Lacking A Message: SCO

As an investor, you might think twice about a tech company that seems to spend more on legal counsel than on research and development. In the communication world, we might wonder too, when the only news to offset the company’s continued losses is an audio postcard for mobile phones.

I’m not saying an audio postcard isn’t interesting (though I don’t think I’m in the target audience), it’s just not enough to offset what amounts to a net deficit in good news vs. bad news. (I sincerely hope they get something else off the drawing board).

You see, while I don’t enjoy reading about companies in trouble, there seems to be growing cause for coverage from Slashdot and Groklaw that suggests SCO is in deep trouble, with the company saying very little to correct the idea. (Although there is one denial, reported by CNET reporter Graeme Wearden.)

What is odd about SCO's lack of a message is that it has a history of correcting people, an entire page of its Website is dedicated to “recent” media corrections (most pertain to events in 2004). The page makes me wonder about the public relations logic in making media corrections a permanent part of their communication strategy, doubly so because they called it “recent,” as if to allude that more corrections were expected.

Sure, some might give the company kudos for correcting flawed reporting, and in some cases, I might be one of them. However, if erroneous reporting seems to be the rule as opposed to the exception, it’s time to start asking if "you" might be part of the problem.

When assessing what the media says about you or your client, here are a few questions to ask: 1. What did I say (or not say) that might have contributed to the inaccuracy? 2. Was the story fair, given the context and depth of the story, allowing for opinions from both sides? 3. Did the media give the story appropriate time and space and, if not, why was I unable to make my case that certain points were critical to the story?

These are just a few from a longer list, but suffice to say that when the media gets it wrong, spokespeople and public relations professionals have to accept some of the responsibility. Why? Because the truth is that most spokespeople are unprepared for interviews and few have any objectives outlined before they take the call. In fact, almost no one tries to correct what they said immediately after an interview (probably because they don't remember what they said anyway).

That's too bad because if you do listen to what you are saying, there might be time to follow up. You never know when a quick post interview e-mail to a reporter might be readily welcomed. Most reporters just want to get the story right.

While I am not sure that a few bad interviews started the communication problems at SCO, it does seem safe to say that there is an abundance of miscommunication surrounding the company and that miscommunication has irreparably damaged its brand.

Killing Press Releases: Ragan

Lawrence Ragan Communications, Inc. (Ragan) is considered by many to be the leading publisher of corporate communications, public relations, and leadership development newsletters. Today, it began promoting a new webinar, teasing with journalist Tom Foremski's famous 2006 blog post: "The press release is dead."

Is the press release dead? Not dead, perhaps, but wounded. Certainly social media has caused public relations professionals to reevaluate many long-standard practices, including the press release (though I prefer the term "news release").

Going further, public relations professionals have been busy developing a new standard, which Ragan and some others call the "social media release." According to their webinar description, this standard takes into consideration blogs, RSS technology, and the emerging breed of citizen journalists.

Personally, it seems to me that what we're seeing in communication is a random mutation in one species, but that is not to say that other species are extinct. Right now, news releases, "social media" releases, and corporate blog entries can all be employed strategically for different purposes. A quick example: a company can send out a new release to traditional outlets, include a variation to select bloggers, and then augment the information with personal comment by executives or other team members on their respective or shared blogs. (Or sometimes, maybe some "news" or semi-interesting tidbit is not fit for traditional media, but is certainly suitable for a blog. The other way around works too.)

Looking back over some recent commentary, maybe that was part of the answer in the recruiting world: perhaps Jobster's initial communication to address media speculation was more fitting for a news release and TalentZoo's "jab Jobster" news release more fitting for a blog entry.

Or, if you prefer, using Cisco and Apple as an example, as they seem to be right in step with this thinking: Apple sends out a release on the iPhone; Cisco sends out a release about its lawsuit. Then, Cisco augments its argument on its blog and Apple addresses the lawsuit with analysts, which is then filtered to social media outlets.

Regardless, there seems to be no argument that corporate communication and public relations is changing. The only question now is what to do about it. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Ragan webinar.

In the interim, I'll be telling some professionals tonight that it is not enough to be a "public relations" practitioner. Nowadays, you have to think like a journalist, act like a business strategist, and write with the passion of a creative writer. And, given social media today, appeal to the casual reader who just happens to visit from time to time.

Ratcheting Up The Language: iPhone

If you think corporate image and brand positioning should be consistent, then no one can accuse Cisco and Apple of not knowing who they are in their public battle over the "iPhone" trademark. The language their executives use in discussing the iPhone trademark dispute tells a story behind the story.

"We've been following our iPhone trademark issue in the blogosphere closely and it's been interesting to see the commentary from some posters suggesting that somehow Cisco either in the US or Europe didn't meet the requirements to maintain the iPhone trademark. Our response is pretty simple: We have met all elements required by all authorities to maintain our mark. We've been pretty direct about the fact that we've been shipping the iPhone since last spring." — John Earnhardt, Cisco, on their blog.

