Pushing Vendetta: When Past Clients Go Bad

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from one of our clients with a rather cryptic lead. And, as it turned out, it wouldn’t be the last e-mail I received from other concerned parties.

“I think she got it wrong about which company decided to change.”

Scrolling down, it became all too clear what she was referring to. One of our accounts, an image consultant we resigned several months ago (before sending her to collection), had decided to use an e-mail blast and blog to paint an inaccurate picture.

“… After reconciling for a short period, we decided to go ahead and divorce. On top of that, the company I was using to edit my posts and I decided that our working relationship was no longer working,” wrote the image consultant, making the case that, perhaps, she let us go.

In most cases, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought (just like I didn’t give it a second thought several months ago when she posted it). Except this time, she sent the blog link to a compilation of e-mails from a speaking engagement that our company had arranged for her just prior to resigning the account. In other words, the audience just happened to consist of colleagues and clients. Ho hum.

What I Wish Everyone Would Take Away From Social Media

A few days prior, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Al Gibes shared what some of my students at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada might take away from my half-day social media class. (You never really know until you see the post commentary.) An excerpt:

"It's not an opportunity to create 'spin,' but rather authentic information. Be real about your communication," [Becker] said. "We're bombarded with so many messages per day that every message has to count. If you don't manage your message, your message will manage you."

Of all the lines and slides, the one above is precisely what I hope students and professionals take away form what I teach. And, it seems to me, such a shame that the image consultant never did. She would have been better off moving forward instead of looking back.

At the same time, I suppose it raises an interesting lesson for future social media consultants who may one day face a former client who decides to use the tool you taught them against you. What can you do?

A Few Tips For Social Media Pros When Past Clients Go Bad

1. Privately address any concerns that exsting clients who brought it your attention and thank them for doing so. Beyond correcting any inaccuracies, do not use that communication to attack back. It’s not worth it.

2. Privately notify the offending party that you are aware of the inaccuracy, providing them an opportunity to correct the error. If there will be additional consequences, outline what those consequences might be.

3. Consider the audience that is receiving the erroneous information, with the knowledge that most people who spin tend to communicate their own ignorance more than they communicate anything about you. Generally, it’s not worth expanding the audience.

4. If the offending party makes the matter more public (our former client resent the e-mail, without any correction, after being notified), then consider your options including whether or not the incident is a foreshadow of a crisis communication to come. (Fortunately, my example is not.)

5. In some cases, a well-thought out response in the comment of a post might be enough. If comments are moderated on that blog, you can always discuss it on your own after conducting the appropriate assessment.

6. Be prepared. On the off chance that the past client aims to escalate the drama, the general principles of crisis communication may apply. In the end, you always have to have faith that truth has a tendency to win.

For additional insight, consider a few past posts, here and here. Hopefully the takeaway from those will be that social media, especially when it is used for professional communication, is no place to seek out a personal vendetta.

As for the example I shared: since any concerns from those on the list were immediately quelled when the consultant resent the e-mail, I’m inclined to forgive it. After all, we cannot control what people say about us, we can only manage what we say about others and ourselves.

Pushing Print Down: Gloomy Headlines

The Newspaper Association of America (NNA) says newspaper advertising is going to drop another 11 percent this year. Even more troublesome is that the NNA isn't so bullish on online ad revenue growth for newspapers this year, which it sees as low as 1.8 percent. Maybe next year will better, the report says.

Part of the challenge goes beyond the migration pains of moving print to an increasingly digital world. The recession is slowing down local media markets. According to American Express' Open Small Business Monitor as reported by AdvertisingAge, concerns about cash flow have risen since and capital-investment plans are among the lowest since the study first began. Just under half of small-business owners plan to cut back or delay marketing expenditures.

Such cutbacks go much further than impacting newspapers. Local radio and television stations are feeling the pinch. And, along with them, so are the agencies paid to produce the work. Public relations doesn't seem to be exempt, but the idea it owns social media is tenuous at best.

Now everyone wants a piece of any space showing the slightest signs of growth. But trying to crowd ten "social media experts" in a boat built for two seems pretty risky, especially if the pitch sounds even more snake oil than every other Tuesday.

So who will fare well in the communication industry? Like always, companies with diversified interests and relatively few cash cows tend to fare better. Local retail is still very strong and necessary services (like plumbing and electrical) are outpacing others. It's also the reason that some agencies are, so far, content to offer messages of strength.

Why? It's not rocket science. When economic times seem tough, you tend to want to work with those who seem largely unaffected.

You know what I mean? It's hard to buy a newspaper ad when everyone seems to think their money is best spent elsewhere and the industry's decline shows few signs of flattening any time soon. I don't think that's a good thing, but it will not change until newspapers stop forecasting their own demise.

Branding Employees: Chapel vs. Dell

While Tamera Kremer at Wildfire was covering the debate between RichardatDell and the fictional AmandaChapel on the value of making brand ambassadors out of employees, Adweek was covering Zappos.com. Zappos has already moved full steam ahead and is one of many companies that already consider employees brand ambassadors online.

In fact, according to the story, the vast majority of trial and repeat business at Zappos.com is driven by word of mouth and employees. Brian Kalma, director of creative services and brand marketing, employs the term "people planning," arguing that each employee needs to be a great point of contact with customers.

Indeed. So where is the debate?

Based on the comments on Wildfire, it seems Chapel was taking the position that “front-line folks that you’ve assigned to the ‘conversation’ on Dell’s behalf, particularly your Twitter social-media team, are making a complete mess of it.”

Richard has defended the Dell position by saying “We believe that social media helps us foster direct relationships, not just transactions with our customers. Think about your own customer relationships and to what extent they rely on the personal and professional interactions that you have.”

Amazingly, the debate seems to have some social media participants questioning the need to distinguish personal and professional brands online, a notion that seems contradictory to any sense of transparency that social media practitioners claim is critical to success. As I noted on Twitter, "trying to separate personal and professional brands is like arguing that you are a different person when you wear jeans or a suit." We can pretend people are somehow different, but it’s really not true.

Still, that is not to say employees acting as brand ambassadors can enjoy a free-for-all online. Common sense suggests if you wouldn’t say something to a customer offline, it’s probably a good idea to avoid saying it online, where it can be archived forever.

Look offline for online behavior guides.

This isn’t rocket science. The best companies already know that employees tend to be the best brand ambassadors, provided the company benefits from a strong internal communication program.

