke) (that's enough! .ed) off when they came up with "The Other White Thirst Quencher!" simply because none exists that didn't already have milk in it. So they settled on "Got Milk?" which was pretty interesting and distinctive enough to inspire a flotilla of satirists. Rebecca Romijn in a bikini with a milk mustache didn't hurt either.

The egg industry trade association also did a good job with "The Incredible, Edible Egg". Fortunately that campaign was long gone when eggs were destroyed and their chickens slaughtered not too long ago following some vicious bacterial or viral infection.

Of course the animals behind "The Other White Meat" got their bacon kicked when Swine Flu began killing people.

The moral of the story: pigs that defy gravity do come down at one point or another.

The Age of Sageism

Sure, I have war stories, epics of Homerian class. Hard-won, hard-fought – in the ugly business of business. They are now told only to those who would appreciate what valor, courage, tenacity, and often pure stupidity I summoned to plant a corporate identity on forbidden shores or snatch priceless make-goods from the claws of vicious double-tongued monsters of Media. Abide a logo fallen from a full page in the San Jose Mercury News? Never! A misquote by some hack at Reuters? I will banish thee forever from my Alerts! What? You can’t do better than the rate card? Ho ho! You’ll see my ad tucked into your enemy’s inside cover!

Today these and plenty more hoary jaw-droppers bulge from my closet at home as I tote my resumes about the globe, across new-fangled “social networks”, and into the offices of cherubic youths anointed with titles such as Chief Cerebral Wizard, Thunder Maker, and Master Knowledge Artist. Yeah, well show me a Master Knowledge Artist and I’ll show you a Master Bull**** Artist (you? .ed).

As silver-tongued as a Vice President of Verbal Identity might be, when faced with a chronicle of my gainful endeavors it would seem that I command no more colorful Verbal Identity in His Presence than “overqualified”. Thrust! That file-card diminutive from the Great Depression ready for its entrance! Bull**** not the “Overqualified” you sniveling stubble-faced gnome! By Thunder and Diminution! A roaring that might have been praise!

Parry!

“No I am not!”
“Well, what’s all this then?”
“What?”
“Your resume.”
“Oh, you know just some things.”
“No, I mean, with your experience you should be a CEO or something.”

Death’s cold kiss.

I’ve more or less stopped trying to figure out why knowing a bit more about a job is less attractive than knowing the job or probably the more attractive option, knowing very little about the job. I’ve tried to walk in with a sort of hey, I don’t know much about cloud computing [with 20 years of IBM under my belt I practically invented it, you dumb git) but I’m a fast learner approach, and I’m still “overqualified”. What the hell do you think I went to a prestigious institution of higher learning for? To be merely “qualified?”

I get the “CEO” thing all the time, but it takes somebody like me to know that a not insignificant portion of the CEO population out there can barely tie shoelaces. As a kid, I couldn’t care less about the tornadoes, cute dog, munchkins and green witches -- the part that I couldn’t wait to see is the creepy little man behind the curtain pulling levers, blowing smoke, booming his voice and scaring the ruby slippers off everyone. Now there was a real CEO. So I don’t know why the CEO's of Oz are so Olympian.

You’ll be delighted to know that no Thesaurus I’ve consulted has come up with anything resembling a synonym for “overqualified”. Hence I am free as a penny in a puddle to offer: “old”, “highly knowledgeable”, "smarter than I am", “sage-like but otherwise useless”.

Now, it’s possibly relevant that in fact I shaved off my white-ish beard to tackle today’s job market. Prior to my defoliation I was known around the block as “God”, as in "Hey God! Wazzup?". Denuded now thanks to the fellows at Gillette, I’ve been reduced from God to “CEO” and still can’t get a bloody job for having demoted myself in the tonsorial department.

Hey listen, come to think of it, no one wants God in the workforce anyway.

He’s a bleedin’ old self righteous know-it-all who claims he has intimate knowledge of cloud computing.

"I'll write whatever you want, just pass the cookies!" True Tales from The Press Room!

During down time, while our employers are back at the ranch busily assembling any number of combustibles, we in the crisis communications firehouse are prone to swapping swashbuckling stories of derring-do in the midst of twelve-alarmers that reduce even corporate Gods to ash in seconds.

