Branding Wars Ahead

What's in a name?

Last July, BusinessWeek reported that Apple's global brand value was up almost 14 percent over 2005, placing it 39th among all globally recognized brands. The publication also estimated Apple's total brand value at almost $9,130 million, fueled largely by stylized iPod, iTunes, and iMac product lines. With that in mind, it was no surprise that Apple was rumored to be releasing an "iPhone" sometime in 2007.

What is a surprise: Linksys (a division of Cisco Systems, Inc.) launched an "iPhone" family of products for the holidays. But, despite boasting Internet services that use Skype and Yahoo! Messenger, most reviews have been less than stellar and include the added pressure of Cisco being accused of "stealing" an Apple brand identifier.

Russell Shaw over at ZDNet has a comprehensive overview of the proceedings (which does not include Apple) along with various filing reports. What he did not note, however, was that Cisco filed its "iPhone" trademark 10 years ago, with the mark published for opposition as early as Dec. 1998. That seems to predate most Apple "i" products, with exception to the iMac.

Still, it's a safe bet that Apple is hoping the Linksys phone might eventually get an unfriendly call from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is currently sorting through four "live" trademark assignments that include "iPhone" or derivative terms. It seems to me that Apple's wish would have less to do with the name of its future phone and more to do with any brand damage caused by a Linksys "i" product that is less phone (as the original application suggested) and more VoIP.

Simply put, Apple might not want to be associated with it. Even more ironic, Cisco's decision to rightfully use a trademark it has owned for 10 years might backfire anyway, forcing the company to spend millions in repackaging. You see, while the "iPhone" might be their trademark, Apple's brand mastery over "i" products has grown exponentially in 10 years.

In the end, Cisco, right or wrong, knowingly or unknowingly, has started a brand war. And, like all wars, there is hardly ever a clear winner when the smoke settles and investors wonder what they got for it. It seems to me that Apple would be wise to sit this one out, letting the others fight it out for the right to use a trademark that Apple might not own, but clearly dominates. Besides, Apple may have never intended to call its product an "iPhone" anyway.

Leveraging Blog Space

Payperpost.com is asking bloggers to create a post on their blogs, paying attention to the "opportunity requirements" that specific advertisers have set forth. Then, the blogger must submit the direct link to Payperpost, who will review the content and approve or deny the post (unless they get busy). If it is denied, they give the blogger a chance to revise and resubmit. (In sum, you can turn your blog into an advertorial as opposed to an editorial.)

It's an interesting idea that has been around for some time. What's a little fresher as a concept is that Payperpost.com also launched Rockstartup, which is either a very clever or very deceptive step in Web advertising because it takes on the guise of a Web 2.0 reality TV show (dedicated exclusively to one young entrepreneur "building the next monster company"). Of course, they aren't alone in taking bloggers seriously.

A less hyped approach to finding bloggers is being offered by Umbria Inc., which is self-defined as a market intelligence company that specializes in blog research and consumer-generated media (CGM) for market insight, today released Umbria Connect, a service that provides URL source lists to companies hoping to connect with individual bloggers. Basically, the company gathers publicly available CGM sources to locate individual bloggers writing about topics or themes of interest to marketers and then sells the blog URLs to help marketers engage bloggers. (Telemarketing and junk mail at its core, minus the telephone.)

Umbria Connect defines itself as a way to connect people who care deeply about specific topics in order to help companies take advantage of product/feature attitudes, word-of-mouth campaigns, marketing and advertising tests, custom marketing panels, and competitive perception insight. Business Week defines it as “a system to sift through millions of blogs in real time, looking for market intelligence. Umbria breaks down English messages into the smallest components—words, phrases, grammar, even emotions—and turns them into math." You can define it for yourself at Umbria.

While these are just a few examples to dispel any notion that blogging is already dead in its tracks (as some ignorant communications specialists claim), such maneuvering in the marketplace could actually cause the demise of many bloggers, if they are too eager to be taken in under someone else's agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's always nice to know if the blog source is on the product payroll.

Blurring Blog News

Someone was bound to get it wrong sooner or later and unfortunately for Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, it was him. Maybe.

Arrington is the editor of TechCrunch US, a weblog which is dedicated to "obsessively" profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. Founded in 2005, the weblog reviews those that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new Web space. In addition to TechCrunch US, Arrington oversees TechCrunch UK, which was edited and published by Sam Sethi.

As the story goes, Sethi did his job. He wrote two honest, but critical reviews of this week's social media conference Le Web that mirrored the feedback that most delegates and attendees shared, with Loic Le Meur receiving the brunt. According to most reports, Sethi's critical review of Le Web drove a wedge between him and Le Meur, which escalated to Le Meur writing on Sethi's blog: "You are just an asshole."

The next day, Sethi was fired. The offending posts were removed. All comments were removed. And Arrington announced that TechCrunch UK was being put on hold. According to blogger Drew B, more posts were deleted beyond TechCrunch, including an EirePreneur post titled "Arrington falls out with Sam Sethi, surprise victim of Le Web3."

Arrington, by his own hand, will be the next victim on a much grander scale as the Web media is chastising him and calling his ethics into question since he fired someone for, in essence, doing their job. He should have expected as much, given that his blog is defined as "obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies." The definition alludes to the idea that he was creating a non-biased technology-focused Web news organization.

Now it seems that this is not the case as Le Meur obviously held more weight over Arrington than his UK counterpart. Unfortunately for TechCrunch, two years of hard work is about to go up in smoke after a few minutes of poor judgement. Sure, TechCrunch is a commercial entity. All media outlets are.

What Arrington did not consider however, is that honest reviewers do not buckle from outside corporate pressure, no matter how big and influential they seem or if advertising dollars are at stake. (This is the stuff you learn working for print publications, and I've worked at and managed several). Even if he disagreed with Sethi, it should not have resulted in termination, especially since it was painfully obvious Sethi had sided with the vast majority of delegates that attended. Simply put, it seems if he would have written a pro Le Web commentary, it would have been a lie.

The ethical dilemma of whether or not to cater to corporations is not new for print or electronic media. It happens every day. Both views are right with respective consequences.

As publisher and top editor, Arrington certainly has the final say about the stance his blog will take on any subject. There are plenty of publishers out there willing to cater to certain corporate interests. The consequence is credibility. It will be hard for his readership to consider his opinion unbiased anymore. Of course, being little more than ''public relations'' publications can mean big bucks.

However, if he really wanted to do what he set out to do — write honest reviews and allow his partners to do likewise — well then, reporting the truth is the ultimate ethical guideline. And, even if he disagreed, he would have stood by Sethi every step of way. Certainly it might have meant being blacklisted by Le Meur, but better Le Meur than the entire world.

When I managed a publication a few years ago, I often found myself in a position between being a publisher who had to bring home the bacon and the editor who had to report the truth. The decision was easy for me. If I couldn't be honest, I'd rather not write about it no matter what the consequences. The result was a publication that was respected with plenty of advertisers happy to make up for any that fell by the wayside because of editorial/advertiser disputes.

But that was me as a publisher. Arrington obviously sees the world differently, given he went even further than most pay-for-print publishers and deleted a published opinion because he found it objectionable for reasons only he would know. A second commentary refuting Sethi would have been the wiser decision.

Fixing User-Driven Content

The Reddit outage seems to be posing an interesting problem for future online media. What happens when the lights go out?

Like any company, online or off, contingency and/or crisis communication plans have to be in place if you want to preserve your market share in the morning. Since Reddit, which allows users to post links to content on the Web and other users to vote those links up or down, didn't have any semblance of a plan B in place (and cut off its own communication to spite those pesky spambots driving up irrelevant stories), its rival, Digg, is being given another chance to fend off a rival and capture Reddit's social content posters.

While it's unclear if Digg will be able to capitalize on this on not, it does remind content providers that Web companies are not exempt from the principles of strategic communication. This is especially true if your tech savvy homepage subscribers retain that ever present and unpleasant feeling that your platform is unreliable.

Sure, problems abound on the Internet. Sites sometimes go down and service providers go dark. It's par for the course. And once again, we see the measure of reliability generally resting with the ability to communicate a message. For example, our service provider has dropped our site and e-mail ability once or twice during hurricanes and upgrades, but is reasonably reliant on informing clients on the status of the situation. Blogger can sometimes be a bit buggy too, but it seems adept at confining problems to functions without major content crashes. Its customer service reporting is surprisingly fair for a free service.

Reddit, on the other hand, has made the mistake of going dark, effectively cutting off its own ability to communicate at the same time. Too bad. It seems like just yesterday it was all the buzz because PC World magazine gave it the nod over Digg, citing Reddit's user comments and the site's ability to make recommendations to other users based on past story selections. It's hard to tell whether PC World will be reversing that decision, given that Reddit was, at least temporarily, dead.