One of the examples I frequently share in explaining the impact of external public relations on internal audiences is how two different utility rate cases turned out. Without sharing the specifics here, one company started with a proactive internal communication program so by the time the rate case hit the papers, employees could explain the reasons behind the rate increase with friends, family, and neighbors. The other did not. The results were dramatically different, with one rate increase succeeding and other quickly turning into a crisis.

My point is simple enough. Front line employees have always been brand ambassadors. It’s not a new concept. So maybe the real question is: do companies realize blogging is front line communication and are they educating their employees well enough for them to deliver a return? Apparently, Zappos does.

Closing Campaigns: Francis Allen

Many local stations and newscasters attribute former Assemblywoman Francis Allen’s primary loss to her domestic violence charge that was dropped after her soon-to-be former husband recanted his police statement. In reality, it was near constant credibility erosion and inconsistent communication that killed her career.

Here is a truncated hot list from various political mailers and news reports:

• Promised to be strongly opposed to taxes, but would not sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in a district that expects it.

• Was engaged in several ethics complaints. The most recent was filed by a florist after Allen cancelled a check for more than $5,000 for wedding flowers. The business never recovered.

• Sponsored several questionable bills, including one that would have allowed homeowner’s associations to raise fees without resident approval. But Allen was not familiar enough with the bill to address the section that caused it to be vetoed.

• The mailer that claimed an erroneous endorsement that she didn’t have. This was not the first time it occurred during her political career. It was the second.

• The political mailer that seemed to exploit her martial problems after the stabbing scandal and included disparaging remarks about her husband despite the fact he had recanted his story.

There are almost a dozen more, which was my point in a post several days ago. While there is rarely a silver bullet, the daily wear and tear of individual brands will eventually be unrecoverable.

While Allen would have faced a challenging race, the difference between winning and losing came down to a few bad communication choices and an unwillingness to apply the better remedies:

• Allen could have ended speculation about the Taxpayer Protection Pledge by either just signing it or addressing her reasons for not signing it.

• Allen could have offered full disclosure on the complaints, her views, and their outcomes. While voters might not have agreed with her, they may have dismissed some of them.

• Allen could have explained her reasoning on the passage of certain bills, but only attempted to claim she didn’t sponsor them.

• Given the circumstances, Allen should have never claimed the endorsement. At minimum, she should have double-checked with each association.

• While most of the candidates avoided discussing the stabbing scandal, Allen seemed to bring it up frequently. Her decision to run to the problem with a political mailer was ill advised. However, if it did need to be addressed, it needed to be addressed differently and should have avoided any opinions about her husband or whether or not they would be divorced.

Unfortunately for her, communication never seemed to be a strong point. In her concession to challenger Richard McArthur, Allen claimed to have run a positive race. Some people might not agree with that assessment, including voters.

McArthur, a United States Air Force veteran and retired FBI agent, comfortably beat Allen by a 2-to-1 margin in the four-way primary. He had been campaigning door-to-door for 10 months. In addition to some signage and an extensive grass roots campaign, he sent several introduction and contrast mailers that resonated with registered voters. Tomorrow, he’ll start again.

In contrast, Allen relied almost exclusively on name recognition (signage) and direct mail (one-way communication). Case closed.

Sensitizing Americans: Special Interests

There is an interesting twist to two so-called controversial advertisements produced and pulled by Mars Inc. and Heinz Company. According to an Advertising Age article, some people in the United Kingdom aren’t happy that Mars Inc. and Heinz Company pulled advertisements after being pressured by American special interests.

The Mars Inc. commercial featured a speed walker being harassed by Mr. T to become a “real man.” It was targeted by The Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The Heinz Company commercial, which featured a two dad household, was targeted by The American Family Association, which is a Christian activist group. Neither advertisement aired in the United States.

"People in the U.S. tend to be very reactive," Gerry Moira, creative chairman of Euro RSCG, London, told Advertising Age. "Everybody there belongs to a minority — even if there are millions of them.”

One spokesperson for Stonewall, a U.K. gay-rights group, reportedly said the Mars Inc. ad seemed "harmless" and that there was “no suggestion [the speed walker] was gay.” In fact, not even one U.K. gay rights group was bothered by the ad.

All in all, it seems neither the HRC (nor the American Family Association on the opposite end of the spectrum) pressure on companies has made much of a statement for homosexuals or family values. Both groups have, however, made a statement about Americans.

For more some other views, see this post, which includes an interview with Mr. T, and this post for the Heinz ad. The latter, which offended some conservatives and some homosexuals in the United States, received a mere 200 complaints in the U.K. where it aired.

Personally, I think we’re getting ban happy. It’s just too easy to call something like this ad something it’s not.

Knowing The Opponent: Paris Hilton

There is plenty of commentary out there about Paris Hilton responding to a John McCain advertisement that called Barack Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" over Hilton and Britney Spears.

In fact, there is enough buzz that some people are wondering if anything might be gleaned from the original ill-advised commercial that takes a cola vs. cola contrast and turns itself into a cola vs. soda pop uncertainty.

The initial ad and post communication fall flat.

Sure, the McCain advertisement only flashed Spears and Hilton in the opening shots. But considering Kathy Hilton was a McCain campaign contributor, his continued references to the Hilton daughter were bound to backfire.

"It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States." — Kathy Hilton

Initially, McCain aides said there was no sinister intent. But then campaign manager Rick Davis gave reporters a sound bite that demonstrates the opposite.

“Look, it is the most entertaining thing I have seen on TV in a while … I don't know Paris Hilton and Britney Spears but they are international celebrities, so, you know, apples to apples."

Exactly. The campaign was attempting to draw a parallel between Hilton, Spears, and Obama while demonstrating that the McCain campaign is up to speed on celebrity pop culture. We got it.

Except, they aren’t up to speed. Until the McCain comments, Spears and Hilton were still recovering from some self-inflicted brand damage. Now, it seems the advertisement gave at least one of them a lift.

Hilton’s best branding message has always been that she can handily dismiss most critics. She does exactly that in her rebuttal, and then goes a bit further by demonstrating that she can sound just as serious about energy as any presidential contender. So what can the McCain team say now? Nothing.

Keep the focus on one choice and steer clear of other sodas.

Maybe someone needs to remind the McCain campaign team that Paris Hilton is not the opponent. So as good as the comparison could have been for an in-house chuckle, the execution came across like a gym room joke gone wrong. Yep. Sometimes campaign team muses are better left behind closed doors.