Recently, one of our fellows posed the following in between courses of various pizzas:

“Have you ever had a client dead set on making some bad moves or going in the wrong direction during a crisis, despite your warnings? What was your advice that eventually talked them off the ledge?”

For the most part responses ranged from the successful employment of reasoned logic (“I wouldn’t say that if I were you”) to the passionate (“that’s insane!!”). The general consensus was that sanity sometimes prevails but some clients just leap to their death certain that a few beatific supplications will make all this disappear before it hits the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

My contribution was a little off topic if only because firemen really prefer to fight fires than endure another afternoon of Judge Judy.

This wasn't exactly a crisis but it was a real screw-up by a CEO and I was nuked as a result.

A company I worked for held a major customer conference every year at which various industry luminaries spoke. I was head of communications at the time and of course we wanted to get visibility as we basked in the radiance of these tamales.

So naturally with everyone's blessing, I invited the trade press and set up a press room with internet access, some terminals, phones, press kits, refreshments, etc., and it was always buzzing. During the 3-day event, one of the reporters wrote a less-than-favorable story about one of the industry greats, hinting that this big shot was somehow influenced by us. The CEO was rather upset, hauled me aside, and told me that no member of the press could be allowed into the press room unless he or she wrote a favorable article. Words failed me, except I remember saying something (calmly) like: "I'm sorry, I don't understand. [thinking: I'm talking to a loony] You can't do that. They'll write what they want whether we have a press room or not. I doubt that they'll tell me what they are going to write because they are starving for free finger sandwiches and coffee. That's the nature of journalism. I just can't tell a journalist what to write. Even for attempting, it will make us look terrible." For my defense of our professional ethics and principled disagreement I was fired the next day.

I tell this story because all the signs of a company that's going to go South in the event of a crisis are probably there already. So caveat emptor everyone. And you may wish to take the prudent route (less taken) and quit while you're ahead, particularly if your company is in energy, transportation, or securities. Or just tough it out and wait the Big One to drop or for your CEO's inevitable and surely "premature" deposition (which will probably come sooner than later if the delusions persist).

Moral: an ounce of prevention sometimes makes no bloody difference at all.

Read All About It! HERCULES OVERQUALIFIED FOR TOP SPOT AT AUGEAN STABLES!

OK, so I should be flattered. I see a posting for a dream job, meaning; in your dreams! Not only is the thing well written, but the ideal candidate will make Cicero, Leonardo da Vinci, Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, Edward R. Murrow, and Ronald Reagan look like slobs. Now -- this job is billed as “director of public relations” for a rather large company.

So how tempting is it to apply to an outfit seeking a “world-class communications professional”; an “outstanding personal communicator” with “stellar writing capabilities”, a “keen sense of strategic judgment” and “highly evolved analytical skills”, where “crisis communications . . . experience (is) a must”, as is a minimum of 15 years of experience in “corporate, political, campaign, data, and financial communications”, so that the successful candidate can deliver "global communications strategies and plans designed to defend and protect a corporate brand, memorable and impactful CEO speeches, key advice to the CEO and his senior management team, press releases, compelling graphics, videos, press releases, media statements, talk points, 'other visuals', briefs, letters, opinion editorials, by-lined articles, message platforms and 'measurable ROI'".

It goes without saying that on live broadcasts this person is “articulate, confident, poised and engaged”, and he or she will “lead with influence and persuasion” to “capture the trust and respect of the CEO and senior executives” (and I’m guessing, the press), working under “tight deadlines”, “juggling multiple tasks (and) writing projects (as well as) “changing priorities in a fast-paced, high energy and creative environment”. Summed up, this job is all about “translating organizational vision into proactively creating and implementing fully integrated communications campaigns, and strategically building a comprehensive public relations program that supports the development and expansion of the company's global footprint and advancement of the (company’s) global reputation and image”.

Now this struck me as something I just had to apply to.

First of all I just had to meet the people that were behind this two-and-a-half page human RFP.

Second -- and it turns out least of all -- I have all these qualifications. OK, maybe I’m not as telegenic as, say, the Scud Stud, but I can instantly concoct a befuddling slider to a loaded PI from David Faber as well as the next corporate press hack.