California-based Digg ranks No. 78 on the Web according to Alexia. Reddit has made a strong showing, climbing to 804. Unfortunately for fans, it demonstrated why sometimes relying on a site that was operated by three full-time workers and a part-time graduate student in a three-bedroom apartment in Davis Square just six months ago, might not be the best bet.

Or maybe it will be, assuming Reddit's team learns the hard way that a crisis communication plan (and a medium to communicate) isn't really optional. And, once you're back up (it has been up and down all day), it's always good to explain what happened, up front rather than buried away somewhere, who knows where, on its site. We wish them luck.

Using Web Tools

In case you have not noticed, there is a communication revolution occurring on the Internet that will eventually threaten anyone in advertising who forgets that it is a strategic and creative idea (and the ability to communicate that idea) — not technology —  that makes all the difference. An arsenal of design programs and commercial printer discounts are no longer enough to keep accounts happy.

Our last minute holiday greeting cards provide the perfect example. Five years ago, we made a substantial investment to produce Addy award-winning cards, using the traditional process. Provide creative direction and copy to a selected local designer, print them at one of our local printers, and assemble the rest in the office (the cards included a silver dollar and hand-stamped wax seals). The cost was around $10 per card. The turnaround time was nearly three months. The quantity was 500, about 380 more than we needed at the time.

Don't get me wrong; they were worth it. We still have several clients refer to them, and they were part of a bigger strategic plan for our company. I would do it all over again given the same circumstances.

Last year, those circumstances did not exist. We were too busy in October or November to get the ball rolling. After all, the standard rule of thumb is 2-3 weeks for the designer (even more on elaborate jobs) and 10 business days for printing.

Sure, we could have done what we sometimes do for clients who want design along with great copy: tap an out-of-market designer from our international talent pool, which reduces the cost by 50 percent and the turnaround to a few days. But even then, we didn't have 10 days for the printer.

So last year, we settled for 250 Hallmark cards with our name inscribed inside for around $3.50 per piece. It's the thought that counts, right? So this year, on Dec. 1, we started thinking differently.

Despite the same time constraints, we were able to produce and print a custom card, at about $2 apiece with no minimum, in three days. And, we also posted a public version that could (and can) be purchased by anyone before our order was filled. If you want to see the public version (without our logo inside), visit Think! Copywrite, Ink. store.

Sure, this year's card will not be featured in Communication Arts, but next year's might be. You see, the main point of this post is that our industry might consider thinking differently because the definition of 'value' is shifting.

Program reliant production artists, template web designers, low-grade video producers, mid-grade photographers, and 10-day print jobs with minimum quantity orders are all endangered species. Technology is no longer enough to sustain them as commercial communication is finally getting back to where it is most effective: communication ideas over tech suaveness.

Killing Christmas Trees

All the Christmas trees at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport were taken down overnight after one complaint. It was made by a rabbi (along with the Central Organization for Jewish Learning) who threatened a lawsuit unless the airport agreed to put up "an eight-foot menorah to balance the message of the Christmas trees."

The airport decided it would be easier to remove the trees that some identify as a Christian symbol than fight a lawsuit or build the menorah. It will be the first time the airport will abandon its 25-year tradition of placing a tree at each of the 15 airport entrances.

The Seattle story is the polar opposite of another in Michigan, where a bipartisan capitol committee recently voted unanimously to rename the capitol's 61-foot blue spruce a “Christmas tree” as opposed to calling it a "holiday tree." The same committee rejected the state house's urging to create a joint display — a Christmas tree and a Hanukkah menorah — after a Jewish group said it's a religious symbol that would violate the separation of church and state. This Jewish group has no problem with the tree.

While not attempting to appear unsympathetic to the plight of the Seattle rabbi, there seems to be too much emphasis on the perceived power of symbols in the United States with little regard to the First Amendment or any understanding that symbols might mean different things to different people, including Christmas trees.

Depending on the source, the symbol of a Christmas tree is ripe with interpretation despite its close association with Christianity. One source places its origins 1,000 years ago when St. Boniface, who converted German people to Christianity, came across a group of pagans worshipping an oak tree. He cut down the oak tree, but to his amazement, a young fir tree sprung up from its roots. St. Boniface took this as a sign of the Christian faith.

Another source credits Martin Luther, who is said to have attached lighted candles to a small evergreen tree, trying to simulate the reflections of the starlit heavens as they appeared over Bethlehem on the first Christmas Eve. The Christmas tree star topper (or angels) are said to represent the Star of Bethlehem.

Others look further back to the Egyptians who celebrated winter solstice by bringing in green date palms, the Romans who raised an evergreen bough during the feast of Saturn, the early Scandinavians who paid homage to the fir tree, the Druids who considered the springs of an evergreen to be holy, and the Norsemen who felt they symbolized the revival of the sun god Balder. Take your pick.

Trees are not exclusive to one faith. In fact, the very idea of celebrating Christmas on December 25 was less than exclusive. It was originated by the Catholic Church to eclipse the festivities of rival pagan religions in the 4th century. (Jesus was believed to have been born in the spring.)

Anyway, what is more certain about Christmas trees is that they traveled across Europe to England after Queen Victoria visited relatives in Coburg, Germany, and fell in love with Prince Albert. After they were married and returned to England, Prince Albert decorated a tree with the finest of hand-blown glass ornaments. It was so admired by common citizens, they copied the tree and the couple's customs, partly, in recognition of their love. In France, it was introduced for a similar reason: Princess Hélène de Mecklembourg brought a tree to Paris after her marriage to the Duke of Orleans.

In the United States today, almost 80 percent of non–Christian citizens celebrate Christmas and 96 percent of the total population celebrates it (including some Jewish families), which raises some question of whether or not a Christmas tree is exclusive to Christianity (even the church has banned them on occasion).

Perhaps, like all symbols, the meaning remains in the eye of the beholder. For Christians, the Christmas tree means something. For non-Christians, it means something different.

But for all of us, the move to ban any holiday symbol in fear that other symbols might be excluded is wrought with ignorance and intolerance. It is also contrary to spirit of the First Amendment, which is meant to protect all voices. It is not meant to censor others out of fear that not everyone will be equally represented.

The bottom line, from a communication standpoint, is that symbols are funny things. They only have power when they are given power by the perception of people. For one rabbi, a Christmas tree represents the prevalent spirit of giving among many faiths in America. For another in Seattle, it seems to mean the exclusion of his faith in America. Ironically, for the latter, his apparent fear of exclusion gives the symbol much more power than the first, but with a twisted meaning.

Now that's something to think about in a country that has defined the Confederate flag as politically intolerant and the Mexican flag (over the United States flag) as a beacon of tolerance. Neither was meant to signify the meaning they have recently been assigned, except by those promoting their own fear and intolerance.

For me, at the end of the day, when I see a Christmas tree or a crucifix or a kinara or a menorah, all I see is the United States, a country that allows people to celebrate and share their holiday rituals openly, without fear of persecution. Let's try to keep it that way.

Taking The Bottom Position

Two days ago, we alluded to the idea that Julie Roehm was only the first casualty of a Wal-Mart insider marketing war. Yesterday, the fine folks at Draft FCB found out they were the next to go, just weeks after they crowed about being in the 'top position,' partly because they won the account. I guess it's back to the bottom position for them, making their ill-advised ad the ultimate case study for irony in advertising.

The not-so-surprising news yesterday was that Wal-Mart quickly overturned Roehm's Draft FCB choice, putting $580 million worth of advertising purchase power back on the table. Several major agencies are already pulling together their marketing plans for the nation’s largest retailer.

Ms. Roehm maintains that she did not accept gifts from agencies vying to become Wal-Mart advertising superstars or that her relationship with subordinate Sean Womack violated company policies. Instead, she told The New York Times: “I think part of my persona is that I am an envelope pusher,” she said last night. “The idea of change in general can be uncomfortable for many people, and my persona as an agent of change can prompt that feeling.”

This seems to be a spin contrary to her attendance at a September dinner given by Draft FCB at the Manhattan hot spot Nobu, where she allegedly explained her presence as one of those cases where “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.” Unfortunately for Roehm, sometimes you do get what you don't ask for, since Wal-Mart has ruled the search process was "tainted by the pair’s behavior and should be reopened."

Draft FCB's (part of the Interpublic Group of Companies) stock fell 6.4 percent on the news it had lost the account. As I often advise clients in Roehm's position and higher, behavior is easily managed. Unless you'll be proud to see the story appear in the Wall Street Journal, er, The New York Times, don't do it!