What is even more surprising to me is how often it comes up. Last year, Hillary Clinton tried to take a shot a Gen. David Petraeus and it backfired. John Edwards’ campaign was slowed when his opponents became staff members. And Mitt Romney, whom I liked, lost some momentum after taking on an Associated Press reporter.

Locally, it’s the same story. Assemblywoman Francis Allen, who told the press that she would not comment on her most recent scandal, is now attempting to discredit her husband with voters. She sent residents a note that states ...

“I have decided to file for divorce because of my husband’s recent unstable, even volatile, behavior.”

Attempting to target her husband, who recanted his police report after learning Allen would be arrested, certainly wasn’t the answer. If anything, Allen’s risking a libel suit while reinforcing some heavy spin on a story that not all residents knew nor really cared about. With three other challengers poised to unseat her, it doesn’t make sense.

Hmmm … maybe that’s why when Coke and Pepsi were heavily engaged in brand wars, they tended to pair themselves up against each other and not every other soda pop on the planet. Right on. One cola was enough. It's the same in politics: know your opponent.

Pulling Under Pressure: Mars Inc., Nike, Heinz, Verizon

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which is a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, has convinced Mars Inc. to pull an advertisement running in the United Kingdom.

According to the HRC, the ad featured a man whose appearance and actions – speed walking in an exaggerated manner – conjured up stereotypes of gay men. Worse, they say, that the advertisement portrays homosexuals as second-class citizens and that violence against GLBT people is not only acceptable, but humorous.

Although the HRC praised Mars Inc. for the decision, it seems getting the advertisement pulled was not enough. They lamblaste Mars Inc. for another Snickers advertisement that ran in 2007. Ironically, that advertisement seemed to poke more fun at men who were more homophobic than homosexual.

The Guardian, which posted the commercial, has a different opinion. It called the HRC claim — that the speed walker in the spot is homosexual — preposterous. The article suggests that Mars Inc. might listen to Mr. T rather than coddling what seems to be sensationalized oversensitivity. Apparently, Mars Inc. is not the only company.

Nike also pulled advertisements, which can be seen at the Gawker, because it was claimed they carried an anti-gay message despite the context. Verizon also pulled an advertisement under pressure from another activist group.

Meanwhile, Michael Wilke, executive director of Commercial Closet Association, which advocates and honors advertisements that feature gender identity/expression and sexual orientation issues, laughed about the advertisements being pulled.

Bill O’Reilly commented as well. He reminded viewers of a Heinz Company advertisement that was pulled for the opposite reason. It featured two guys kissing. Heinz caved, he said.

All of this sounds familiar to me for some reason. Oh, right.

“… minorities, each ripping a page or paragraph from a book, until one day the books were empty and the minds were shut and libraries were closed.” — Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Ho hum. I’m starting to wonder if I have to write another post about the difference between a writer implying context and a reader inferring context.

You know, based on the release from the HRC, I’m not so sure that Mars Inc. communicated sensitivity to the issue as much as it simply demonstrated its willingness to be browbeaten. And maybe the same can be said for Nike and Heinz and Verizon.

In fact, I’m not even so sure the activists communicated sensitivity to their own issues. It seems to me they all promoted the adoption of inferred stereotypes as identification. And that’s bad for everybody, equally.

Spinning Yarns: Assemblywoman Francis Allen

You can always tell when early voting is in full swing by the amount of political mail stuffed inside the mailbox. My mailbox is no exception. It’s stuffed.

Every few days, I receive one or two campaign mailers from Assemblywoman Francis Allen, who I mentioned on Monday. Allen’s campaign is struggling this election cycle after six years of credibility erosion.

While I supported Allen during her initial run years ago, I am supporting one of her primary challengers this year. The campaign mailer I received yesterday reinforced this decision. The piece lacked credibility.

Political lie detector or poorly disguised mud slinger?

The mailer, entitled “Political Lie Detector,” is meant to resemble a rebuttal piece, which would normally point to errors contained in an opponent’s piece.

Generally speaking, a truthful rebuttal is smart when time and money allow. However, when rebuttals strain to spin the story, it doesn’t work very well.

Where does Francis Allen’s last minute rebuttal mailer go wrong?

Missed Opportunity
Allen says her opponent lied about her being charged with battery domestic violence because the case was dismissed. However, she was charged, the prosecutors are reportedly not letting it go, and her challenger never attacked her on that point. The missed opportunity? The rebuttal doesn’t claim innocence nor did Allen the last time she was asked.

Record Misrepresentation
Allen said her opponent lied about her position on taxes, citing a newspaper editorial that says Allen was a reliable vote against taxes years ago. However, Allen has voted on bills that have allowed for tax and fee increases.

Games With Numbers
Allen said her opponent lied about the number of bills she sponsored. It seems her challenger did not count resolutions, revisions, and bills that didn't represent her district. You can find them here.

Factual Misrepresentation
Allen said her challenger lied about the cost of a bill she sponsored. She said it cost taxpayers nothing. But what many legislators fail to tell voters is that every bill they sponsor costs time and money.

Demonstrative Ignorance
Allen said her challenger lied about her sponsorship of a controversial homeowner’s association bill that would have allowed HOAs to raise fees every year without a vote by those paying HOA dues. But she did. Fortunately, the bill was vetoed.

Overreaching Stories
Allen then overreaches, claiming her opponents placed trashy literature on parishioners’ cars at her church. It seems unlikely to me that any of the opponents she is facing would do that. The risk vs. reward just isn’t there.

In the very next sentence, she reinforces her pledge to run a clean campaign. However, the reality is that Allen has never been known to run a clean race.

Most politicians ask voters to verify facts and Allen is no exception.

So why would someone like Allen put out a piece that misses on every point? Although I do work on select political campaigns from time to time, this is one area of politics that never really sat well with me. But it is what it is.

It seems that Allen is banking on two assumptions: that her challengers have not raised enough funds to correct these errors and that voters will not check the facts.

Whether she is right on either point, I have no idea. We’ll know on August 12.

Eroding Brands: Credibility Gaps

Erosion can be caused by many factors, including manmade. Trampling, for example, can reduce vegetation until the topsoil is removed. Then, as the underlining rock bed is exposed, pathways turn into gullies until they become impassable.

Credibility behaves much the same way. Once admired brands can become unsightly, devalued, and destroyed over time.

A few months ago, we began tracking how the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada mishandled its crisis communication plan shortly after it became responsible for the largest hepatitis C scare in the history of the country.

There is no more Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada.