I banged out a quick descriptive and solicitous cover letter (after all I need a job), and sent it off on wings of ether to the hiring manager. Quite unexpectedly, I received an email within 36 hours, asking me to be in their offices ASAP the following week. And so I found myself on a bus headed for a comatose town (pop. 5,298) outside of which crouched the anodyne headquarters of a corporation preparing to take command of the world.

There I met the charming woman whose honeyed prose had graced not a few Job Boards just days before. Wow! As I had wanted to meet her, she wanted to meet the guy with the incredible resume.

And, sadly to say, that was about it.

In between coloring some heroics I’d humbly chronicled on my resume, I answered questions about where I grew up and what influenced me. “Oh, that must have been great!” Nonetheless, navigating the minefield of trivia she planted before me, I hit all my marks.

Midway through one of my on-point supplications, she announced she had a “hard stop” and leveled her side arm. “I’m afraid you’re overqualified”. A perfect cue to rise and head for stage right, first turning back to me with a flourish of consideration. “Would you really be happy just writing press releases in a big company with a ton of politics and budget constraints? This company is risk-averse. It’s frustrating for me because no one listens to me, or anyone here for that matter, and Communications just isn’t on the map for these guys”, she confessed. But proudly she told me that she had just triumphed in receiving Royal Approval for spanking new corporate Vision and Mission statements, letting it drop that it took one year to accomplish even with the services of a gigantic branding agency and it was Hell getting there. “Thanks for coming down!” Whoosh she was gone.

On the #66R heading home, I pondered what had just happened. I think I had just been “had”. Maybe this was bait and switch. But to what advantage to her? Or maybe she had no idea that spirits would soar when her vaulting words were encountered. She’ll certainly net the poseur, the ambitious, the arrogant, the severely limited, the incompetent, the delusional, the lost, the desperate, and maybe a couple of people who actually fill the bill. But what is the bill anyway? I suppose it's another case of “I’ll know what the job is when I see the right person”.

Moving target job descriptions are as common in recruiting for Communications people as are non-existent jobs on the Internet. I’ve found that companies want a Communications thing but don’t really know what it does or how it does it, but for some reason they know they need it or maybe the Board has told them to go get one. Recruiters throw around terms like “branding” as if they know what they are talking about. A couple of weeks ago I was called by a recruiter who had been assigned to the public relations beat only two weeks prior. Having made a career of recruiting chemical engineers, someone thought she’d be good at going after professional Communications talent.

Well it’s back to the mill for me. I’m going to “dumb down” my resume. Add some really meaty mediocrity. Build in hints that I can make the visible invisible. The dull duller. The meaningless more meaningless (if that’s possible, I can do it). I was once told by someone in a corporation which I served as head of Communications -- and this was a genuine compliment -- that he’d never known anyone who could write so much so well and say so little. This sort of skill was top priority for the senior executive team at this particular company, so naturally I was paid handsomely for magically taking the company off the radar screen and unleashing a contagion of mass amnesia.

So to Career Builder, HotJobs, ExecuNet, LinkedIn and PRSA, let me once again lift your traffic! And let’s not forget Indeed.

Indeed.

The Annals of Crisis Communications – The Rising Rad Sun

A dose of 1 rad means the absorption of 100 ergs of radiation energy per gram of absorbing material. These days in Japan, there are a lot of rads and a good bit of absorbing material. For those of us who represent both private and public organizations armed with laptops, Twitter accounts, blogs, pens, quips, spin, the AP Stylebook, and no small amount of solemnity at appropriate times, this giant mess in Japan is a full throttle case study in what is antiseptically known as Crisis Communications.

Those of us in communications who bear our own crisis communications scars generally watch these things carefully, with enormous empathy for our far flung colleagues in the line of fire. Cynthia Starks, an elegant speechwriter, comments on the magnitude of Japan’s communications challenges in her blog at http://tinyurl.com/6hep9qb.

The thing that usually bites is less the words and what you say than when/how quickly you acknowledge the situation. Of course the situation isn't entirely clear when you have to say something, but just say something.

Most of the obvious -- oil and energy, NASA, chemicals, transportation, shipping, etc. -- have crisis communication and disaster recovery plans. But how well they are executed and how well messages are articulated when the big day comes is another story. The savvier of the CEO's around have had some communications experience in the past and know what to do, but that is far from the norm. And it's just the sheer frenzy of situations that can flatten the otherwise stalwart and steady. If the communications person has to hide under the desk to duck bullets from inside and outside the building, this is not good.