"It's silly." — Tim Cook, Apple, about Cisco's lawsuit during a conference call with analysts today. He also noted how several companies use the same iPhone name for their Internet-based phones.

Asking Strategic Questions: Maister

David Maister recently posed a great question over at Passion, People and Principles: what does a company need most? And then he lists: mission, vision, values, direction, culture, rules and obligations, or purpose.

Since I have two answers and needed additional space beyond the confines of a comment box, I thought I would reintroduce the question here.

Although I’ve worked with dozens of start-ups and venture capital companies, one of the better models I’ve seen was not presented by a client. It was presented by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, an architectural and engineering company, who lent it to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) a few years ago. The graphic on this page provides the basic concept, but I’ve adapted some terms to better suit my needs.

Anyway, NENA gave me this strategic plan model because I was about to conduct what I call a “core message system” session for the association, and several board members were unclear where a “core message system” might fit within the scope of a strategic plan.

So where does it go? I explained that it fits comfortably in one of two places: a core message system can be implemented as part of a communication plan at the strategic level (strategy). Or, it can positioned to precede values, making it the "foundation for the foundation." But the decision, where it fits best, is largely based upon where the executive team wants to implement it.

The difference between either location, in terms of outcome, is the potential benefit to the organization. Some companies prefer to limit the “core message system” to their communication plan while others want it to infuse into other aspects of their company or organization, ranging from hiring practices to product and service innovation.

After considering this, the board members commented that it seemed more fitting to call the process a “core values session.” With so many business terms being bandied about today, I agreed. For you, I said, it’s core values.

In all honesty, I probably would call it “core values” all the time if not for the simple fact that most business executives balk at the idea that some guy wants to monkey around with their core values. (It’s hard enough to add “strategic” to their “communication.”)

But then again, I never put too much weight on semantics. Instead, I listen to each company’s language and adapt. From what I’ve seen in the field, the difference between a purpose, mission, and vision is all in the eyes of the audience, which brings me back to Maister’s question.

Technically, you can’t choose just one because they are all interconnected. However, if I was going to force an answer, I would lean toward core values.

The only problem in doing so is that we fall into a trap of which comes first: the chicken or the egg?

More to the point, does our culture influence our values or do our values influence our culture? But what about our mission? Mission? Isn’t that dated? Everybody is using “purpose” nowadays. Dated? You mean like stone-washed jeans? I thought we were talking about business? You know, where are going? Ah, vision?

What a mess! I think this is precisely why I fell in love with what I call the core message (but you can call it something else if you like).

I have a much better definition, but for this post, let's say: It’s a process that pulls together key stakeholders (usually defined by the CEO), who are already immersed in the existing corporate culture, to reach a consensus about the company as it exists and will exist in the world. From this understanding, it's easier to establish values. And from values, it's easier to define a purpose, mission, and vision (or direction, I suppose).

Of course, this assumes we’re applying the core message as the foundation for the foundation. As I said earlier, you don’t have to. A communication department can limit a core message to communication with equal success.

So my second answer is a core message system, because it considers everything, including the environment in which the company operates and it's competitors. Of course, since few people have heard of it, I didn’t want to make it my first answer. Besides, it wasn't even on the list.

In closing, just to add clarity to the quick graphic I pulled together, think of it in its simplest terms, working up the pyramid: core values (foundation); purpose (why); target (where); strategy (what); tactics (how); timing (when); and accountability (who). Or, since this is about strategy as opposed to semantics, plug in your terms and see if it fits.

Courting Brand Value: iPhone

Some writers shy away from attorneys, but I never have. They almost always lend an interesting perspective on communication. Sure, there are a few who get carried away with calling themselves “wordsmiths,” but the one who left a comment on my last Apple vs. Cisco post is not one of them.

If you missed it, Rick suggested the real question will be whether the term iPhone will be considered a trademark or generic term for a type of telephone.

“This question ultimately turns on the understandings of the relevant consumer market,” he wrote, “So I expect Apple and Cisco to introduce consumer surveys in addition to evidence from dictionary and media sources and references to the status of other ‘i-noun’ terms.”

If that is the case, it seems to me that Apple’s apparent dominance over “i” anything may carry the day, because the public seems to want the Apple phone to be an iPhone. Likewise, there seems to be public resistance to the Cisco iPhone, even after it was explained that it owned the trademark. Of course, that is a communication observation; a judge could just as easily rule against Apple and that would be that, er, until the appeal.

On the communication front, we ask, to what end? Sometimes you can win a lawsuit but lose consumer appeal.

In attempting to address “what is,” it seems to me that Cisco has two battles on its hands. It wants to win the lawsuit because it acquired the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark since 1996. But, I suspect, it also wants to win over public perception that this is the right thing to do.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.”