All cloak and dagger courtships aside, Draft FCB was not ready for the holiday season and neither was Roehm, based on a USA Today story that weak Wal-Mart sales are dampening holiday season hopes.

What USA Today seems to miss is that the 'dampener' might be all Wal-Mart and not all retailers. Given that the agency review was concluded dangerously close to the holidays (not bright), that choosing an ROI (Return On Ideas) agency delivered a dismal negative .01 percent in sales for Nov. (assuming they got anything off the ground), and that Wal-Mart is in desperate need of some top-down strategic communication development to prevent it from further losing its way; I'd say it is not the best national holiday sales indicator at the moment.

You see, it used to be that Wal-Mart was unbeatable because it had a solid message that other retailers could not compete against. Today, Wal-Mart has voluntarily given up this message in order to pursue what it perceived as greener pastures (higher-end retail). Unfortunately, it did this without developing a core message with complete consensus among board members and executives.

In fact, that is why I don't give Roehm "I'm a change agent" as much kudos as some. Her "follow-me-on-faith" approach left the world's largest retail giant without a message, at best, and with a message unsupported by its core consumer, at worst. Gee, I thought we already covered this lesson back when Miller beer alienated its blue collar consumer with ads aimed at a micro-brew generation. Ah, history, let's repeat it. Ah, history, let's repeat it.

Advertising The Lack Of …

Every day, the sudden departure of Wal-Mart marketing boss Julie Roehm is attracting more attention and is increasingly linked to her connection with Draft FCB, which she pushed to become Wal-Mart's agency of record in October.

Speculation suggests Roehm flouted Wal-Mart's strict corporate gratuities policy, which states no one who works for the company can accept any sort of gratuities from suppliers (even a cup of coffee). But the real damage was done when Draft FCB ran an ill-advised, tasteless, and remarkably uncreative Lion Awards advertisement featuring a real male and female lion having sex above a copy line that read "It's Good to Be on Top."

I won't post it here, but you can find a copy of the ad on ADFREAK. The ad is so poorly done and uninspired that one poster accused Adfreak's Tim Nudd of posting a fake. No doubt, Draft FCB wishes it was a fake, as one of its spokespeople has already said the ad was "a terrible mistake."

It's a terrible mistake because some inside Wal-Mart, those who were dissastified with the decision to hire Draft FCB, suddenly had good reason to second guess Roehm's big push. Not good for Draft FCB because Wal-Mart insiders are not the only ones looking to poke holes in Howard Draft's rise to the top of the industry after merging with Foote Cone & Belding (which was already struggling) last June.

As Lewis Lazare wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times, the merger date will "go down as one of the darkest moments in the history of an increasingly troubled ad industry, which, with each passing day, shows new and disturbing signs it has lost its way.”

He called Draft FCB Group depressingly real proof the American ad industry has been totally and tragically upended.

“It's a shame to think that an agency like Draft that was once the lowly tail on a big, healthy, creatively inspired canine has finally emerged as the powerhouse wagging the mangy mutt that is now the general consumer ad business,” he said.

Little did Lazare know that the tail he was writing about would be morphed into a lion within six months. An agency showing its not-so-wild side, after Wal-Mart gave the agency its $580 million account, only added to Roehm's streak of bad luck since joining Wal-Mart.

Last month, she made a questionable call on a press release from Wal-Mart about how a staffer of John Edwards, the former senator and presidential hopeful, inquired about getting a Sony Playstation on the same day that Edwards was having a media event in which he talked about how bad Wal-Mart is to its workers.

Summed: never underestimate the brand damage you can do with a single gratuitous awards program advertisement. A dark day indeed.

Blogging To Jail

Josh Wolf, 24, self-described freelance journalist and independent videographer, remains in “custody” at the Federal Detention Facility in Dublin, California, after being charged with contempt because he refused to provide a federal grand jury with unedited video of a 2005 G-8 protest in San Francisco. The authorities wanted the unpublished portions as part of an investigation into crimes that may have occurred during the protest.

Wolf refused, claiming he is a journalist protected under the First Amendment, which is what makes for an interesting case study in the move ta o define a "journalist" in the United States. The primary reason some find it difficult to define Wolf as a journalist is because his experience is primarily as blogger. The secondary reason is that Wolf tends to move back and forth between activism and journalism.

“If I have any reservations about whether or not he is a journalist, it is whether he went there as an independent gatherer of news and information," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Associated Press in an interview with reporter David Kravets. “We certainly hope that in the future if he goes to these events, he makes up his mind as to whether he is a journalist or a protester.”

On one hand, Wolf does have earned credentials as a journalist, including a 2006 Society of Professional Journalists award for Journalist of the Year. On the other, he has also participated as an activist and is generally seen as sympathetic to left-wing causes. Even journalists covering his incarceration, as well as those who have stepped up to help defend him, are unsure of whether or not he is best described as an activist or journalist.

Generally speaking, the question is easy enough to answer as a professional but difficult to answer as a person: am I an observer reporting the news or an active participant in making the news? And is there a point during some event when I might switch from observing into action? To save a life? To protect an officer? To prevent an abuse of power? In the strictest sense, the answer is no.

Journalists do not become active participants in the story, regardless of the circumstance, as unfortunate as this may seem. It is difficult to discern whether or not Wolf was indeed acting as a journalist, ironically, because the best evidence to determine this is precisely what he has refused to surrender.

I submit the real calamity here is not whether Wolf is a journalist or activist, publisher or blogger, but that when individuals abuse our civil liberties and rights guaranteed under the First Amendment (and I am not saying Wolf has done this), all sorts of crazy judicial opinions are rendered that could have long-term consequences such as the continuing erosion of the First Amendment. Case in point, presiding Judge Alsop offered up “This great country which has allowed you to be a journalist — sometimes your country asks for something back.'’

While his sentiment is sound, his statement is erroneous. There is only one person who ''allows'' another to be a journalist and it is not the government. A journalist is granted privilege by a publisher, even if they are one in the same. It is the publisher who is specifically guaranteed rights in this country as written: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The press" is not defined as a journalist in the First Amendment, but rather a publisher. Journalists are hired by publishers to execute these rights. And the only reason there is any confusion today is that the advent of blogging has made it possible for anyone to publish and reach a mass audience. In some ways, blogging has brought the press back to its roots of our forefathers, wherein anyone with enough money to afford a printing press could be a publisher.

Does that mean Wolf is protected? His edited video remains on his site today so there is no injustice there. So perhaps the real question is not whether he is a journalist, but whether or not he was a participant, observer, or acting member of the press. As a participant or observer, withholding the tape is an obstruction of justice. As an acting member of the press strictly covering the protest for publication (by a publisher), he is protected under the First Amendment. Case closed.

Now only if all these fine folks involved would stop working so hard to define 'journalistic rights,' perhaps they could tell the judge to review the tape and determine whether Wolf was a participant or not. If the judge determines Wolf was a participant, then it's a much easier case to decide and all of us will be free from seeing well-intentioned people continuing to muck up our First Amendment with definitions that do not belong there, including blogger, journalist, or whatever.

E-mailing History

The most convenient and abused communication method, e-mail, turned 35 years old today. The very first text message was forgettable, QWERTYUIOP or something similar, IT programmer Ray Tomlinson told The Sun reporter Josh Burt.

But it didn't take long before people became more inventive, writing e-mails they would never pen on paper. Burt includes five of the most famous cases in his commentary: Cringe! Worst e-mails ever.

• In 2000, Claire Swires sent a saucy note to her boyfriend while working at the London law firm Norton Rose. Her boyfriend forwarded it to a few of his closest friends, which turned Swires into a global talking point.

• Lucy Gao, who worked for Citigroup, demanded via e-mail that her 39 guests adhere to numerous ridiculous demands, including what time she would accept gifts and cards for her birthday.

• Joseph Dobbie spilled his heart out to a pretty girl over e-mail, blissfully unaware that his warm words to Kate Winsall would be forwarded to the entire world.

• Richard Phillips left his job as a senior associate with the world's biggest law firm, Baker & McKenzie, after he demanded a secretary, Jenny Amner, pay £4 to dry clean his ketchup stained pants. Amner replied to his e-mail, which she cc'ed to all 250 members of their staff: "I must apologize for not getting back to you straight away but due to my mother's sudden illness, death and funeral I have more pressing issues than your £4."

• Trevor Luxton, a clerk at Credit Lyonnais, made a big mistake when he thought he'd boast about his cheating ways over e-mail, calling himself the worst boyfriend in the world. Presumably his friends agreed, forwarding his e-mail until the entire world knew too.

Burt left off a similar story, where an executive stationed overseas boasted about using his expense account to rob the company blind. His e-mail's final destination was The Wall Street Journal, which underpins the point I always share with public relations students — never write an electronic message that you wouldn't be proud to see published in The Wall Street Journal. One day, it just might be, even if you wrote it years ago.