I've looked at and advised companies on their crisis planning, and sadly the ones that think they are the best prepared are often among the worst. Their crisis plans are in giant binders, their pool of critical emergency decision-makers is too big, they don't refresh the thing if someone gets a new phone number, they haven't even pre-arranged emergency bridge lines or facilities. In one case a company took about two years to assemble a plan, and when it was "over", "communications" was totally lost in a 6 inch binder that was called "Disaster Recovery". Hats off to all the people who contributed, but they're probably all gone by now. The plan itself probably qualified as a disaster.

Now, in the case of Japan, expect to see Rudy Giuliani shortly in full radiation garb marching purposefully through rubble, advising the Emperor on how a real leader handles a crisis. It's more or less axiomatic that Japanese presidents aren't really leaders, they just disappear and various government officials and private sector business cabals tell him how it is and just keep his mouth shut.

But that's the thing about crises. People need a leader for reassurance. One who is consistently on the air and rolls up his or her sleeves. It's the "Daddy, please make it go away!" factor.

Of course, few crises will (hopefully) ever rival the enormity of Japan's. The insurers can write it off to acts of God, but not so the vox populi, where blame will probably last as long as the half-life of plutonium.

And so this too will enter the canon of crisis communications case studies. It's hard to believe that anyone can prepare a crisis communications plan for something like this. I do think that given the scope and nature (literally) of this, the press and legislators will be a bit more understanding. As they have already, questions will arise in any country predictably susceptible to infrastructure failure when forces of nature strike. France, for example, has been doing the nuclear energy thing for a long time but already the question is how well prepared are they.

It's just weird that Japan, brought to its knees by nuclear energy once before, is again ordering Geiger counters by the boatload. I'm sure there are those that hope Godzilla will show up, eat half a dozen defective nuclear reactors, and head back to the sea where he was born -- in a manger of spent uranium.

Why we like brands

A while ago, after years of development and stewardship of brands (protecting those using copyrights and trademarks, and assigning appropriate “brand value” to each) I was assigned to the task of developing new businesses and revenue based on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) brand in the U.S. Actually this was a self-inflicted project as the BBC itself was certain that the BBC logo had absolutely no value in market but I, with great courtesy and conviction, begged to differ. The BBC had tried this before and whatever it was they did had flopped. To date, the BBC was making a modest profit selling licenses for any television property that the BBC produced by stripping it of its real identity and letting the licensee brand these programs with “Masterpiece Theater” identity and umpteen other “presentation/producer” brands across the U.S. television landscape. So the reality is that pretty much every classic period series with British accents comes from the BBC but its identity is nowhere to be found. Essentially the BBC was sacrificing their own brand to the benefit of others. A classic OEM strategy – backwards. When they decided to make a go of branding themselves, the licensees such as WGBH, WNET, Nova, Discovery, National Geographic and others screamed “foul”. Their audiences were hopelessly addicted to the programming yet the stations made a gamble. Playing chicken across the table, the licensees played the hostage revenue card, knowing that the BBC itself depended on a steady stream of revenue as much as the stations were dependent on the intravenous drip of BBC programming. The BBC, having no distribution channel of its own, had little negotiating leverage because the stations’ gamble worked – the BBC was terrified to blow its licensing revenue and its relationships with American broadcasters. So naturally the BBC caved. Their parabolic conclusion: no one wants the BBC brand in America.

Personally I knew that this was money left on the table. Of course, the proper solution was to create a BBC Americas cable channel, put a proper BBC logo on each program and withhold the decent properties from their long standing customers who would feel jilted if they didn’t get high quality unbranded material for them to brand themselves. Eventually that came to pass with the advent of the BBC Americas cable channel, which occurred later when Discovery apparently agreed with me, but unlike me put a huge amount on the table to license the BBC brand to create the channel as well as take over number of other branded businesses. In fact there were a couple of huge U.S. based companies with household names that were hot to grab the BBC brand and call it their own.