Instead, a quick search on the Internet will redirect you to a special section of the Southern Nevada Health District’s site, which provides some details about the ongoing
hepatitis C investigation and recommends that former patients receive testing for hepatitis C as well as hepatitis B and HIV.

It didn't happen overnight. As bad as the initial crisis was, it was an ongoing communication lapse that widened the gap. And as the path between the initial story was tread upon over and over again — the initial denial, the lack of empathy in a newspaper ad, the refusal to comment on evidence, and the alleged plans of the primary owner to leave the country — the center's credibility eroded until there was nothing left to believe.

The latest damage? One of the patients was proven to be a known carrier of hepatitis C. That means both the health care provider and the patient knew the virus was in the patient's bloodstream and yet, the flawed and unsafe procedures at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada were allowed to continue, which is why the infection was spread to others.

The gap — an "isolated incident" as originally suggested by the practice and knowingly following unsafe procedures even while treating a carrier of hepatitis C — is now impassable.

There is little chance Francis Allen will be re-elected.

While unrelated, there is another story in southern Nevada that continues to leave some people treading the same ground. A few weeks ago, Nevada State Assemblywoman Francis Allen was arrested and charged with felony domestic violence after her husband had filed a police report stating that she stabbed him with a steak knife.

He quickly recanted the report after learning Allen would be charged with a felony. While the case was dismissed, prosecutors are reportedly seeking a grand jury indictment.

A few of my neighbors asked why the alleged, now recanted, story had convinced so many insiders that Allen cannot be re-elected. Easy.

The stabbing isn't the first phase of erosion. It's one of the last phases. The odd stabbing story might have garnered sympathy on its own, but not when paired with a questionable voting record, numerous ethics complaints filed against her since 2002, and campaign messages that don't match her actions while in office. Even her Photoshopped campaign photo bears little resemble to her likeness or mug shot for that matter.

So the problem isn't the stabbing story as much as it is that voters are tired of treading the same ground over and over again. It's virtually impassible anymore, except to new residents who might believe the myth contained in her campaign literature.

Only the first few stages of erosion seem convenient.

It’s something to keep in mind when it comes to crisis communication, even in social media. There is seldom a single catastrophe or issue or disagreement that will create a credibility gap (even though some people act like it). It's all those future issues that tend to pile up.

Ask President Bill Clinton. Hot button topics like Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky seem easy to escape. Some people even said it made him more human. The constant critiques about him during his wife's campaign proved much more problematic.

One CNN poll suggested his approval rating among Democrats had dropped 9 percent from 60 percent in the short course of one year. It's the price he paid for being too political while on the campaign trail, some say. It's the widening of a credibility gap, I might say.

Marketing Talk: The Recruiting Animal Show

You know I’m meaner now, don’t you?” — The Recruiting Animal

This was the opening sentence in an e-mail that invited me back as a guest on “The Recruiting Animal Shoooow!” While it might have warned some people away from the shock jock of recruiting radio, it didn’t phase me.

Sure, there might have been a time that I would have raised an eyebrow, but not anymore.

When it comes to social media, The Recruiting Animal has branded himself apart from many other people who blog and talk about recruiting by being a little more free spirited, straightforward, sometimes grittier, and always funnier than others who write and talk about similar topics. I respect that.

Some professionals and companies do not. They tend to shy away from social media because they are too afraid of what other people might think, say, or do. Personally, I think that’s baloney. If your professional or company message cannot stand up to a challenge now and again, then your message probably doesn’t have much merit at all.

Maybe that’s why if any central theme did emerge from the show yesterday, it was that most companies, and maybe recruiters, do not know what differentiates them from others in the marketplace, which basically means they don’t have a message.

Right. Simply saying “I’m a recruiter” is not really a message; it’s a job description. So while that might hold up in a casual conversation at a bar, it doesn’t do much to help a prospect decide why they might choose to work with one recruiter over another. It doesn’t hold up very well under a challenge.

Too many people are still putting the cart before the horse.

The problem isn’t exclusive to recruiting. It’s in every industry. It seems most people have no idea what sets them or their company apart from anyone else. Worse, many tell their customers that they want to emulate someone else without any thought given to how they might be different. It even sheds some light on a Twitter comment Animal pointed to just prior to the show.

“I love it when marketing people have NO idea what their client does.” — Yin Chang

Of course marketing people don’t have any idea. Not all of their clients know what their companies do either. And when that is the case, they become delusional and begin to think that simply outpacing the competition’s media buy will be enough. Um, sometimes. Maybe. Not really.

A clear contrast between people or products can help customers, clients, and consumers make the best choice for them. And until professionals and companies begin to define what those contrasts might be, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to fill up space simply because it’s there. It might even be better to stay home if you don't have a message.

The bottom line: if companies invest more time in understanding who they are and what differentiates them in the marketplace, it might become significantly easier to determine where to invest their marketing dollars.

At minimum, it could help a company manage its communication instead of avoiding social media all together or, worse, allowing the long tail of social media to wag the company dog.

Sure, some people claim it was “gutsy” for Chevy Tahoe to “take control of their brand.” When it was brought up during the show, it seemed to me allowing consumers to “control” a brand seemed kind of silly, especially because it put their customers in the line of fire.

But the more I learned about the Chevy Tahoe contest, it didn’t take long to see that GM never gave its brand away to social media as some seem to claim. And, upon closer review, there was hardly ever a crisis.

GM simply engaged consumers and allowed them to make their own commercials. Then, when a small number of people decided to provide an environmental context instead of a commercial context, GM had an opportunity to talk about their increasingly green focus.

So did they ever give control of its brand to someone else? I think not. It seems more likely they were managing their message all along, which is what Steve Hall seemed to conclude as well.

Not that it matters. The Chevy Apprentice contest is over and other than a few ads still appearing on You Tube, all the content, good and bad, is gone.

Advertising Conflict: TBWA Worldwide

Omnicom Group Inc.'s TBWA Worldwide is discovering just how difficult it can to be a global company without a consistent message. Two of its offices produced two different advertising campaigns for the Olympic games.

As covered by The Wall Street Journal, its Beijing office is running a campaign on Chinese pride for Adidas while its Paris office worked on another for Amnesty International that showed Chinese athletes being tortured by Chinese authorities.

According to the story, Chinese bloggers, spurred by a report in state-run media of the Amnesty campaign last week, are now calling for a boycott of all TBWA ads, among other measures.