Outside the courtroom, it becomes tricky. First, Ed Bernette at ZD Net wrote an interesting article on the case, noting that Cisco may not own the mark as claimed. Second, in order to sway public opinion on this issue, someone is going to ask under what terms was Cisco willing to grant Apple permission to use the name iPhone. And third, if it was in negotiations over the name, why did Cisco suddenly make a push on a complete line of iPhone products?

According to the aforementioned article, it had to push iPhone products: “If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark.”

Add to all this a recent blog post from Chandler: “Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.”

While the post shows how seriously Cisco takes public perception, it also focuses more attention on that other unanswered question: what were the terms that prompted Apple to abandon negotiations and launch an “iPhone” without an agreement? Or was it something else, an eureka moment from Apple’s legal team perhaps, that killed the deal?

At the moment, only a few know. What the public knows is that several people have laid claim to iPhone over the years, including a Toronto-based company that has been marketing voice-over-Internet services under the registered trademark iPhone since 2004 and even has a wireless device called iPhone Mobile.

How a 2004 claim could potentially supersede Cisco’s claim, I am not sure (unless the ZD Net article is right). However, based upon the comment contribution referenced earlier, it could potentially assist Apple if Apple is looking to turn the trademark iPhone into a generic term, which it may or may not do.

What we also know is that Apple and Cisco have appealed their cases to the public; Apple by releasing its product as an iPhone and Cisco by publicly stating it expected Apple was onboard with those mysterious terms. How good a case both sides can make to the public will be decided by the public or perhaps by investors, who never like to hear the term lawsuit associated with their investments, especially when risks seem to outweigh the advantages.

Sure, Cisco is right to challenge Apple over a trademark it considers an asset. Apple is also well within its rights to look for some wiggle room on a name that has been associated with its product concept before it even landed on the drawing board. But given that the courtroom is not the only place both companies have made a case, public perception may weigh in more heavily than the letter of the law. That’s not good, bad, or indifferent — that is "what is."

All the while, both companies have to be careful not to damage their respective brands that have far and away more value than the potential brand value of an “iPhone.”

Missing Noble Causes: Martin Luther King, Jr.

When 250,000 people peacefully marched on Washington, D.C. in 1963, to whom Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his address, "l Have a Dream,” most knew he was a leader of the American civil rights movement, political activist, and Baptist minister.

Most people also knew the march made specific demands upon government, including: a law prohibiting racial discrimination in employment; protection of civil rights workers from police brutality; a $2 minimum wage for all workers; and self-government for the District of Columbia, then governed by congressional committee. His speech, considered one of the greatest addresses in American history, and the outcome of that march, led to King being becoming the youngest man to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for his work as a peacemaker, promoting nonviolence and equal treatment for different races) in 1964.

A lot can be learned from King, a man who was more interested in promoting civil rights as opposed to censoring those whose aim was to deprive them of those rights. A lot can be learned from the people who followed him to the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, because they understood why they were marching.

Certainly not in every case, today’s activism seems to have changed, and not always for the better. Nowadays, some activists use “we just want to make a point and be heard” as a shield for alternative agendas that their marchers might not understand or agree with.

Addressing “blog swarms” specifically, an activist’s message might be carried forward on thousands of blogs before anyone has gathered the facts. Indeed, the mere volume of posts may make it appear as if the protagonists are telling the truth, even when they are not.

There are many reasons “blog swarms” catch fire, ranging from those who are curious to see why a certain search term has suddenly been driven to the top to those who simply repost an inaccurate recap in order to stack their stat numbers. Even for those who understand a portion of the topic they write about, sometimes the best intentions often bring out the worst behaviors.

Indeed, for these reasons, the phenomenon is probably the most misunderstood and least written about in crisis communication and public relations today. As my class, which usually consists of 15 to 20 students and working public relations professionals, begins this Thursday, it will certainly make for a worthwhile point of conversation in how to apply new and traditional crisis communication strategies to what has possibly become the greatest communicaton threat to businesses today.

Happy birthday, Martin Luther King, Jr. I, for one, miss your message that a true common man could become a civil rights leader, without the benefit of the Internet or anonymity, and move a nation with a noble message that all people, not just some people, could be equal and have a voice.

Missing The Mark: KSFO

If someone ever writes a white paper about why modern media needs strategic communication help from the same “handlers” they used to loathe as the gatekeepers to corporations and public figures, KSFO will certainly be a mention in the lead paragraph. Its message on a 3-hour special broadcast was weak, probably because it didn’t have one.

While I did not listen to the show because it conflicted with a client meeting, I did spend some time reading the various commentaries about it, looking for the relatively few grays in a sea of blacks and whites. Among the best lines anywhere came from Joe Garofoli, staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, who called it right when he summed: “The controversy, fueled by liberal bloggers, showed the increasing power of new media to affect traditional outlets by going after their advertisers.”

Indeed, the landscape has changed and, for better or worse, traditional media has been the slowest to respond. You see, it used to be that the media (both objective reporting and op ed writers/broadcasters) was charged with the responsibility of “setting the agenda” for local, state, regional, and national discussions. Their underlying ethical guidelines were simple (much simpler than public relations professionals) because it was their job to “find the truth and shame the devil.”