I tell that story to tell another. And in addition to illustrating how curious companies sometimes behave in the wondrous world of branding, and how little understanding there is about what branding and licensing is all about, this anecdote should drive home the importance of understanding the hard cash value of a brand.

Now, faced with the checkered history of BBC branding in the U.S., I prepared myself for some hot water ahead as I sought non-theatrical revenue from the brand. First things first: research. I segmented the market and found pockets with enormous brand awareness and esteem. These were relatively sophisticated and cultured audiences. But of course the BBC was licensing its non-branded product into the non-theatrical market for slivers of revenue. And – as if that wasn’t enough – when I approached the home video market, something worse happened. Broadly speaking, the BBC is divided into two parts: the first is the national broadcasting network itself and it invests in producing programs of all kinds for British audiences. That part is purely non-commercial. The BBC is a public British network funded by revenues from taxes and turns that into television and radio programming. The second part is a global commercial enterprise which sells BBC programming and other assets in the form of licenses, and it makes money which is turned over to the BBC’s non-commercial core for more programming. The two parts are totally separate, and in fact are not encouraged to talk with another lest the commercial hounds tempt the public servants from producing something actually marketable outside of the UK.

As a result of this separation the BBC producers don’t think about U.S non-theatrical needs when they produce programs and create contracts with BBC actors, directors, producers, etc. So the commercial arm receives a finished program after it has run in the UK as well as the contracts which include royalties of unfathomable dimension committed by contract to talent and practically everyone who had anything to do with the show. That in itself is quite unusual, and what would happen is that when a non-branded home video of a BBC program was sold, the BBC’s commercial arm actually lost money on each cassette because of the great sucking sound of talent and residual (T&R) payments accompanying receipt of any amount of money from the licensee.

Now the problem was all mine. Frankly I little to lose since there wasn’t much there to begin with. So on that basis I did a bit of kibitzing with the major home video distribution companies out there, and to my pleasant surprise their reaction to the notion of a BBC logo on their cassette boxes and the tapes themselves was 100% positive. In fact almost all of them wanted a shot at it.

Now, for those lawyers reading this, here comes the good stuff. Fueled by the positive reaction about the logo I had an interesting thought and walked into the chief counsel of our BBC Worldwide Americas operation. I asked a key question. If revenue from any home video content was subject to talent costs skimmed off the top of wholesale revenue, would my licensing the BBC brand name as a separate licensing agreement with the distributor be subject to the same T&R bloodletting? The answer from the attorney was “no”.

Thank you very much. I then contacted the best video distributor I could find and negotiated a 10% surcharge for exclusive use of the BBC logo -- exempt from any talent vampirism. The deal was made, the BBC started to unleash a flood of product and we recovered others, branded them all BBC, and suddenly a near-death business delivering almost $0.00 profit, shot through the roof and made millions in a matter of weeks. It was all gravy.

In effect the whole business was now the sum of what we were bringing in from licensing the brand. That’s how a $50 million business can turn into $500 million of brand value, with the actual content representing far less actual cash value than what the brand itself was generating.

That’s a good reason to like brands.



© 2011 Michael Gury

Groupon’s Stunning Super Bowl Upset!

For those of us that watched the Super Bowl commercials nine days ago, never mind the game, we were treated to yet another kick-line of ambitious and much-anticipated advertisements. Following the trophy hoisting we’ve heard considerable chatter about these spots, certainly within the so-called marketing and branding community. I should say that these days it’s not just the bona fide ad agency and media cognoscenti who are branding experts, it’s everyone and anyone. Thankfully we live in a democratic country, and anyone can (and should) sit on a jury in judgment of price elasticity abuse in anti-trust lawsuits.

So while the Packers were sending the Steelers packing it appears that amongst the Super Bowl TV ad Rockettes a new Internet thing called “Groupon” blew more than a few mil with three commercials and pulled off a spectacular Offense. But following an aggressive kick-off, the tide quickly turned and Team Groupon had to fall back on a pathetic Defense as 100 million members of the opposing team rushed the poor sods at the point of scrimmage. Under rules regarding in-play TV ad injuries, they couldn’t even call time out.

You can’t fault Groupon for having a unique playbook. Full-on brutal tackle of Dalai Lama (the opposition’s lightweight Running Back); unnecessary roughness to Rain Forest (who may be in his final season); and a quarterback sneak around Peaceable Whale (the slow-moving but no-nonsense Samoan Full Back). We certainly didn’t see any Hail Mary’s from this team.