While Amnesty International decided not to run the ads throughout the Olympics, they did give permission for the agency to run them one time so the agency could enter them in the Cannes competition. Yep, another award blunder. The TBWA ad won a Bronze Star at Cannes.

TBWA’s headquarters in New York has since dismissed the advertisement as “the action of one individual at our agency working on a pro bono account." But some people have pointed out the obvious. More than one person was credited with the Cannes win. And that is nothing compared to the timing of the debacle — TBWA’s major stake in the VISA account is undergoing a global ad review.

Times are changing. As advertising becomes more personal (in part because of social media), consumers seem to want the message makers to be as transparent or at least as authentic as the clients they are writing for — a trend that originally began with consumers scrutinizing which marketers supported (or did not support) which television and radio programs. I’m not always sure this is such a good thing, but it is what it is.

Even more obvious to me, once again, is that agencies and clients lose anytime the decision to do something is tied to awards. Awards are easy. Results are not. While these ads were creative, all they really succeeded in doing was damage everyone involved. And no matter how you spin it, that is not very effective at all.

Faking The Work: Epoch Films And Friends

If you ever wondered what advertising would look like without client approvals, look no further than the J.C. Penney’s advertisement that had the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival roaring.

The ad features two teens that practice how long it takes to get dressed and undressed before “going down to the basement to watch TV.” Um, sure they are.

The racy spot is creative, connects with the target, and works. The only problem is that the advertisement (which has since gone viral) does not consider the client’s brand nor was it ever approved. Worse, it seems, J.C. Penney doesn’t want any association with the ad since it was criticized for promoting high school students having sex (which is always more scrutinized than other endeavors).

Statement From J.C. Penney

"J.C. Penney was deeply disappointed to learn that our name and logo were used in the creation and distribution of a commercial that was submitted to the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes. No one at J.C. Penney was aware of the ad or participated in the creation of it in any way.

The commercial was never broadcast, but rather was created by a former employee at J.C. Penney's advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, solely as an award submission without J.C. Penney's knowledge or prior approval.

J.C. Penney does not approve or condone its content, and we have asked Saatchi & Saatchi to remove the ad from online circulation and to apologize to our customers and our associates for misrepresenting our company in this manner.”

More Fallout From Saatchi & Saatchi

Saatchi & Saatchi immediately confirmed the statement and added that it had no knowledge that the advertisement was submitted, placing full blame on Epoch Films, a third-party production company. However, former Chief Operating Officer Tony Granger, who is now global creative head of WPP Group's Y&R, told AdAge a different story, saying that it was created for an award submission.

Epoch Films and J.C.. Penny are now referring all further inquires to Saatchi & Saatchi. Epoch Films has requested to withdraw the entry.

Final Thoughts

There are many folks in the advertising industry that covet awards (we have more programs than the entertainment industry) because advertising sometimes blurs the lines between commercial and entertainment. However, the real measure of effective advertising remains with the response.

Sure, the second measure, only after the first has been met, might be entering various award programs. But for me at least, the real beauty of the work isn’t just about making a magical commercial — it’s about matching the magic with the brand and having the client approve it. Otherwise, it’s petty easy to be blatantly creative.

In short, receiving recognition for the “honest” spot that never ran wasn’t worth it. And, one might wonder about J.C. Penney and Saatchi & Saatchi. They’ve both earned ample exposure, placing full blame on the smallest vendor to take the fall for releasing one of those nifty ideas that was unfortunately destined for the cutting room floor.

Advertising Frankness: Cottonelle

On the heels of a $100 million “Be kind to your behind” advertising campaign for Cottonelle, Adweek asks whether personal products are becoming too frank for consumers. The new campaign, produced by JWT (New York), skips past fluffy clouds and cuts right to reality.

Mark Wodern, brand manager for Cottonelle, thinks so. He told Adweek that consumers are telling them loud and clear that they have more permission to speak to them directly and more overtly about their behinds, cleaning, and care for their bottoms.

Although some companies are still struggling with the idea, the trend extends beyond personal care. Consumers are growing tired of being sold on sappy, happy feel good moments alone. They want to know what the product or service really does (and I don’t necessarily mean they want it to be crude).

We see it here too. The number of clients who expect their copywriting to “sell” the product or service is diminishing as smarter clients are listening to their customers. Better writing communicates the product’s message.

Sure, writing can still be fun, clever and eye-catching. But not in the way some clients used to think. Consumers are developing an aversion to messages that try to hard — to be funny, to be clever, to seem bigger than they are, and to ‘sell’ the product.

They’re right, of course. Any writing that tries too hard is likely to indicate the opposite. More than one woman has complained about the silliness of the new Always campaign. More than one shopper has figured out that adding “!!!” at the end of the “SALE” does not make it more exciting. And most people have figured out that being “one of the leading companies” simply means it’s not in bankruptcy (maybe).

Of course, before public relations professionals snicker at their advertising peers, I might mention they are no better. Especially in the resort industry, laundry lists of facts and figures about floor space litter every release. Reality check needed? Maybe.

“Honey, where do you want to stay?”

“Um, I want to stay at whatever resort has the most square feet of casino floor.”

“Yeah, me too.”

Come on. It’s not like counting cup holders in a vehicle, which is significantly more important to consumers. Although, I suppose that might be better than calling Playstation 3 “Ready to rumble. It's hot.” It might be marginally more tolerable than duplicating a list of retailers to make the company bigger than it is. And it's absolutely better than asking people to “take the risk” with their antiperspirant.

Tightening Reigns: Drug Advertising Gets Tougher

On the same day that Merck & Co. agreed to pay a $58 million settlement over the marketing of the painkiller Vioxx, Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak called on several drug companies to voluntarily curb advertisements targeting consumers.

"To date, we have not received adequate assurances that the leading pharmaceutical companies share our commitment to providing consumers with accurate information about drug therapies," Dingell, head of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The letter, sent to chief executives at Merck & Co. Inc., Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Schering-Plough Corp, asks them to refrain from marketing products to consumers until certain studies are completed. It also calls for a moratorium on new drug advertising.
The letter must have dampened the message from Merck & Co., which maintains that the company “intended to fully comply with relevant regulations.”

"Merck remains committed to communications that help patients and their physicians choose medicines based on accurate, fair and balanced information," said Bruce Kuhlik, executive vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Today's agreement enables Merck to put this matter behind us and focus on what Merck does best, developing new medicines."

As part of Merck & Co.’s settlement, the company is already banned from ghostwriting articles or studies, deceptively using scientific data when marketing to doctors, and failing to disclose conflicts of interest involving its speakers. All new consumer-targeted television commercials must be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval, which all drug companies are required to do anyway, as of last month.