Mattel Measures Up

Despite the fact that Mattel is entering its biggest season, the toy manufacturer took the high road and issued a recall of Polly Pocket Assortments after the Consumer Product Safety Commission deemed tiny magnets inside the dolls and accessories were unsafe because they could fall out and potentially be swallowed by children.

Given that there have only been a handful of incidents that resulted in injury — three, in fact — Mattel could have skirted the issue through the holidays. Instead, it has pulled 4.4 million play sets from the shelves, worked closely with the Commission, and taken extra steps to ensure consumers who have already purchased the Polly Pocket products are informed.

On the Polly Pocket product Website, Mattel prompts parents to compare assortment product numbers (with product pictures) to help identify which toys are being recalled. It offers a prepaid mailing label for the return of the necessary pieces as directed for each affected play set. Once returned, value vouchers will be delivered in 8-12 weeks. Mattel also includes the exact Consumer Product Safety Commission advisory as well as customer contact information. There is also a link to its customer relations site.

From a public relations and customer relations standpoint, Mattel once again demonstrates the safety of its consumers is more important than its cash flow. Obviously, the company appreciates its brand value is worth more than the price of the products.

Compare this to the Firestone tire nightmare three years ago, when 17,000 trucks and SUVs were implicated (much fewer than Mattel's recall) in at least 62 deaths and numerous injuries in the United States (much greater than those related to the toy). Firestone demonstrated a slow response, lack of preparedness for the media onslaught, and a failure to demonstrate concern for consumers. It proved catastrophic for the company despite the fact that it eventually recalled 6 million tires.

There is a lot to be said for honesty, transparency, and urgency in responding to consumer safety. Mattel will be selling Barbies and Hot Wheels in 50 years and no one will remember the recall. Firestone, on the other hand, still has brand damage, which is why the name has all but been eclipsed by either its Bridgestone parent or new product names like Firehawk, Affinity, Destination, and others (which are all Firestone tires).

Confusing Comedy

The ancient Greeks knew it best. Tragedy is the essence of all comedy.

The pratfall is a fine example. Someone falling is tragic. Yet, the pratfall, staged or not, remains a comic classic.

Unfortunately for Michael Richards, best known as Kramer from Seinfeld, he opted to forgo the pratfall and chose tragic racial material for his comedic routine, which spiraled out of control when he let an obnoxious heckler get under his skin.

From the video, Richards at the TMZ, it is difficult to discern whether or not Richards was heckled for racial material in his routine to begin with or chose racial epithets simply to attack the heckler. What is clear is that his digs were directed at an individual and not an underlying racial agenda aimed at demoralizing people based on their heritage.

Comedians frequently attack hecklers with generalizations: weight, appearance, fashion, and yes, race. Chris Rock does, though his characterizations are generally aimed at Caucasians, which is largely accepted and tolerated in America. (Personally, I find Chris Rock funny most of the time.)

What Richards did wrong that Rock has never done wrong is apologize. Rock would have looked you straight in the eye and said “Hello, it's comedy ... commmm ... eeeee ... dddeyyy. Comedy."

Richards publicly apologized on "The Tonight Show" to the people who took "the brunt" of his abuse, saying he was "really busted up," but then went on a strange tangent on race relations, saying he was "concerned about hate and rage" and about a "great deal of disturbance between blacks and whites" after Hurricane Katrina.

What he probably meant to say was: race relations after Katrina have been a travesty, and he was shining a comedic light on the tragedy of the situation as comedians do. By in large, that is what comedians are supposed to do, release the tension created by tragic events in the forum of a comedy club.

Certainly, not for a minute, can I condone what Richards said, but neither do I think he should be burned at the stake. I can also say, with certainty, that he needs a new publicist.

As I have often posted, the downward spiral of public perception is never in the action, but in how one handles the action after the fact. As noted, Rock is a master at handling his own racial material after the fact. He never gives an inch.

In this instance, Richards would have been better off simply apologizing for losing his cool with the heckler (which is not the mark of a leading comedian), perhaps noting that hecklers, regardless of heritage, aim only to steal the spotlight at the expense of other audience members and it is the fundamental job of a comedian to shut them down and get on with the routine.

Now was not the time to discuss the truth, no matter how painfully obvious, that there are some racial tensions still being stirred in New Orleans or that there exists, sometimes, a double standard in defining racism.

As someone who writes comedy on occasion, I generally avoid all subject matter revolving around race or heritage because I don't really find racial stereotypes all that funny. But I can also be somewhat sympathetic to comedy clubs that will soon be forced to put signs on their doors that "some content might offend some audience members.”
Censoring comedic routines, good or bad. Not funny.

Sacrificing Privacy For Exposure

Like it or not, there are different rules for public figures than private individuals in regard to privacy. The more public your position or actions in society, the less privacy you retain because the public has a legitimate and substantial interest in public figures and public conduct.

That's why NBC affiliate WSLS-TV fired meteorologist Jamey Singleton on Thursday after a frontal nude shot of him getting out of the shower was posted on someone else's MySpace site; and why he will likely not be able to pursue charges against the poster despite the fact he was fired. It's also why MySpace pulled the pictures, because it has positioned itself as a distribution channel, not a publisher (protecting it from what people post, but pulling such content only if it is determined the subject did not consent).

According to the station, Singleton was fired because the photo broke the morals code in his contract. The moral code in the contract is indicative of his position as a public figure. Singleton told the Roanoke Times that he cannot blame them if the photo was the straw that broke the camel's back (he was retained earlier this year after admitting he was a recovering heroin addict).

It's an interesting commentary on how definitions are being changed today as becoming a public figure is easier than ever. Blogging, for instance, comes with the risk of sacrificing privacy rights. The greater your readership, the greater your potential to become a public figure with fewer privacy rights. It's something to think about while you share your commentary because, sometimes, there are unforeseen consequences to moving into the public eye.

Bungling Business Cards

Valleywag, self-described as a tech gossip rag, recently wrote a post about ''how to make business cards that people keep''. It had some interesting ideas. Among them:

• Rely on your Google rank (to minimize information)
• Hire a real designer (to make it ''slick'')
• Say something clever (to be more creative)
• Round the corners (to make it feel nice)
• Leave some white space (design 101)

Will following any of these tips ensure you have a business card that people want to keep? While there are some good ideas here, the answer is nope (with the exception of white space).

Sure, some of these tips certainly work for the examples they highlighted. Bradley Spitzer has a great card (you can catch a link to it on the Valleywag post). But that doesn't mean applying any of these tactical tips will better communicate your company's message.

Designing a business card is much like any communication device. It requires strategic communication on the front end to ensure you're not making decisions based on trends, slickness, or any other measure. The real question is: how do we best communicate our company on this medium, which happens to be a business card?

For example, Spitzer, who is a creative photographer, has a line on his card that says "If you let me take your photo, thanks! If not, here you go anyway." That works.

Contrary, if my doctor handed me a card that said "If you let me treat your illness, thanks! If not, here you go anyway." I'm not so sure that would work.

I do agree that hiring a designer is a good idea (assuming you're not hiring a consultant like us or an agency like most of our clients), but not just to make it slick. Slick is relative to the type of company you have and the brand you are trying to establish.

Some brands deserve to be hip and cool. Others deserve to be straightforward and conservative. There is no formula, but there is a process or two that can help you create a strategy that works for you.

Sure, some people might wonder why on earth they want to invest so much time, energy, etc. into a business card. Easy. Research shows that for the average service-providing company, the business card is the most common, widely distributed first impression medium they use to communicate.

Until recently, no other communication medium has even come close to unseating the business card as a prominent communication tool. And that medium is a Website (or blog in lieu of a Website).

Labeling The World

The dictionary defines a label as something functioning as a means of identification. It's also how we learn to process cognitive information. But labels can also be tricky as the definition of any specific identification is a matter of perception.

In communication, we generally use the term ''message'' over ''label'' because when the terms are applied to people and companies, "label" tends to have a negative connotation. "Message" does not.

The interesting thing about messages is that they come from a variety of sources, not just the individual or company. Generally, messages about individuals and companies come from everything they communicate about themselves (written or spoken), everything they communicate about others (comparisons or contrasts), everything others say about them (real or perceived, right or wrong), and everything others say about themselves (comparisons or contrasts).

Given that it requires about 80 impressions (the amount of times you're exposed to a message), the message that prevails most often is usually the one repeated most frequently from multiple sources with differing degrees of credibility, including the individual or company.