It definitely seems as if the Groupons knew who the enemy was, and who to take out of the game one-by-one. Yet the last laugh was on Team Groupon, and as we speak we can guess that it is still huddled in conference calls with lawyers, advertising and branding agencies (who now it seems want their business), irate ambassadors, pissed-off non-profit conservation organizations, geography teachers (those weren’t Tibetan mountains, and anyway how the hell can you make fish curry in a totally landlocked country? or why would you even want to?), possibly law enforcement officials due to threats, reporters, investors, Liz Hurley’s agent, and those so-called lunatic fringe “branding” experts from all over the world.

It’s kind of interesting to note that back in the bubble days, fledgling Internet startups, flush with cash (that they could, and did, flush), bought Super Bowl airtime to run “edgy” ads featuring things like gerbils being shot from cannons, and no one made a peep (surprisingly the Gerbil Rescue Foundation itself wasn’t even fazed). So now it seems that we’re in another self-righteous era where these annoying “causes” are important, and we can’t poke fun at them, even a little, on the Super Bowl without getting spanked.

Then there is the antiseptic and un-biased view of the whole thing. Success! Groupon is a household name! Listen to that “buzz”! Wow, we got way more bang for our Super Bowl buck! Damn, we’re good! Run that recall number by me again? 100%? You’ve got to be kidding!!

And so it goes. From what little I saw, the actual football game was pretty good. Next year -- on Super Bowl LXVI we can expect another spectacular Groupon Fat Boy or two. Here are two that have been kicking around the pinball machine in Groupon’s Mountain View employee lounge:

“Baby arctic seals -- adorable, sweet and innocent – are being slaughtered by the millions . . . so Groupon members can get 80% off these luxurious seal fur coats!”

“Black Americans – noble descendants of a proud African culture . . . [that’s enough! ed.]

[If you were otherwise occupied during these and all the commercials, tune-in to: http://tinyurl.com/ygm5gjq]

[And for far more intelligent commentary on this topic see Wager James Au’s lovely piece at http://tinyurl.com/4d7lsfw]

Who should lead an organisation's employee communications, HR, PR or...?

Here's one that popped up in a discussion in one of the professional groups I am part of:

"What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement? [if it has sole authority]"

Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.

Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.?

I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?

And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?

So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.

What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement?

Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.

Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.? I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?

And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?

So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.

Yikes! NASDAQ hacked!

Yes, Crisis Communications Tornado Hunters, it's that time again. Force 2 WSJ scoop touches down on NASDAQ.

http://tinyurl.com/487qh37

Time to muse and critique the poor sods!

Well, first off, no surprises really. This is pure textbook.

Crisis Communications 101, Lesson 2: Don't kid yourself, you can't keep it contained.

Lesson 3: You can't communicate fast enough.

Lesson 4: State the facts as best you know them. Don't editorialize. Implications are not clear on short notice. Never speculate.

Lesson 5: Keep an open channel to the press, etc., for follow-ups and plan them.

I'm sure the comms gang at NASDAQ was cowed by the clowns at the US DOJ but it was a stupid move and NASDAQ was quick to share the cock-up loud and clear in their forced statement.

Hacking is a fact of life these days, and it's more of a corporate badge of honor to be the target of viral sneaks from Bulgaria or the bedrooms of nerdy teens in Nutley, NJ.

So I think NASDAQ will have to bulk up future communications with various anodyne security assurances, but this too shall pass and it will all blow over pretty quickly. Nothing was interrupted anyway, etc. Short/medium term it's going to be on every journalist's lips when they cover anything about the exchange. And it better not happen again or else it will be referred to as a "plague of security problems". In journalism, once is bad, twice is a "plague".

We also can assume that the security communities are going to want to wallow in all the pathological detail of this intrusion. We'll just wait for the whodunit and howdunit.

Meantime, it is a really stinky customer issue, and NASDAQ management will have to fall all over themselves and their Directors Desk product is going to have to go back to the shop for a few small repairs. They may have to go for a new, improved, hack-proof (ha ha) version, which thankfully they'll make more money on.