Meanwhile, Pfizer is still smarting after pulling its long-running advertising campaign that primarily employed Dr. Robert Jarvik as spokesperson for Lipitor. The advertisement was found to be misleading, according to the FDA.

Drug makers spend $30 billion a year marketing products in the United States, up from $10 billion in 1998. The FDA believes that most advertisements are going beyond persuading consumers by misleading them into believing that drugs are safer or more effective than proven.

With the continued poor choice of statements that some companies use in their news releases, it’s a wonder consumers trust them at all. To date, only a lone Johnson & Johnson spokesperson seemed to have it right. She said that they would cooperate with the committee. Perfect.

Checking Reality: Green For A Day?

For all the success of Earthday, there seems to be some cause for concern too . I’m not sure how to describe it. It’s like over commercialization and meaningless messages at the same time.

"Every company is out there touting 'we're green' -- it's the new requirement for being a good corporate citizen," Allen Adamson, managing director of WPP Group's branding consultancy Landor Associates, told The Wall Street Journal. "The noise level is so high now. The first few people into it had some benefit. Now it's a cost of entry.”

The Wall Street Journal article was something I thought about today while meeting with one of our clients — an engineering firm that retrofits boilers, making them more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Enough so that one retrofit is equivalent to planting 700,000 trees. It’s important because of what they do, but it’s not their only message. Their work also achieves payback in less than one year.

And then I thought of some other messages I had seen today: Subaru of America is donating 160 cherry trees across the country; Nokia launched a program to make recycling mobile phones easier. SmarterTravel highlighted “green” travel designations on their Web site.

While there is nothing really wrong with any of it, it does makes me wonder.

Do these more frivolous pursuits for media attention do any good? Or do they merely distract from people and companies who do things daily? Does seeing a commercial with two Anheuser-Busch employees talking about the environment make you want to buy the beer? Was Wal-Mart really smart to declare April "Earth Month?" Should we all send Earthday cards around the planet from now on?

I don’t know. Maybe that’s the difference between participation and engagement. You can celebrate Earthday today and/or you can do something about the environment daily.

We’re dropping some artificial turf in the backyard tomorrow, which makes sense when you live in a desert. (Water conservation is a big deal here.) I suppose I could have issued a news release and called it an Earthday solution.

But given we can only communicate so many messages about ourselves and hope to have any one of them be remembered, there wasn’t much point in pretending. Huh. Maybe we could call that message conservation.

Right on. Let's make Earthday daily, but not a marketing gimmick or public relations stunt. We have enough of those already.

Playing In The Road: State Needs PR Help

Sometimes elected officials are only as good as their advisors. One wonders what Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons’ advisors were thinking recently, allowing the governor to address the crisis surrounding the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, almost a full month late, without the most basic facts, and without any sense of empathy for those affected.

Instead, he came out against the media, criticizing them for their “buffoonery” in covering the health crisis caused by the Endoscopy Center and downplaying the roll of majority owner Dr. Dipak Desai, despite mounting public testimony that Desai and other doctors directed nurses to employ unsafe practices.

John L. Smith, columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, lists dozens of mistakes made by the governor today. Smith likens him to a clown, with a rubber nose and oversized bow tie. David McGrath Schwartz of the Las Vegas Sun called it a crisis response dance.

Papers across the state have published similar reviews, likening the stunt to playing in traffic. It hardly matters that the governor regretted his words the next day.

“My intention was to be sure that people were not fearful of seeking medical care because of the intense media coverage, it was a poor choice of words and I regret it,' Gibbons had said, referring to “buffoonery.”

He might regret them even more. After several members of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners revealed ties to the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and recused themselves from any investigation, Gibbons called for their resignations as well as that of the board’s executive director. Some publicly stated today that they have no intention of stepping down. Maybe they sense the obvious.

But this post isn’t about the governor. It’s about communication.

If the intent of the communication was to instill confidence in a health care system under fire, the better message needed to be about 180 degrees different. What could it have been? Here is a five-minute solution, painfully better than the one delivered over the weekend.

• There is a health care crisis; empathy for those affected
• That any Nevadans (regardless how few) are affected is not acceptable or tolerable
• There are many excellent doctors doing their best to help statewide
• There is a cross-agency investigation being undertaken by the state
• A task force is making recommendations to ensure it does not happen again
• Board members with conflicts of interest might ask themselves if they can meet their obligations to the state
• But above all, if you or a loved one is affected, it is important for you and your family to be tested. It’s the right and responsible thing to do.

In addition, the state could have recognized several medical facilities that are offering educational seminars to help people who need to be tested. And, it could have urged Nevadans to give blood. Donations at United Blood Services’ five fixed sites have dropped 25 percent since the crisis began in early March.

That is the message the state needed. Instead, the wrong message had the opposite impact. It has further shaken the citizens’ confidence in the center, in the health care system, and in the state.

It didn’t have to be that way. Crisis communication 101 suggests that you never adopt someone else’s crisis as your own. Or, in other words, no brand is so invincible that it belongs playing in the road against oncoming traffic while cursing at delivery boys when they drive by. You know, they don't ride bicycles anymore. Someone might get hurt.

Communicating To Employees: Obvious But Overlooked

Last Thursday, Joanna Blockey, ABC, communication analyst for Southwest Gas Corporation, help put the crossover impact of external and internal communication into perspective as a guest speaker in my Writing For Public Relations class at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

While Southwest Gas Corporation has a well-defined program, she pointed out that many companies do not. Some employers still believe that "providing a paycheck" is the company’s only obligation to employees.

“We communicate to approximately 3,200 employees and retirees at Southwest Gas Corporation,” said Blockey. “It would be a mistake to discount them because they are one of our most important publics. Every day, employees go home with a message about the company.”

And then what happens? They talk to friends and family.

Considering some studies place the average person’s number of friends somewhere between 25 and 35, one internal impression about a company can travel considerable distance. At Southwest Gas Corporation for instance, 3,200 employees and retirees could deliver 96,000 impressions about the company. If these friends pass that impression on to even half of their friends, the impression count suddenly reaches 1.5 million people. It doesn’t end there nor does it consider the number of employees who communicate online.

It didn’t seem like it in January, but Yahoo has learned this lesson the hard way. More than one employee has made their layoff public. This communication, which started with 87 connections on Twitter, has since circled the globe and been picked up by the media. That's just one person.