Wee Shu Min, who continues to be a topic of choice in the blogsphere, learned this the hard way. She defined herself as elite, without recognizing that most people do not know that ''elite'' and ''elitism'' are not necessarily the same things as pointed out by one blogger. A member of the 'elite' could be a philanthropist (a person who donates money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause) as much as they might be a snob (a person who adopts the world view that other people are inherently inferior). Ironically, the label she chose stuck, along with its worst possible meaning. When in reality, what she meant was that she had little sympathy for people who do not empower themselves (a view that is contrary to the view of a snob).

Derek Wee, on the other hand, defined himself as a solitary voice speaking out for underprivileged masses against an uncaring government, which is a rather noble message whether it was, in fact, true or not. (Mr. Wee is a very well-educated professional working for a multinational corporation, which may or may not qualify him as underprivileged). Ironically, the label he chose stuck too, along with its best possible meaning. Enough so that I've seen graphic representations of Derek Wee as someone who could only afford to eat a meager bowl of rice, alone, in the dark (just before he turns on his computer to blog).

Both employed messages or ''labeled'' themselves, creating a ''perception'' of themselves in the blogsphere, which is what shaped the entire story. In reality, both could be very different from their blog posts, but for millions of people one is a snob and one is a hero. (I've posted my observations on the story in two earlier posts: Correcting For Politics and Sanitizing Personal Opinion. Unless, more people come to realize both were right in that one voice is a statement while two voices is discussion.

I'm not sure they will. Most people seem more interested in discussing the labels, which is why we must always take care in defining ourselves through both actions and words, else we allow others define us.

It is one of the things we do here. Help people or groups of people (or companies, which are made up of groups of people) define and communicate their message while they avoid being mislabeled by others. Seems simple, until you pick up the newspaper, see a competitor's advertisement, hear another's sales pitch, or, in the case of Wee Shu Min or Derek Wee, read someone else's blog.

However, outisde of communication, individuals and businesses hoping to share a message or children learning to process information for the first time, we don't need labels. But what the bleep do we know.

Winning A State Seat

I've posted before about the last minute, unfounded scandal that nearly cost Jim Gibbons an election. Fortunately, Gibbons won 48 percent of the vote to Dina Titus' 44 percent and will be Nevada's next governor.

As the numbers came in, you could see the true impact of the Gibbons-Mazzeo 'scandal.' Early voting numbers (early voting took place while the scandal was unfolding) were skewed toward Titus while the general election numbers skewed toward Gibbons. The difference? Conspiracy theories aside, surveillance tapes showed Gibbons was never in the parking garage where Mazzeo said he assaulted her.

The numbers also show perception's impact on reality. Fortunately for Gibbons, his message, combined with the truth, corrected what could have been a disastrous evening for him and his team.

For our small part, we were thrilled to work with some great people within the Nevada Republican party on a few Victory 2006 pieces. We're glad they assisted Gibbons and Brian Krolicki in turning in wins, not because of politics, but because they will be great assets to the state of Nevada.

Recognizing Political Spin

Thomas Friedman demonstrated a classic example of political spin with his op-ed column in The New York Times on Nov. 3, “Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence" by turning John Kerry's mangled quote into a George Bush administration criticism.

For those that missed it, John Kerry said “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Many people, especially those in uniform, were offended by the statement because it basically implies our troops represent a less educated portion of the population (which is why they join the military). Nothing could be further than the truth. In fact, we very likely have the best educated military today than we have had in the entire history of the United States. These are smart men and women, many of whom graduated at or near the top of their high school classes, many of whom have advanced degrees, and many of whom will go on to earn advanced degrees once their enlistment ends. Several of them are my friends.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration, with Republicans facing a heated election year, were quick to correct Kerry's misstatement, defending our troops, regardless of where they may be stationed, and shifting the topic of the day from select Republican missteps into select Democrat missteps. Today, Friedman managed to eke out a full reversal with his op-ed piece, somehow making Kerry's political gaffe a Bush administration responsibility. Sadly, because the op-ed piece appears in The New York Times, some people will give it more credit than what it is: an opinion piece.

Politics aside, and not considering my own feelings about Iraq, this is what is known as a political spin: shifting a political flashpoint to another topic, preferably one that puts your opponent in a bad light. Some people are good at it. Friedman is very good at it. And at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: doesn't anyone want to discuss what's best for America anymore, without polarizing everything from political issues to personal assessments?

Changing Las Vegas

The Stardust Hotel and Casino, which has been in business since 1958, will close today. It will be torn down to make way for a $4 billion casino resort center called Echelon Place. It's one of many changes that have been sweeping southern Nevada for decades, nothing new for a city that preserves few historic properties, preferring to erase the past to make way for progress.

The less reported but perhaps equally compelling prospects can be seen in the community. In 1994, I wrote the first cover story for Las Vegas Magazine, which predicted many of the residential development changes that southern Nevadans are now seeing come to fruition.

At the time, then vice president in charge of market analysis for PriMerit, Patrick Egger, forecasted steady growth until the Las Vegas metropolitan area reached a population of 1.8 million, when increased land costs, interest rates, taxes, infrastructure, and cost of construction would dampen the market. Currently, Clark County is projected to have 1.9 million people (2 million by Sept. of next year) and, as predicted, while growth continues, it has slowed.

Eggers wasn't the only one to make reasonably accurate predictions. Lot shrinkage, Z lots (angled lots), 3-story homes, townhomes, condos, and mini master plans (as opposed to the major developments such as Summerlin and Green Valley, which broke ground in the 1990's) were all discussed in that article. And all of them have become common among newer developments in Las Vegas, leaving some people to wonder what might be next.

Perhaps because Copywrite, Ink. works with so many companies in diverse industries (in market and out of market), we often see a mixed bag of snapshots for the future of southern Nevada. While not all of it is as good as some people like to think, there are some promising prospects for this once tony dusty tourist town. Some of them aren't even found in the valley.

On Monday, I was in Kingman, Arizona, working with one of our agency clients and a home developer. In the future, it is very possible Kingman, much like Pahrump to the west and Mesquite to the north, will eventually be considered an acceptable commute community for the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Perhaps even more so with the growing number of private pilots cutting commute times from 2-3 hours to 20-30 minutes, which mirrors a forecast report on aviation's role in the economic development of small communities that we did for Carter Burgess just five years ago.

If commute communities (with aviation support or not) take hold in the next decade, Las Vegas could very well shrug off its largest, though seldom talked about, disadvantage. It is an island (surrounded by desert instead of water) with limited resources. Commute communities could begin to ease the burden of infrastructure and land scarcity. If not, then growth challenges will simply become more severe (education, traffic, water, crime), tax burdens like those imposed in 2003 will likely increase (they've already dampened what was once a very positive economic outlook), and the quality of life will not improve as investors continue to dismiss cultural assets in favor of other ventures (cultural assets are usually driven by neighboring cities).

All this might all seem off topic from communication, but as a company that has operated in the area for 15 years, I thought it was fitting to consider the future of Las Vegas as another chapter closes with the doors of the Stardust.

Controlling The Questions

Someone recently pointed out that “when you control the questions, you control the issue.” Nothing could be more true.

A few days ago, I offered comment about the Gibbons-Mazzeo 'scandal' as some people call it in a post titled Going for Gibbons. Until proven otherwise, I remain unwavering in my decision to dismiss the so-called incident even as Mazzeo, after days of coaching, emerged to hold her own press conference.

But for the purposes of communication study as it applies to the above quote, I propose flipping the issue by subjecting Mazzeo to an aggressive line of questioning that Congressman Jim Gibbons has endured over the last several days.

Why did she flirt with the congressman or, at minimum, why didn't she verbally reject such comments in the company of her friends? Why didn't she leave if she felt uncomfortable because of the unsubstantiated claim he played footies with her under the table? Why did she engage him again when she exited the establishment? Why did she allow her friends to leave her alone, if she was already uncomfortable with the congressman? Why did she agree to walk to her car with him, alone? Why didn't she re-enter the establishment and seek assistance? If she was as intoxicated as reported, why was she going to her car anyway? Would she have driven drunk? Why wasn't she given a blood test to determine her level of intoxication? Why did she refute her own testimony (that it was a misunderstanding) after being contacted by an attorney?

Suddenly, her allegations begin to evaporate. Unfortunately, those questions are not being asked enough. But as mentioned, when you control the questions, you control the issue. And right now, the questions are being controlled by the media and one of her attorneys, who happens to be active supporter of Gibbons' opponent.

Correcting For Politics

I seldom write about the same subject two posts in a row, but the Wee Shu Min story (after her father, Wee Siew Kim, apologized for his apology) continues to develop as a topical case study about political correctness. Specially, he apologized for saying "I should not have said what I did about people's inability to take the brutal truth and strong language" and reinforced that he counseled his daughter Shu Min.