Kudos to the WSJ for blowing the lid. And for reminding all of us again of Crisis Communications 101 Lesson 1: Murphy's Law.

Is corporate advertising a waste of time and money?

The way some companies execute it, it absolutely is. Sometimes it’s just a big ego thing for a CEO, looking for a bit of Hollywood visibility during a top secret job search for something bigger and better. And of course, rarely is it measured, as if anyone knows what they are measuring anyway. Results? Forget about it. It’s bad enough that we’re spending too much money already on product advertising and we’re getting nothing out of it.

So in case you are about to commit “corporate advertising”, here are a few thoughts.

1. There are always noble objectives. Examples:

a. Raise the share price: We really are more valuable than you think!

b. No one knows we exist.

c. We exist but no one knows why.

d. We’ve just been eaten by a bigger company and it’s a “win-win”.

e. We’ve just eaten a smaller company and it’s a “win-in”.

f. We believe in the same stuff our customers do.

g. We have a new name. It’s confusing so let us try and explain it to you.

h. The critics are wrong; we really are useful and responsible.

i. We’re green now.

j. Let’s associate ourselves with a big positive event (a rocket takes off) and bask in the halo for a while.

k. Yup, we’ve really got a strategy!

l. The jury is being selected as we speak. Let’s implant some positive lawsuit-busting messages into the jury’s unfocused heads.

m. This particular bit of government legislation is really stupid. It’s going to hurt all of you more than it will hurt us.

n. We took a big financial hit by recalling (name deadly product) for fixing (name defective product) but it’s really for your own good.

o. Given the fact that corporate advertising objectives are sort of ethereal anyway, we’ll find something to talk about and just get our logo out there with the least investment fewest gross rating points possible.

2. Corporate advertising is a bit of a specialty, but the specialist agencies aren’t that creative, and the creative agencies go a bit wild and off-strategy (anyway, they don’t like pre-testing anything so their word on what is effective is as good as anyone’s).

3. Probably the audience that gets the most out of a company’s commitment to telling its story is the employee population. Employees instinctively want to be proud of the companies they work for. Some advertising and promotion to the outside world does wonders for instilling some pride. And also family, friends, and other associates, get a look at the company you work hard for. Share the upcoming campaign with everyone in the company before you launch anything.

4. Next, the sales guys occasionally like the ads to stuff into customer proposal packets.

5. If you are a global company, the countries, particularly the smaller ones, will gobble up and translate the (free) ads and use the artwork for anything they feel like. You’ll never find out.

6. The process of figuring out a corporate advertising strategy and campaign can be an incredible internal forcing mechanism for a company to get down to brass tacks and figure out what it really stands for, its values, its personality, and what the facts are. Even if one ad never makes it out the door, this process will have catalyzed a very important collective soul-search about purpose, values and ethics, strategy, and the truth.

7. Unfortunately, it’s really true that audiences like fuzzy animals, children and some, not all, images of “real” people. Just be careful that this stuff doesn’t just blend into the swarm of ads that have been created by creative geniuses who would rather be doing something else.

8. Trotting out a CEO to put a face on the company can be OK, but most of them aren’t particularly photogenic and usually hate the whole process.

9. Really try to measure this stuff against some specific messages. Use recall testing, attitude measurement, etc. Numbers are unassailable in the Board Room.

10. Try to measure “Share of Heart” as well as “Share of Mind”, so keep in mind who your competition is in the race for the much sought-after goodwill attitudes of your intended audiences.

11. Try to put as much media weight or focused media buying into corporate advertising as possible. Corporate advertising campaigns are notoriously and noticeably weak in these areas, and tepid exposure can telegraph a message of insincerity or lack of commitment.

12. The other reason for seriously investing time and money in media is that corporate messages are by definition more difficult to grasp or recall than hard hitting product messages. There is a lot of “so what?” in audience reaction to corporate messages and so you have to make up for weaker recall by pounding audiences harder and more frequently with what you have.

13. If you are searching for a resource for really good corporate advertising creative, take a look at the people who do PSA’s (Public Service Announcements). Agencies do them for free to promote just causes, and they tend to put their best creative work into them, if only because they serve as nice samples to wave in front of new business opportunities.