It's something we alluded to back in Jaunary. Employees don’t like the uncertainty created at Yahoo, a message reinforced by Jerry Yang, chief executive, when he botched the balance between being empathetic for the 1,000 employees to be laid off, which started last week, and being bullish on streamlining the company for non-internal shareholders.

Add up employee impressions alone and you'll discover Yahoo is struggling against the weight of more than 3 million low morale impressions per day, which doesn’t even count that some employees have hundreds or thousands of connections online. Suddenly, this seems to make the recently added "padded" severance packages, for employees and top executives in the event of an acquisition, not all that comforting. In fact, the idea of a Yahoo buyout doesn’t even seem very comforting to Microsoft employees either.

All communication overlaps, inside and out.

Seattle Times reporter Benjamin Romano recently published part of one Microsoft internal communication sent by Kevin Johnson, president of the platform and services division at Microsoft.

"While some overlap is expected in any combination of this size," it said, "we should remember that Microsoft is a growth company that has hired over 20,000 people since 2005, and we would look to place talented employees throughout the company as a whole."

It then when on to shed light on just how important advertising has become to Microsoft executives: "Respect for both the creative and analytical aspects of advertising is core to both companies, along with recognition that advertising is an industry that represents opportunity and growth."

The full communication seemed to have several purposes. In addition to fending off growing concerns that a Yahoo acquisition could lead to Microsoft layoffs, it’s a message to internal Microsoft shareholders (meaning employees). It’s also a message to Yahoo employees (who are also Yahoo shareholders). And, it's carefully written in case it might land someplace else like, um, the Seattle Times.

Communication doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Watson Wyatt, a global consulting firm, released some key findings to consider about employee communication in its 2007/2008 report: Communication ROI Study
Secrets of Top Performers: How Companies With Highly Effective Employee Communication Differentiate Themselves.

• Effective employee communication is a leading indicator of financial performance.
• Effective employee communication translates into a 15.7 percent increase in the market value of a company.
• Effective employee communication increases employee engagement, which translates into better relationships.

The reasons are simple. There has never been a barrier between internal communication and external communication, except for the delusional beliefs of some executives. Simply put, if you cannot get the employees to buy into the company, then how you can expect customers to buy into its products and services?

People, like some companies, make the same mistakes.

The mistake in attempting to apply spatial barriers onto non-spatial ideas, as if things don't overlap, is not limited to business communication. It's an idea that keeps being transposed onto social media and social networks over and over again.

People attempt to define themselves like companies define themselves. They talk in terms that make the company-individual seem like it is the center of the universe with various social networks hovering around them like little planets, not at all different from the geocentric system debunked by Galileo.

Ergo, social networking is better represented by people orbiting an unknown center. On the Internet, they don't orbit a network but rather pass through networks much like they pass through networks in life. Their orbit takes them through this industry, that industry, work, home, friends, etc. Along the way, they leave little bits of communication.

Sure, I know this may seem terribly philosophical to some, but it’s the truth. Human nature is not all that different than nature, which is why employers need to ask themselves what they are communicating and where that communication will be left as their employees go about their daily lives. And then, where will that communication go from there?

Had Yahoo asked these questions months ago, I bet they would have considered a different communication strategy all together. You think?

Corresponding Attorneys: Andrew Dwyer

Corresponding by e-mail with Andrew Dwyer, the employment litigation specialist who owns The Dwyer Law Firm, L.C.C. and is representing Steve Biegel in the Biegel vs. Dentsu case, reminded me why some reporters become cynical over time.

Many journalists are privately bombarded with persuasive babble, coercion, and spin, based on little more than the erroneous notion: if the reporter writes what we want, they are intelligent; if they do not, they are “morons.”

Journalists are not really paid enough to put up with it, but they do.

For those who have been following the suit, a District Court judge recently rejected Dentsu's motion for a summary judgment in the case of Steve Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings. It really wasn’t enough for me to post about, but I added it as an update to previous posts, preferring to wait to see how things plod along before considering it a topic again.

The reason Dwyer contacted me yesterday was to retract a comment that I left on a MultiCultClassics post, which had less to do about Biegel and more to do with some anti-Japanese sentiments that were anonymously left on my blog and elsewhere. Specifically, Dwyer claimed that I had “endorsed” the author, HighJive, whom he has a very low opinion of; that I called his client, Biegel, intolerant against Japanese and a “racist;” and that I might even qualify where I was in agreement with the other author and where I was not.

All of this comes from an attorney who previously told me “none of the posts on any of the blogs will ever have any relevance, except perhaps to support our claims of retaliation by Dentsu.” For someone who had expressly stated his low opinion of blogs in general and dismissed them, there seems to be ample attention paid to them outside the public eye as well as any comments that might accompany them.

No matter. Some might also consider it admirable that Dwyer is obviously looking out for his client. And given that, I did add clarification to the comment.

Unfortunately, the clarification was not good enough. Dwyer wanted a complete retraction and/or removal of the aforementioned comment, which I am not inclined to do because I did not call Biegel intolerant of Japanese.

In lieu of this, I suggested highlighting some of the more interesting points, especially since Dwyer said he would “love” to post his e-mail to me on the MultiCultClassic blog, but the author allegedly only allows comments that fit his agenda. Dwyer rescinded the idea, objecting to anything except the publication of his entire e-mail, going so far to suggest that if I only published portions of it, he would never correspond with me again. In other words, Dwyer is only inclined to allow public discourse to take place when it fits his agenda.

Around and around we go.

Without some compelling reason, I have no intention of publishing his e-mails as this blog tends toward being an op-ed on communication and not Dwyer’s forum for retaliation against the opinions of others. Besides, it would likely be embarrassing for him if I did. Ironically, this is why many journalists probably would publish them, or portions of them, as they feel fit.

So what is the takeaway? If you don’t like "the circus" atmosphere surrounding a subject, then don't create that atmosphere by lending heavy-handed e-mails to it. In this case, Dwyer continually risks more than he hopes to gain by writing e-mails that aim at little more than persuading people to do his bidding behind the scenes.

While it has no bearing on what my opinion might be in terms of the ongoing Biegel vs. Dentsu case, it certainly has a bearing on my opinion of the value of Dwyer’s correspondence. While he closed his last e-mail saying he wouldn’t waste his time thinking I am any different than the HighJives of the world, I couldn’t help but think he wasted mine given he opened with a similar statement.