In the United States, it's called political correctness (PC), though the concept is not exclusive to the English language. The term is commonly used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described.

The "earliest cited usage of the term" is said to come from a U.S. Supreme Court decision — Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) — where it clearly means that the statement it referred to is not ''literally'' correct. However, for most Americans, the real PC movement began in late 1980's and early 1990's. By the end of the 1990's, the term was equally loathed by political conservatives and liberals alike because more often than not it hindered communication rather than enhanced it.

Part of the reason Americans began abandoning PC usage came after the push to use "gender-neutral" job titles ("lineworker" instead of "lineman," "chairperson" or "chair" instead of "chairman," etc.). Some stuck. Some did not ("maintenance hole" never really replaced "manhole"). Some, it depends on who you talk to (many female executives have insisted on being identified as chairman vs. chairperson.) And some characterizations are moving targets, most notably among people over age 55, who have been reclassified from "elder" to "elderly" to "senior" to "older adult" to "active adult" in the last few decades. In addition, ''handicapped'' became ''disabled'' became ''people with disabilities.''

Besides renaming specific groups and objects, particularly around issues of race and gender, the real movement was aimed at watering down heated political speak about social issues, as if social issues can somehow be discussed without emotion or passion. And that is the real trap Wee Siew Kim is putting himself in. As I've written before, public figures and companies are seldom judged on a crisis, but rather on how well they manage the crisis (even if it really wasn't a crisis to begin with).

In Singapore, many bloggers seem to feel that the issue, not the words, deserve discussion. But unfortunately, they are learning just as Americans (or should I say people of the United States?) continue to learn, that too much focus on semantics will always overshadow the real issues, paralyzing entire communities and countries. Analyzing the apology and demanding an apology will serve as nothing more than a distraction over the real issue. Meanwhile, nothing is done.

Certainly, this is not a popular view, not even among some fellow citizens, but a solution for Singapore borders on the obvious. As long as a society prefers capitalism over communism, which has proven ineffective as the great equalizer it was claimed to be (communistic leaders often assume exclusive privileges over the people anyway), then there will always be people who covet what other people have, even if what they have or do not have was their own choice. Anyway, all that is missing, or seems to be missing, is opportunity.

Ergo, Derek Wee was possibly right in his assessment of a problem. However, Wee Shu Min was perhaps equally right to say the solution was not for the government to create jobs to meet the skill sets of the workers (which despite her colorful quips is really what she meant, I think). However, that is not to say that the government could not invest in a worker rehabilitation program that provides these unemployed workers with the skill sets they need to meet the demand of the job market. Then, those who choose to pursue marketable skills will be qualified to fill those jobs, currently being taken by foreigners.

The concept is simple enough. Give a man a fish and he has a meal. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life. And if too many people are fishing, then teach him another trade that is underserved. And if progress replaces that need, teach him something else. (Historically speaking, governments did not subsidize corrals when the automobile made them obsolete.)

But alas, all this is lost in the focus of whether calling something the brutal truth is appropriate or not. And meanwhile, the real effort to communicate is spiraling out of control because rather than propose a solution to the problem, Wee Siew Kim has to provide apology after apology because his daughter posted it rather than some other 18-year-old, who would have been largely ignored for making the same statements.

This basically means that 18-year-olds who happen to have parents in prominent positions are held to a different standard, are required to censor their ideas, and are not entitled to the same liberty and freedom of thought as other people. And if that is not discrimination on its face, then I do not know what is.

Sanitizing Personal Opinion

There seems to be much ado about Wee Shu Min, a teenage blogger whose online journal was criticized as insensitive and elitist. The story has escalated to the point of absurdity with her father, MP Wee Siew Kim, and the principal of Raffles Junior College telling The Straits Times that Miss Wee had received counseling for using insensitive language.

She has since shut down her blog and apologized for her comments, though not directly to Mr. Derek Wee, a Singaporean who works for a multinational corporation. He had written in his blog on Oct 12 that he was concerned about competition from foreign talent and the lack of job opportunities for older workers. Miss Wee had responded to him on her blog, calling him old and unmotivated and said he was overly reliant on the government.

She specifically wrote: 'Derek, Derek, Derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron rice bowl or a solid future if you cannot spell? There's no point in lambasting the Government for making our society one that is, I quote, 'far too survival of the fittest.' If uncertainty of success offends you so much, you will certainly be poor and miserable.' She concluded by telling Mr. Wee to 'get out of my elite uncaring face.'

In the apology, Wee Siew Kim went further to say that in "In our current desire to encourage more debate, especially through the Internet, our comments must be tempered with sensitivity. I will not gag her, since she's 18 and should be able to stand by what she says. ... Nonetheless, I have counselled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it."

Before writing an unpopular opinion, I will offer up that as an accredited business communicator, I adhere to the International Association of Business Communicators' Code of Ethics, which encourages members to "engage in communication that is not only legal, but also ethical and sensitive to cultural values and beliefs; and engage in truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding; among other things." I wish more bloggers would consider such ethical guidelines before posting various rants on the Web.

However, Wee Shu Min has obviously not bonded herself to such a code, and therefore, must be respected for her opinion, no matter how insensitive or elitist it may have come across. If anything, I have personally welcomed people to state their minds, no matter how insensitive, ignorant, or bigoted they may be, because it is the very language they use that may reveal their own lack of credibility or character. In fact, Wee Shu Min self-describes herself as elitist and insensitive, which seems to me to make any criticisms of her for being that rather redundant.

In sum, both Derek Wee and Wee Shu Min have a right to their respective opinions. It seems to me that Derek Wee probably made the stronger case, given that Wee Shu Min did resort to name-calling and colorful insults as one might suspect from an 18-year-old college student. However, the equally aggressive rebuttals and public outcry, and then public apology by her father and the principal of her college, seems largely disproportionate.

If anything, her post did succeed in revealing the country's growing disconnect, perhaps, between younger and older adults, skilled and unskilled workers, and/or affluent and less affluent citizens. Until that is addressed, with open dialogue, there is little chance any measures could be taken to address Derek Wee's concerns and grievances.

But then again, I live in a country that, despite occasional pressure to be 'politically correct' in stating opinions, allows for unpopular language under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Although frequently tested, one simple truth remains: the abuse of free speech will die in a day, but the censorship of free speech, including rants from those like Wee Shu Min, will span generations.

Editing Your Work

On Nov. 18, I will be teaching a new one session class, Editing and Proofreading Your Work, for UNLV's Division of Educational Outreach. In addition to providing an emphasis on improving written communication for writers, office managers, and business professionals (whether you are the writer or editing someone else's work), it will give students taking my 10-session Writing for Public Relations class a leg up next Spring. (I deduct two points for every grammar, usage, and spelling mistake on written assignments in that class.)

While this class is primarily structured for editing business, commercial, and public relations writing, I intend to provide enough instruction to benefit anyone hoping to improve the clarity, consistency, and correct usage for any communication, ranging from fictional work to personal blogs. Specifically, the half-day program, from 9 a.m. to noon, will focus on editing essentials such as language skills, mechanics of style, and the importance of correct spelling and punctuation.

For more information, e-mail Michelle Baker at michelle.baker@unlv.edu. The class catalog number is C063WR1150 and registration is $95, which will include a variety of handouts. If I can pull one together in the next couple weeks, a portion of the class will be taught using a powerpoint presentation.

Going For Gibbons

It seems almost too coincidental that just as Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) is being hit with rumors that he was somehow involved in the page scandal, gubernatorial candidate Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) is also being accused of assaulting a woman outside a restaurant (just days ago).

The allegations against Gibbons are being made by Chrissy Mazzeo, a 32-year-old cocktail waitress at Wynn Las Vegas, who called 911 three times, charging that Gibbons grabbed her, shoved her against the wall, and threatened her in a parking garage outside a local restaurant. Apparently intoxicated, her story seems to have changed with each call, including one call when she actually laughed while talking to the dispatcher.

While I'm not big on conspiracy theories, some folks have obviously noted that sexual conduct is the Achilles heel of the Republican Party and they're all too happy to exploit it, whether that means making false allegations or not. They know all too well that false allegations can distract a campaign, taking a candidate off issue-oriented messages by forcing them to address such charges as Jim Gibbons had to do yesterday.

Despite rumors, neither the Weller connections nor the Gibbons allegations appear credible. In fact, the only reason either story has the potential to become a brush fire, fanned by bloggers and major news media, is because of our public's insatiable appetite for scandals and media's willingness to feed it.

In the case of Jim Gibbons, the entire sordid story makes me inclined to support him all the more, a decision I made shortly after weighing who would make the best governor in Nevada after the primary (most know I have a long-standing friendship with State Sen. Bob Beers, who has also come to support Gibbons). In fact, it was also this decision that made me all too happy to assist the Nevada Republican Party with GOTV efforts.