So there you have it. I’m personally a fan of well-crafted corporate advertising and have studied it. The lessons I’ve learned from everyone’s mistakes and successes (including mine) have enabled me to deliver some very nice stuff that test well and delivers on communications objectives – building reputations, enhancing image, and helping pave the way for future growth of the business.

Perhaps in my next post I’ll reflect on the great and the miserable corporate tag lines that have populated, or possibly more accurately littered, the corporate advertising landscape for generations.

Until then, good luck!

How important is it for a PR practitioner to be creative? And is it possible to learn creativity?

Here's one from an industry group I belong to. I might not have spent a minute on it had I not lately be harboring the impression that the vast majority of PR noise out there may be computer-generated with little human intervention whatsoever. Or maybe it's just little humans intervening. Whatever. So here are the questions --

"How important is it for a PR practitioner to be creative? And is it possible to learn creativity?"

So you see why I was stopped by this. It's so bloody simple. Who is asking this question? Is this a dissatisfied client of one of those "I'm bigger than you are" pan-galactic agencies? Is this a young aspirant terrified that he or she is too boring and might not be able to make it in the cut-throat world of PR without The P.T. Barnum Muse?[now, that is absolutely ridiculous and flies in the face of everything we know about the PR industry!]. Or is this just a totally innocent question? That's probably what it is.

Better not get into the PR business if you are not inventive, understand people, know your consumers and target audiences, know your competition, are great with language, and are a student of trends and the media that transmit them. Every day there is more chaotic "communication" and because our heads would explode if we paid attention to all of it (pure animal threat to survival), only certain "relevant" things are recalled. Do you have any idea how many press releases, pitches, pings, and cold phone calls most serious journalists have to deal with every day? Great creative people have always worked hard at their craft -- perspiration before inspiration. Kids don't want to hear this. They'll have a great "creative" idea with no point whatsoever. Hey, that's what they see every day!

Skills are absolutely necessary but that won't always make someone creative. Imitation is flattery but more often flat, dull, and annoying. I call them "low yield derivatives". And on the other hand, a lot of highly inventive PR and marketing/advertising people just start out in the wrong profession. One of the best PR people I ever worked with came from the Finance department of a huge corporation. His PR work was completely instinctive, sometimes counter-intuitive, inspiring and brilliant. Go figure.

What We Need is No Communications!

“What we need is no communications!”

In my roles heading communications functions for various companies, I’ve actually run into this a few times. In countering this sort of thing from CEO’s or unit leaders, I haven’t felt compelled to justify my job as much as try and understand where this is coming from and apply some hard-won experience in the form of guidance and counsel.

Sometimes this is simply sticker shock from costs associated with the communications function. Of course, it all depends on what the communications strategy and goals are. It really helps if whoever is the purse-holder knows something about the role that communications can play in furthering the business objectives of the company, or as is often the case, defending them. At any rate communications doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg unless there is some big ticket goal, like creating awareness of a brand or a company in a short period of time. Or some monster situation that needs some triage.

In another case, the executive who expressed this to a disbelieving audience of communications staff at a large company later confessed that what he meant was that employees in marketing and sales should spend more face time with customers. This opened an interesting can of worms and I didn’t hesitate to help extract them all. This company had no codified brand values, no view on what the company and its products meant to the customer, no formal customer satisfaction feedback process, no customer involvement in product development, no employee satisfaction surveys, it had a largely invisible business strategy which about 3 employees knew anything about, a succession of CEOs two of whom didn’t really like to talk to people, no identity that no two employees or customers could describe in anything like the same words, suppliers that had little communication from the company other than complaints, a few sticky lawsuits and threatening legislation in the wings, and not a few confused investors. Other than that, everything was great. So of course what we need is no communications. And what is the point of having more face time with customers if things are that wormy.

The company was actually quite decent, albeit complacent in the extreme. And since it was in the healthcare industry, it could claim to be helping people get on with their lives.

Some would say that most of this is none of the business of the communications function. Surely it would be OK to say “it’s not my job”. Or “my life is miserable enough”. Or “who cares, as long as I have a job”.

I’m curious -- as a professional communicator what‘s your view? And what might you have done or recommended in a situation like this?

[Next installment: I’ll tell you what I did . . . and decant another True Adventure from the "What We Need is No Communications!" file]