Certainly, most good reporters follow ethical guidelines that include objective reporting and not accepting bribes, etc. But good reporters, the best of them, also perceive all ethical guidelines as secondary to "getting at the truth" whereas the worst of them, KSFO included, spend too much time trying to “shame the devil,” a label they seem to apply to basically anyone who does not agree with them. (My apologies to good reporters who might take exception to seeing radio talk show hosts lumped in with them.)

As I said, the landscape has changed and Julian Seery over at Exceler8ion presents some good points for newspapers to consider. More to the point: in today’s world, there seems to be an underlying movement by bloggers to take over the media’s job of “setting the agenda,” with the net result being that any biased reporting and reckless shaming the devil will be ever more scrutinized by a public that has much more power to communicate than a letter to the editor or calling into a talk show.

It seems the old adage “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the pound” is dead or dying. Today’s social media is only limited by the time it takes to post anything it wants: objective, biased, or completely polarized. With increasing fervor, every day, traditional media is finding that it is being subjected to the same scrutiny it is used to subjecting upon its topics of interest. Given KSFO’s performance on Friday, as well as many other examples out there, it seems to me that the media is not prepared for the job.

From a communication perspective, KSFO chose the wrong messages to make its case. The idea that a critic could not campaign against it was naïve, especially because it has campaigned against other people. The argument that its rival is anonymous was ludicrous, given that the media has long protected anonymity when it serves its purpose. And the concept that it can choose “not to address the subject again” is hypocritical, given the media shames people into talking about things they don’t want to talk about every day.

KSFO would have been better served to craft a message that was much more powerful and readily at its disposal.

First and foremost, its people needed to apologize for the threat of the lawsuit, recognizing that their rival does have a right to campaign against their show, although perhaps mentioning it was an attempt to teach someone a lesson between the difference of being a critic and attempting to censor critics (which is what Melanie Morgan herself learned a few years ago).

Second, they could have mentioned that their critic is equally guilty of colorful and hateful language, pointing out that he is sometimes a hypocrite in his argument (it seems as if they never read his blog ).

Third, admit that they have, at times, been radically harsh in their criticism but that must not overshadow Charles Bradlaugh’s warning that it is “Better a thousand abuses of free speech than the denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial stays in the life of people.”

Last, but not least, that despite what people say during passionate discussions about their beliefs, we can all agree to disagree on these overly polarized issues. As Australian-born Robert Hughes once wrote years ago: “If they (Americans) are fraying now, it is because politics has, for the last twenty years, weakened and in some areas broken the traditional American genius for consensus, for getting along by making practical compromises to meet real social needs.”

The one line remains as haunting to me as the first time I quoted it in 1994. It haunts me because none of the players in this debate has ever heard it. How could they? They are too busy yelling at each other. And that is something for all members of the media to keep in mind as they make a choice: do you want to get back into the business of “geeting at the truth” or do you want to join the ranks of millions who enjoy yelling about their polarized issues on blogs, vlogs, and broadcasts?

I hope you pick the former, because if the media (print and broadcast) continues to simply join in the shouting matches or host them, then who will be left to find the truth? Obviously, no one in the case of Spocko vs. KSFO.

Branding Term Primer: iPhone

According to BusinessWeek, Cisco Systems Inc.'s global brand value tops $17,532 million whereas Apple Inc.'s global brand value is $9,130 million. Both have seen gains in the last year, with Apple moving up almost 14 percent.

With Cisco now suing Apple over use of the name "iPhone," something I intend to dig deeper into on Tuesday, the terminology might get a little muddled, given that people in the communication and advertising industry often use pertinent terms interchangeably without meaning to (myself included). Here's a quick term primer that might help keep it straight:

1. A brand refers to the general impression of a person, place, or company (total global awareness of the brand, along with the net sum of positive and negative impressions).

2. A logo is the design and/or name that represents the brand.

3. A trademark is a logo and/or name that has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or other government trademark offices.

4. A mark is the design element of the logo, apart from the name (eg. the Nike swoosh).

5. An identity is the presentation of company's communication material, which usually includes the logo (eg. an identity package).

This may be helpful in the months ahead as Cisco and Apple spend millions of dollars in a high-stakes legal battle over the "iPhone" trademark. However, if it gets equally ugly outside of the courtroom, the trademark may cause both companies "brand" damage.

Helping Companies Help People: NBCB

There are many bloggers (and companies) who want to change the world, hopefully for the better. Their reasons, motives, and methods are as different as the variety of causes they take up, whether it is within their community, industry, interests, or something else entirely, like tracking the seemingly infinite details in the life of Britney Spears. That's okay too.

My point is that everyone is passionate about something and, with luck, that passion will lead you to answer one of the most important questions you can ask yourself: is my fundamental motivation as a person to be a beneficial presence in the world … in the lives of all those I touch, whether it be at home, at work, in the community, and on the Internet?