In working on GOTV projects that include Gibbons and lieutenant governor candidate Brian Krolicki, whom I have always admired, I learned a few things about Gibbons' character that, in my opinion, has not received enough attention. As a Vietnam veteran and elected official, Gibbons did not have to serve in the Gulf War. Yet, he was compelled to serve again because he recognized he was one of only a handful of pilots with previous combat experience.

To me, this provides an accurate measure of Jim Gibbons' character, above and beyond any misstatements he may have made in the past. It also demonstrates exactly how unlikely Mazzeo's story really is (which at one point she herself called a misunderstanding because she was drunk).

In deciphering communication today, particularly in political communication, I urge voters and members of the media to remember that many off-issue rumors are often personally motivated for attention at best or political trickery at worst. Somewhere along the line someone has to remember the real role of the media is to get at the truth rather than fan the fires of an attention-grabbing rumor for the benefit of a headline.

Questioning Ethics

If you want to shake up people's definition of ethics, go no further than the Internet.

Some of the same folks who easily chastise Rep. Mark Foley e-mails and private messages, laughed as they discovered Augusten Burroughs frequently amused himself by placing fake personal ads, and smirked when Jude Law's character pretends to be Julia Roberts and sucks in Clive Owen (Closer), are now defending married men and women seeking extramarital affairs on Craig's List personal ads.

The controversial practice, which has been around for some time, has been brought to center stage after after Michael Crook, a 28-year-old Liverpool, N.Y., man posed as 19-year-old Melissa and coaxed personal information from Kevin Murphy, who answered a personal advertisement on Craig's List. Crook then shared the information about the extramatarial affair with Murphy's wife, bosses, co-workers, several of his company's corporate accounts, and on his Website, which is dedicated to exposing Internet infidelity.

According to Abigail Goldman's story in the Las Vegas Sun, ethics experts say the stunt is immoral. Legal experts say it encroaches upon the gray territory of online liberties. Internet rights experts say it raises questions about privacy in cyberspace.

Does it? While two wrongs might not make a right, the question of the First Amendment still hangs over the entire argument. We cannot censor people from sharing any portion of a conversation, online or otherwise, if they choose to publish it. Can we?

Sure, some might argue that Crook and similar publishers are defrauding these men, but aren't they themselves attempting to defraud single women as available, only offering up their marital status when it suits them (to say nothing of what they are doing to their spouses)? Are people so naive to believe that personal ad exchanges are honest, despite years and years of articles that point out they are generally rife with fraud as those who post and respond frequently shave 10 years, 20 pounds, change jobs, and even their own names along the way? Where is the outrage in this seemingly accepted practice?

Ergo, there is only one answer here. If we are talking about ethics, they are all wrong. But if we are talking about stupidity, then those seeking online affairs retain all the honors. Maybe not today nor even tomorrow, but someone somewhere has stored all that personal informational shared over the Internet, innocently or not, possibly with the receiving party totally unaware (given that traces of pictures and e-mails remain on hard drives long after they are 'erased' and Google archives Website pages so they can be viewed long after you've taken them down).

As I've posted before, there is no such thing as a private conversation. So unless you would be proud to see what you say or do on the cover of the Wall Street Journal (Crook, I might point out, is proud of what he is doing), don't say or do it. It's about that simple. This holds to be especially true on the Internet because the information you put out there is much more permanent than anyone ever imagined, and the risk of it resurfacing is far greater than you ever considered.

Communicating Effectively With Less

Every now and again, in between all the clutter, someone publishes something that very clearly, concisely, and effectively communicates a point. This week, that distinct credit easily goes to the Times Online (UK) for publishing a stunning timeline that effectively illustrates the impact of human existence on our planet.

In what could be called a post human extinction timeline, you can quickly scan what would happen if humans ceased to exist on Earth. Whether or not you agree with the message, the communication of it brilliantly conveys its point without relying on statistics or polarized quotes, stopping you to think about environmental responsibility. For a few seconds, at the very least. Bravo.

Manipulating The Numbers

The media seems to have embraced 655,000 as the number of deaths since Lancet published a Johns Hopkins University study of mortality in Iraq. They've settled on this number despite the fact that the researchers themselves, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths.

Usually insightful Daniel Davis, Guardian Unlimited, and Tim Lambert, an Australian science blogger, have also weighed in on the matter, calling any attempts to refute the report devious hack-work, especially because the administration seems content with a number far lower, about 50,000. Davis and Lambert analyze the data using their own brand of statistical posturing based on survey samplings before Davis goes on to say that “there has to be some accountability here.”

I agree. There does have to be some accountability here. And while I'll stop short of saying the researchers lied or are frauds, I will point out that their excessively broad range (1/2 million +/- 5%) speaks volumes: they have no idea. In fact, I am equally or perhaps even more accurate in saying that there were between one and 1 million deaths.

In covering the original study, the media seems to have settled on the middle ground, coming up with the 600,000 to 655,000 range. While I have no idea whether or not the number is accurate (the method, considering it's from Johns Hopkins, seems less credible than usual), I do know that some members of the media have become more sloppy at accepting statical reports as newsworthy because they seem credible (no matter what the method) and always create a buzz of controversy.

That is how this topic ties into communication. All communicators, or editors, will be tempted from time to time to publish a statistical report that will generate a buzz (they always do), but they should consider that 'buzz' publishing is getting away from the intent of reporting, which is, simply put, to get at the truth. It seems to me that publishing this one, given the method and given that people lie when taking such surveys, did little to do that.

What do I mean? Well, if you asked the same number of citizens if they had a loved one, or if someone they knew had a loved one, who died in 9/11, and applied the same statiscial theory that Davis applied in his post to defend the study, then I'd wager the death toll would exceed 1 million. Thank goodness it did not.

Faking The Net

Benjamin Edelman does a fine job with his blog report False and Deceptive Pay-Per-Click Ads, identifying several Internet advertising scams that range from not-so-free ringtones to discounted rates on software that can be downloaded for free. False advertising, to be sure, is a growing problem, one with roots that can be traced back to traditional print publishers, those often specifically found in the classified section of such publications (and can be easily found today).

As much as I would like to see the world as black and white as Edelman and say that the responsibility falls exclusively on Google to police its advertisers, it seems to me this subject has more shades of gray. Should Google and similar ad programs refuse or cancel known advertising scams? Absolutely. Should they be responsible for policing advertisers, placing the burden of proof on the ad program client before allowing them to advertise? Maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic. Should they be held liable for advertisers that turn out to be scammers? Probably not.

Given that we live in a world where it is sometimes difficult to discern reputable companies (that occasionally slip with an overabundance of disclaimers to mask a catchy headline) from tried-and-true scam artists, one has to wonder where responsibility begins and ends. At Copywrite, Ink., we never accept an assignment from scam artists, but I have to admit that sometimes, they're not easily identifiable. PurchasePro (which was once partnered with AOL) comes to mind. So does Enron.

We never worked with Enron, but I imagine that if it had contacted us in the beginning before being unmasked as one of the biggest scams in the history of the utility industry, we might have been excited by the prospect of working on the account. Had we done so, should we have been responsible for the fallout? I hope not. What about Firestone tires? Several public relations firms tried to turn the company's PR around (only to resign after being asked to lie). But before being asked to lie, were they unknowingly responsible?

Certainly, I believe that publishers, vendors, and even employees have a responsibility to back away from any advertisers who they know to be ethically challenged or engaged in misleading or fraudulent activities. We've backed away from several over the years and even reported one or two that were clearly violating the law. There were also a few accounts we declined not because they were engaged in anything illegal, but because we were philosophically opposed to the product (Bum Fights, for example).

In short, as much as I would like to hold a black and white view of the world, maybe a better answer is strengthening sentencing for those who purposely and willfully mislead the public rather than asking Google to police scammers by canceling their advertising contract (only to have the same people pop up with yet another brand next week). But that's just me.

Adding Education Experience

From software training to post-secondary education, our work in education has expanded from enrollment and recruitment to influencing public policy. One of several success stories includes the opening of the Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow Mountain in Las Vegas.

In addition to positioning the school as the best private school in the West before its first class, we succeeded in beating enrollment feasibility by 21 percent. In other words, we beat their best expectations despite offering a K-8 education almost three times the amount of the next highest private school in Nevada.

You can download our education work overview by visiting Copywrite, Ink.

For experience in other industries, download our account experience lists prior to the release of these industry specific pages. Our next scheduled portfolio overview will focus on financial.