Don’t they know anything? I might care what Dwyer thinks, but I really don’t care what he thinks about me. Most journalists are the same way. Some bloggers are too. And if he thought more about his communication, he might have better served himself and, who knows, perhaps his client too.

Instead, he did neither. There is no retraction. His points are not heard. And, on the contrary, the comment in question is more prominent than ever. With results like these, one can only hope his effort doesn’t end up in the billable column.

Checking Reality: Business Blog Validity

Liz Fuller, who writes Business and Blogging, recently pulled together a list of Fortune 500 blogs. In sum, she found 8 percent of Fortune 500 companies had some level of corporate blogs. Two of the top ten — GM and GE — have blogs.

The GM Fastlane Blog, of course, has been sourced as a best practice staple for some time. It appeared in my first presentation on business blogs in 2005, cited for its human approach, industry insights, product updates, press rebuttals, industry passion, and responsiveness.

While Fuller meant her post to be a precursor to evaluating 41 corporate blogs — the good, the bad, and the ugly — in the weeks ahead, longtime recruiting blogger and recently named “Best Recruiting Blogosphere Personality” Recruiting Animal flipped the headline to conclude Business Blogging Flops, adding in a reference to The Guardian article that notes the one percent rule is an emerging trend.

The One Percent Rule

The one percent rule is that if you have a group of 100 people, one will create content, 10 will interact, and 89 percent will just view it. That’s about right, unless you nurture engagement.

For example, our BlogStraightTalk group has 200 members with slightly better numbers, with 10 percent helping to create content, 30 percent offering comment, 50 percent viewing it, and 20 percent never dropping by again. However, although I have been focused on other projects, encouraging engagement is by design.

Honestly, this isn’t all that much different from face-to-face organizations. Without encouraging engagement, members of any organization, regardless of where it forms, will likely follow similar behavioral patterns: 1-10 percent lead, 10-20 percent manage, 30-80 quietly participate, and the balance forgets why it joined in the first place.

There is no difference, leaving The Guardian’s information interesting, but its conclusion is invalid because it fails to draw a comparison to real life.

Business Blogs Flop?

This knowledge brings us back to the headline flip. It seems to me that blogs and other social media/new media applications are sometimes too easily dismissed as viable because the expectation is an 80-100 percent adoption rate.

This isn’t realistic. In fact, with the possible exception of business cards, I don’t believe any communication tactic —brochures, newsletters, radio, television, Web sites, etc. — has an 80 percent adoption rate. So why have we set the expectation higher for the newest communication tool on the block?

Exactly. It doesn’t make sense.

The Truth About New Media

I can no longer open any communication-related publication without reading about the application of social media. Even Communication World (CW), which is a magazine for communication management, promoted “Social Media: Extend Your Reach” on the cover of its Jan.-Feb. issue.

Given the organization that publishes CW tends to be more conservative and representative of corporate communicators than advertising agencies and maybe public relations firms, it seems to me they present an accurate picture of where business communication is headed. Much of it will be online.

Will that mean every company will have a blog? Probably not. But not every company buys a television spot either. There are virtually hundreds of ways that companies can become engaged in social media on some level. And there are dozens of ways to employ a blog to fit the specific strategic communication needs of a company.

As I’ve pointed out several times, a company might not have a formal social media program in place, but they are most certainly engaged in it whether they know it or not.

For example, Bank of America might not have a blog, but I have more than 500 network connections (the maximum number returned) to existing and former Bank of America employees and associates in my Linkedin network alone. Even more telling, a quick Google blog search on “Bank of America” reveals more than 2.7 million hits on blogs. (That’s just blogs.) Similar results turn up on the other eight companies that round out the Fortune 500 list.

Simply put, most companies are engaged in new media. Whether or not they monitor or manage their message or support a corporate blog is a different question. Because the truth is, whether they do or not, it seems painfully obvious that their customers, vendors, and employees do.

Beginning 2008: The Year Of New Media

Happy New Year!

Last year, we rang in the New Year with a living communication crisis case study occurring at a Seattle company. While unfortunate, I am sure there will be many more crisis communication case studies this year.

Most of them will not be all that different — communication that spirals out of control and erodes consumer and employee confidence until someone is ousted, reprimanded, or worse.

I’ll likely be critical as they occur, offering solutions as they are often apparent, but not because I enjoy being a critic. On the contrary, I’d rather communication professionals learn the easy way through wisdom than the school of hard knocks. This blog is meant to be as educational as it is sometimes (I hope) entertaining.

In fact, many of the subjects I cover here are inspired by several classes I am teach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Right. Although some people miss the occasional mention, I also teach at UNLV.

This year, I’ll be infusing more emphasis on new media. I will be, not only because I believe it’s a viable communication tool that we’re deploying for several clients at Copywrite, Ink., because the changing communication landscape demands it.

Whether companies realize it or not, they are already engaged in social media, or new media, as some prefer to call it. There is not a single company on the planet that can truthfully claim none of its employees blog, micro-blog, participate in a social network, or are completely uninfluenced by some aspect of new media.

Even someone who never connected to the Internet is being touched by new media on daily basis. It’s on the news. It’s in the paper. It’s talked about by friends and colleagues. And almost always, there is at least one co-worker who has been influenced.

The way I see it, if there is one question to be asked in 2008, it isn’t when your company will enter social media, but when will your company recognize that it already is in social media. And, knowing this, when will it consider managing the new media message that already exists. Here are three ways to find the answer.

UNLV Class Schedule — Richard Becker

Writing For Public Relations — 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Jan. 17 – March 13

Writing For Public Relations is a skills development class that focuses on the application of strategic communication into public relations with an emphasis on practical writing skills. Students learn a variety of writing styles and how to best apply them to: news releases, fact sheets, biographical sketches, feature stories, media kits and social media/new media. (CEUs: 2.00)

Editing and Proofreading Your Work — 9 a.m. to noon, March 1

Editing And Proofreading Your Work is half-day day session that focuses on improving clarity, consistency, and correct usage in personal and business correspondence. It includes essentials such as language, mechanics of style, spelling, and punctuation.

Social Media For Communication Strategy — 9 a.m. to noon, May 2

Social Media for Communication Strategy focuses on increasing the use of online technologies to share content, opinion, insight, and experience. Collectively, these technologies shape more opinion than all other media combined and have changed the communication landscape. (CEUs: .3)

Of course, you can always read this blog from time to time. I cover slivers of class topics right here. My company also provides a custom new media analysis in our proposals upon request. And, we are well seasoned in providing words, concepts, and strategies in every industry.