It's not a trick question. I am not alluding to any myriad of issues, critiques, politics, religion, and whatnot. Nor am I asking anyone to ask it of someone else. It's a personal question void of all that. With luck, you can answer “I hope so.”

In June 2002, a diverse group of business leaders came together to create Business Strengthening America (BSA), which established a self-directed, multi-year, peer-to-peer effort to engage thousands of America's business leaders in a campaign to encourage civic engagement and service. If you visit the site, you'll see it's largely static, with the freshest content dating back to 2003. What is not static, however, is the idea nor are the hundreds of non-profit endeavors of more than 700 companies and business organizations that joined BSA years ago.

Much more active and up-to-date is USA Freedom Corps, which is an excellent resource for individuals who want to become involved in something. It's endorsed by President George W. Bush, but you don't have to like him to appreciate the larger body of work. In fact, a good part of the concept came from AmeriCorps, which was the one program that President Bill Clinton (it's okay, you don't have to like him either) asked President Bush to keep around. On that, they agreed, even if their parties did not.

Anyway, I know a little about AmeriCorps because I serve as a state commissioner in Nevada. My experience on this commission as well as dozens of other non-pofit organizations and associations is what drives me to maintain another, much less read, blog called the Nevada Business Community Blog. In truth, it's probably less of blog than a newsfeed, highlighting at least one company's charitable action every day (with luck).

The blog doesn't take much effort, really. And, I would strongly support anyone duplicating the idea in their home state: a community web log and news feed for businesses releasing information about their non-profit contributions and volunteer efforts. Why? Well, there really are many ways to change the world and by sharing a daily example of business giving, it might inspire more companies to do so. After all, strategic philanthropy, a concept and practice of business giving has existed in the United States since the early 1950s, has always received a return that exceeds investment. Some companies just don't know that. They also don't know that, if done correctly, strategic philanthropy fits nicely into a strategic communication plan.

Who knows? Perhaps business giving could even inspire some employees (or other interested individuals) to funnel some of their more creative passions into other activities that have a direct, positive, and lasting impact on people, animals, the environment, or whatever else they might think up. I've taken up a few over the years; too many sometimes, I am told. But that's not so bad.

You see, I always hope such efforts (even when I use a living case study in communication as an example on this blog) will eventually lead me to the same answer at the end of the day, a chance to say “I hope so.”

Protecting Free Speech: ABC/Disney

Believe it or not, the public relations arms of KSFO, ABC, and Disney can learn a lot from Jason Goldberg.

Sure, everyone knows that I tossed in my fair share of communication flack about how Jobster handled its crisis communication situation (not enough, it seems, to warrant a hit), but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. Although Goldberg seemed to create his own “blogswarm,” largely spurred by his own posts, he didn’t hide from it. He talked about it.

KSFO, ABC, and Disney aren't talking. When Online Media Daily asked, Julie Hoover, a spokeswoman for ABC Radio, declined to comment. Brian Sussman, the KSFO radio talk host under fire, told CBS 5 by e-mail that he is not doing any interviews about the broadcasts. As much as I have searched, none of the stations and companies under fire has really said anything.

Public Relations 101 says “no comment” is an admission of guilt, unless you clarify. There are several instances when it is permissible not to comment, the most obvious that could have been used in this instance: legal counsel has advised against communicating on that subject while the matter is before the courts or pending court action. Unfortunately, they missed it, along with the most basic truth that their misguided nemesis preaches censorship above all else.

If you take the time to read his pained posts, you’ll see a consistent story: this guy has tried everything, including government intervention through the FCC, to shut down one talk show host after the next. Failing to impact the higher-rated hosts, he finally found some wiggle room at KSFO.

As much as I think it was wrong for Internet provider 1&1 to cancel his account for reasons already mentioned, it is equally wrong to think that this “offended” blogger represents the spirit of the First Amendment. I suggest he hit the books and study up, starting with Ray Bradbury:

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

While I might not be an attorney, I do know a few things about the First Amendment and have been directly and indirectly involved in several productive free speech cases over the years, including the amicus brief taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1996, which was one of the first real landmark actions in preserving a poster’s intellectual property rights from Internet providers by defining them as passive carriers as opposed to publishers. It also prompted America Online to provide a free speech area, monitored by the ACLU, that was not subject to the company’s terms of service.

Back then, a few years before the term “blog” first graced the pages of the Internet, I spent ample free time attempting to educate people on merits of free speech, frequently citing one of the best quotes on the subject by Charles Bradlaugh, who warned us: “Better a thousand abuses of free speech than the denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial stays in the life of people.”

How true is that. And how sad it is that KSFO, ABC, and Disney have yet to make the case that maybe, just maybe, despite their ill-advised legal letter (note: the threat of legal action and actual legal action are light years apart) from a public relations perspective, KSFO needs some First Amendment protection. How interesting would it be to see the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU face off on the issue? I’m all for that as long as the risk doesn’t wack away another piece of "fair use."