Raising Communication Stakes

After taking a week off from posting in order to attend to some tight deadlines and to our daughter's health (she's doing great at home, btw), it was no surprise to find that the hot topic of the day is North Korea and nuclear testing.

Beyond global diplomacy and potential implications, which appear obvious to us, North Korea has challenged the world in the ultimate high stakes game of communication. From the North Korean government's perspective, it has obviously decided to wager its survival as a closed, tyrannical state against its desire to become an independent and autonamous world player, answerable to no one, much like it perceives China, Russia, and the United States as answerable to no one. Its communication in the last 24 hours was unmistakably premeditated, deviously calculated, and a grave mistake that will have consequences well beyond its borders.

Announcing the test, void of any details, was strategically designed to keep the world guessing whether North Korea is scientifically capable of producing weapon-grade nuclear armaments while stating, unequivocally, that it would no longer answer to anyone, not even the Chinese, who have until recently remained sympathetic to North Korea's direction as a communist country.

President's Bush's response was equally and purposefully vague with ample foreshadow. He said “This was confirmed this morning in conversations I had with leaders of China and South Korea, Russia and Japan. We reaffirmed our commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. And all of us agreed that the proclaimed actions taken by North Korea are unacceptable and deserve an immediate response by the United Nations Security Council."

Message: We are not alone in this, which explains why US Ambassador John Bolton presented 13 elements of a punitive resolution condemning N. Korea’s nuclear weapons test to the UN Security Council. The resolution includes inspections of all inbound and outbound cargo from North Korea.

"The North Korean regime remains one of the world's leading proliferators of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria."

Message: We know Syria and Iran seem to be moving closer to what they perceive as a justified a preemptive strike against Israel. Any aid in such a strike, in particular nuclear weapons, could potentially move them to the front of the list.

"The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action. The United States remains committed to diplomacy. And we will continue to protect ourselves and our interests."

Message: We prefer to delay action at the moment, but if you continue to cross every line we have drawn, which further aggravates more pressing interests, we will aggressively pursue de-nuclearization of North Korea by any means necessary.

In the days and weeks and months ahead, it will often be the communication of the message, and not always the action, that will ultimately determine the outcome not just in North Korea, but also the rest of the world. If any US action appears weak, it will only encourage countries like Iran and Syria to step up their own nuclear proliferation programs as such rougue states continue to establish loose alliances out of paranoia, desperation, or perceived opportunity.

Why else would a South American leader choose now to suddenly have a strong opinion of Bush, if not to suggest he sees the potential for or even actively seeks common ground with the Middle East?

E-mailing Is Never Private

The first e-mail rule I tell every client or public relations professional is: don't send it unless you would be proud to see it on CNN.

Unfortunately for Rep. Mark Foley, he was never a client or a student. CNN reports he resigned today after a former congressional page questioned e-mails Foley had sent to him.

Foley apparently sent the e-mails in August 2005, when the male page was 16 years old.

"Today I have delivered a letter to the speaker of the House informing him of my decision to resign from the U.S. House of Representatives, effective today. I thank the people of Florida's 16th Congressional District for giving me the opportunity to serve them for the last twelve years; it has been an honor," said Foley. "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."

In the e-mails, which were obtained by Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Foley discussed a second page, saying "I just emailed [him]... hes such a nice guy... acts much older than his age... hes in great shape... i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym... whats school like for you this year?"

Foley then asked the page for a picture.

The young man, who forwarded the e-mails to another congressional staffer, called the e-mails "sick, sick, sick."

"Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaks me out," the page wrote in the e-mails obtained by CREW.

A spokesman for Foley told CNN the congressman acknowledged he had an e-mail exchange with the former page but flatly denied that it was anything inappropriate.

Of course, if there was nothing inappropriate, one has to wonder how he let his family and the people of Florida down.

I'm not going to add any speculation on the implications, but limit this to the aforementioned lesson. There is no such thing as private communication anymore, especially in e-mail or on voice mail (as State Sen. Dina Titus recently learned in Nevada).

Advertising For Heaven

Most people know Orbit gum will not get you into heaven, but it still made the Mouse Print blog list (Mouse Print still praises Wrigley for its tongue in cheek sense of humor). Less flattering is a post that unlocks Scott toilet tissue's claim to give you more sheets per roll (1,000) when they actually cut back the per sheet size (leaving each roll 300 inches shorter).

So what is Mouse Print? Mouse Print turns advertising on its head by focusing on an ad’s asterisked fine print footnote rather than the headline. Some posts point out the harmlessness of advertising's entertainment value. Others point out product flaws (Aquafresh for Kids contains peanut oil but does not disclose it). A few cover borderline bait-and-switch tactics like a bank that promises a 10.38 percent return (but limits the rate to a $500 deposit).

Mouse Print does make it a point to mention that it is not illegal for companies to downsize or draw attention away from less desirable attributes, in many cases. Some ads do indeed explain themselves despite any hype or attention grabbing headlines.

The lesson that advertisers can learn by visiting the blog can be found in the comments on each post. People are generally unhappy with questionable product claims or unjustifiable footnotes (some advertisers have to use them for legal purposes). Statistically, one unhappy consumer will generate at least eight more.

The irony is that, in most cases, the more overzealous claims are largely unnecessary in selling products. Most products have at least one unique selling point (or a few contrast points) to rely on. But then again, knowing that too much hype is not worth creating unhappy consumers is one of several reasons developing a successful ad campaign is simply about being clever. It's challenging in that every clever idea is based upon strategy, something consumers appreciate without hype.

Increasing PDA Security

GFI, a international developer of network security, content security, and messaging software, recently launched a new white paper about the new and increasing threat of "Pod Slurping."

The paper explores the threat posed by portable storage devices and considers security measures that should be implemented in addition to perimeter solutions such as firewalls and anti-virus software. Easy connectivity and high speed data transfer means that by simply plugging a device into a USB or FireWire port, a data thief can get away with more information than ever before. This increasing leakage, ciphering and disclosure of corporate data have been coined the term "pod slurping."

There is no denying that these devices are increasingly popular -- by 2009 it is expected that shipments of iPods and other MP3 players will surge to nearly 124 million units.

"Data slurping is a very simple and automated process. It doesn't require any special technical expertise to steal a company's data using a portable storage device," said Simon Azzopardi, MD EMEA, GFI. "A company needs to protect its network by introducing technological barriers that enable control over data transfers throughout the network."

To download a copy of the White Paper, visit Pod Slurping White Paper.

Attacking Allen's Past

Recent headlines have created a buzz about Sen. George Allen after three former college football teammates say he repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970's.

Perhaps it's because one of my favorite made-for-TV movies in the 70s was Brian's Song, which recalls the details of Brian Piccolo (played by James Caan), a football player stricken with terminal cancer, and his friendship with Chicago Bears teammate Gale Sayers (Billy Dee Williams), who helps him through the difficult struggle, but the so-called Allen controversy is none too surprising to me. Allen, like many people, grew up in an era known for racial tension and played in a sport that struggled with the question of desegregation. Many people were confused about race at the time, black and white equally.

For those of you unfamiliar with the film, racial tension is created after team coach George Halas decides that the pair should room together during training camp and road games because they are both rookie fullbacks. Given the fact that Piccolo is white and Sayers is African-American during a time when blacks were still fighting for civil rights in America, it was viewed as a progressive and controversial decision. At the time, no black player had ever been the roommate of a white player in the history of the NFL. Eventually, the racial tension gives way to understanding.

It seems that Allen took a somewhat similar journey in that he once embraced some shortcomings of 70s-era Southern culture, but then later concluded the Confederate flag was a symbol of violence for black Americans (as opposed to thinking it a symbol for the Dukes of Hazzard) and expressed some regret. "There are a lot of things that I wish I had learned earlier in life," Allen said in an appearance this month on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I grew up in a football family, as you well know, and my parents and those teams taught me a lot," Allen said on the program. "And one of the things that you learn in football is that you don't care about someone's race or ethnicity or religion."

At present, this does not seem all that dissimilar from the made-up brand damage recently experienced by Tiger Woods' wife, where false allegations created some temporary brand damage. In truth, of 19 former teammates and college friends, two said they do not remember Allen acting in an overtly racist manner. Seven others said they did not know Allen well outside the football team, but do not remember him demonstrating any racist feelings. Seven more teammates and friends said they knew Allen well and did not believe he held racist views.

The seemingly lone, non-anonymous vocal attacker is a radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end on the team when Allen was quarterback. He claims Allen came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place' and used the N-word on a regular basis. Ironically, it was the radiologist who sported the nickname 'wizard.'

I'm unconvinced that Allen was an active racist as this former teammate claims, but Allen's team has to do a better job addressing it in a timely manner. Unresponsiveness gives credibility to even the most baseless charges.