Of course, if KSFO, ABC, and Disney are not inclined to wrap themselves up in the Bill of Rights, then they should drop any legal action all together. Sure, some folks will toast to being triumphant for a day, but will quickly become irrelevant without the lawsuit. Or maybe, you can take a page from the AOL case and host a blog for bashing Sussman. (Once AOL folks had a free speech area, few, if any, posted.)

I suspect this guy is the same. Sure, he has a right to complain about this and that with speech that I find no less hateful than his so-called “right wing prosecutors,” but his agenda is hardly pure with today’s post entitled “Their time is over,” meaning people with a contrary view to his own. Likewise, his personal quote — which once read “I just want a piece of the action,” er, until he noticed that being a public figure for 15 minutes isn’t as easy as being an anonymous blogger — revealed. It was deleted this morning. Go figure.

So is the glass half full or half empty? I suggested ice.

Learning From Social Media: Spocko

Much has already been written about Spocko vs. ABC/Disney so I almost passed by this page in social media history. But then I scanned the various posts and saw something missing from most of them. With all the backlash aimed at ABC/Disney, the missing link seems to be 1&1, an Internet provider.

Sure, Disney had sent a cease and desist letter to 1&1 about Spocko's Brain, but 1&1 took action, not Disney. And that's not good for anyone, with consequences that reach much further than Disney's misguided attempt to silence a critic. (It's not the first time they've failed at it.)

You see, for a long time now, most Internet providers have been extremely careful to label themselves as distributors, which, simply put, provides them a certain amount of legal protection to avoid getting caught in any content crossfires. It can be likened to the United States Postal Service, which cannot be sued for the magazine that arrives in your mailbox, or your cable company if you prefer.

Of all people, Andreas Gauger, 1&1 chairman of the board, Ralph Dommermuth (now CEO of United Internet, the public parent company of 1&1), and Achim Weiss (now CTO of 1&1) should know this, given that they handle about 5.87 million customers and 7.2 million domain names worldwide (minus 1). Or maybe they don't, given that they are a relatively new player to the United States, crossing over from Europe.

As a provider, the allure of 1&1 is relatively cheap Web hosting services and its big break into the US market by offering three years of service for free in 2004. I guess the old adage "you get what you pay for" is true. Despite a significant net worth and global presence, 1&1 barely blinked before buckling to ABC/Disney, potentially damaging every other Internet provider in the world by making them unnecessarily responsible for content.

Look, I am not saying it was prudent of ABC/Disney to send the letter to begin with, but I also appreciate that companies and public figures do it all the time. They send letters to various publishers and editors, sometimes from their lawyers, saying cease this and desist that and "oogie boogie no advertising dollars for you."

To that end, Spocko and other bloggers could learn a lot from print publishers, who are a bit more familiar with fair use and whatnot. As a blogger, always be prepared to face the reality of blogging: you're a publisher with much less overhead, but not necessarily much less risk.

Any time you critique people, someone is going to try to shut you down. In fact, when you get down to it, that is what Spocko was trying to do in the first place: shut down KSFO's morning talk show because he didn't like what they were saying. In some ways, ABC/Disney just followed suit by shutting Spocko down, temporarily, sort of, not really.

I suppose I might clarify that I'm talking about "what is" and my personal take on the situation is a bit different, but not much. You see, I believe very strongly in the First Amendment and have been an activist on that front more times than I care to talk about.

But as a First Amendment advocate, I think of this mess a bit differently. First and foremost, I don't particularly care for what I heard listening to clips from these so-called "right-wing" talk radio hosts, but then again, I don't begrudge anyone their right to act like idiots as these drive-time hosts obviously do. It's a shame that listeners support the show by driving up the numbers, but I don't pick what people play on their radios.

I also believe very strongly that Spocko had every right to critique the show in the court of public opinion, even by using clips to illustrate the point. And given what Spocko wrote, I think that advertisers had a right to buy or pull their ads based on that, because frankly, most just buy the numbers until someone tells them what they are buying. I don't agree with forcing people to be "PC" — and that is a personal choice.

Anyway, given Spocko was targeting advertisers in an attempt to censor KSFO, I suppose ABC/Disney had every right to try to take action too, even as ill-advised as that action was (because it led to suicide by public relations in what is being labeled "David vs. Goliath" as opposed to "Will the real censor please stand up...").

So that leaves us with 1&1. If 1&1 wants to continue to increase its presence in the United States, it needs to learn not to knuckle under the pressure of a legal letter.

While I am not an attorney and appreciate this is still being sorted out in some sectors, I believe Internet providers in this country owe it to themselves and their customers to be carriers, with each blogger solely responsible for his or her content. Shame on 1&1 for not sticking by what seems to me to be the single most important definition of Internet content in the last decade.

Likewise, kudos for "The Daily Kos," along with YouTube, Blogintegrity, Firedoglake, and others for trying to teach Mr. Gauger that he is not a publisher. His customers are publishers. Let's keep it that way.

As for ABC/Disney, I'm tracking this as a living case study to see how it handles the fallout. That's more telling than a legal letter that worked, temporarily, sort of, maybe.

Then again, at the end of the day, I think ABC/Disney would have been better off limiting any legal letters to only Spocko so Spocko could have it framed and then blogged about it. Better yet, the radio hosts that went crying to their bosses might have used the airwaves to talk about Spocko's plight to make the world PC. Had that happened, this might have remained a regional story instead of potentially impacting us all.

Branding Agreement Soon: iPhone

On December 19, I posted about a potential brand war over the trademark "iPhone" shortly after Linksys (a division of Cisco Systems, Inc.) launched an "iPhone" family of products.

Reuters reported that Cisco Systems Inc. expects to reach an agreement with Apple Computer Inc. later today on its "iPhone" trademark. They said it shortly after Apple unveiled a phone with the same name.

So why would Cisco reach an agreement with Apple after fending off so many foes from grabbing up the "iPhone" brand? In the December post, I said that Apple would be wise to sit this one out (they did for awhile without comment), letting others fight it out for the right to use a trademark that Apple might not own, but clearly dominates. Today, Steve Jobs showed the world how much it dominates "i" anything by releasing the product before any agreement was signed.

While Apple could have easily called it something else, I am not surprised. Apple is no stranger to the value of a brand nor litigation over brands. In fact, Apple's earliest court action dates to 1978 when Apple Records, The Beatles-founded record label, filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement, a case that has resurfaced several times over the last few decades. You can read more about it at Wikipedia.

It just goes to show you that — right, wrong, or indifferent — owning a trademark and owning a brand are two different things. And today, it's very obvious that Apple knows it too. Clearly, Cisco does too.

Missing News Opportunities: TalentZoo

Yesterday, I called Talent Zoo's "press release" a demonstration in communication ignorance, largely because it failed to meet any measurable objective and partly because it was in poor taste. More than anything, it was a missed opportunity that could have captured a few headlines.

No one really cared, except John Cook gave it a comment-less mention, probably because proximity is one of the many ingredients that journalists use to define news. Really, it would not have been difficult, in an industry that estimates more than 50 percent of corporate recruiters have been laid off or reassigned since November 2000, to do a better job.

There is news here. Plain as day. Based on its release, Talent Zoo is one of a handful of recruiters out there that is hiring people instead of laying them off. It's a nice contrast and makes people wonder "What's up with Talent Zoo?"

Except Talent Zoo did not include this in the release. Their communication contrast was between themselves and Jobster. Okay, so they are hiring a few days after Jobster laid people off. Oh yeah, they obviously have a grudge against Jobster, which seems more memorable than the mention that they are "aggressively" hiring 20 people.

The release gets worse before it gets better. Here are a few gems (ignoring grammar and usage errors):

"Talent Zoo’s growth has come largely due to increased employment needs among marketing, advertising, and public relations companies." Translation: We're lucky to have picked the right niche, um, unlike Jobster, who we don't like.

Personally, I would have placed more emphasis on the fact, according to Talent Zoo, that "both job boards and recruiting firms typically fail to offer the services of the other" while Talent Zoo does. Certainly, there is a better way to write this too.

"'Our strategy has always been to steadily grow our business by filling customer needs with superior products and services,' says Rick Myers, founder and CEO of Talent Zoo.” Translation: We lifted this off a thousand other company news releases because it sounds slick, even if it doesn't mean anything.

"Myers attributes Talent Zoo’s success to maintaining it’s self-funded existence rather than using venture capitalist financing to grow.” Translation: The company communication folks attribute the growth to the industry, but Myers does not. He says the reason for this growth is because, er, they are not like Jobster. On the plus side, only a few folks invested in us.

“Myers adds, 'I’m sorry to hear about the misfortunes of Jobster’s staff. It always frustrates me to learn about hard working people who lose their jobs. Talent Zoo is always interviewing and we are always interested in talking with anyone, whether they are fresh out of school, on the unemployment line, or just looking to join an exciting and growing company.'" Translation: I can hardly contain my glee, and, oh, by the way, feel free to call me if you worked at Jobster, but don't expect to be hired because we talk to a lot of people, anyone, in fact.

In all, of seven paragraphs, not counting the cutline, six can be directly or indirectly attributed to Talent Zoo talking about Jobster. Not too bad for Jobster, considering it didn't pay anything for all this name recognition in a release that "pokes fun at" but doesn't do any real damage. If anything, Talent Zoo lost some credibility points and the few that read the release ran over to Jobster's Website to learn more about its new direction or potential sale to Monster, if you want to entertain rumors.

Imagine how much more effective the release would have been if Talent Zoo would have stuck to its news: We're growing in an industry that BusinessWeek says is poised for consolidation. We must be doing something right. Hmmm... if they did that, then maybe, just maybe, BusinessWeek would have been interviewing Myers instead of Keith Stemple.

Who knows? If the release had been written better and gained some traction, then Myers could have slipped in some of his bloodlust for Jobster in a national magazine, maybe even a few, during some interviews. Then he would have looked as if he was just commenting on current news or citing one example of a hundred he could have chosen. Maybe, if he was really prepared, he could have struck a death blow, driving negative Jobster impressions through the roof on national television.

Ho hum. Instead, Talent Zoo's release is destined to become a mere footnote in the annals of The Seattle Times and maybe a brief conversation point on how not to write a release in my class at UNLV.

In conclusion, even if the primary objective was to smack Jobster around in the media, the release still fails. On this measure, I liken it to throwing punches in an empty ring and without an audience. Worse, Myers gave all the advantage to Jason Goldberg. Goldberg can choose to ignore it or toss in a much harder-hitting punch at his leisure. Either way, Goldberg wins.

I dare say, had it happened differently, Talent Zoo may have gained some recognition, made some money, and the recruiting industry's wrestling fans would have been much more entertained.

Feeding The Animals: TalentZoo

If you ever wondered whether communication ignorance is contagious, visit Talent Zoo. There you will find a news release that attempts to one up Jobster, not at being a better company, but by demonstrating its people lack the most basic understanding of public relations and strategic communication, which is ironic given they serve "communications" executives (they mean communication, but let’s not split hairs). The release opens:

“Award winning niche job board and recruiting agency and former Jobster rival, Talent Zoo has announced plans to hire an additional 20 people in the next four to six months. Talent Zoo’s hiring plans announced today are directly contrary of those declared yesterday by venture capital funded Jobster, who announced it was laying off 60 employees, or nearly half its workforce.”

The need for style and usage edits aside, it seems to me that Georgia would expect more from a company led by someone recently named one of Atlanta's 40 Under 40 Most Promising Young Stars by the Atlanta Business Chronicle. Instead, the Jan. 4 press release (which excludes electronic media outlets, since electronic outlets do not have presses) reads as nothing more than one child thumbing its nose at another.

As much as the lead sentence sets up the news release as an opportunity to show a fair contrast between it and the rest of the industry, the second sentence takes it all away, changing the entire thrust of the release into “let’s show everyone how smug, vindictive, and possibly unethical we can be because the lawsuit we filed in 2005 was not enough.”

After searching for results, the only mention of this release (beyond MediaSyndicate, a news release distribution service) was by Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter John Cook, who calls it mostly right in saying that “Talent Zoo Chief Executive Rick Myers tosses a few darts at Jobster” in the release. Cook is kinder than a former editor of the Las Vegas Business Journal, who once lambasted a public relations representative for the local Girls Scouts for trying to capitalize on a court ruling over the Boy Scouts.

Now, it’s pretty obvious that I am no fan of the communication savvy or lack thereof that Jobster demonstrated in the midst of its restructuring, but it’s almost forgivable because I have come to believe that Jason Goldberg honestly didn’t know better (he may have, but it doesn’t seem so). In fact, he has since made a conscious effort to improve in this area. But Myers, founder and CEO of Talent Zoo, who gleefully participates in this release offering quotes like “It always frustrates me to learn about hard working people who lose their jobs,” knows exactly what he did. And in addition to being possibly insincere, he knows it was wrong to do.

If we take my first Jobster analogy, that alludes to the sinking of the Titanic, then this release can be likened to the captain of the Titanic's sister ship, HMHS Britannic, saying “I’m sorry to hear about 1,522 who perished in the accident, but maybe they should have sailed with us.”

If Forbes, which once awarded Talent Zoo with "Best of the Web" for niche job boards, doesn’t write this release up as “Best New Release Blunders,” then I hope The Wall Street Journal picks it up because Myers deserves his 15 minutes of fame on this issue. Luckily, most editors filed the release under "amusing, but trash."

Tomorrow, I'll offer how Talent Zoo could have turned this release into major headlines instead of a forgettable heckle; they didn't have to mention Jobster to do it.

Polarizing The Issues

Jonathan Adler's The Volokh Conspiracy recently noted the New York Times article pointing out that there is much more to the climate change than "believers" and "heretics" in the debate about global warming. After presenting what he calls a great step toward the "middle ground," the post spirals away into 90 comments that are largely polarized on this issue once again. It's a shame because polarization is non-communication and it's all too common in the United States.

Regardless of the issue, any time two sides become too firmly entrenched in their views and opinions, screaming that they are right and all dissenters are wrong, any potential action on this becomes paralyzed. And unless things change, the debate is already pointless because nobody is listening anyway.

It's the same same in any group environment, whether individual, political, or commercial. If an argument becomes a battle of wills in the household, community, business, or industry, then the debate is already over. And, once labels are attached to the opposing sides, there is hardly ever any room for the middle ground.

Although what author Andrew Revkin calls a "third stance" emerging that "challenges both poles of the debate" hardly seems like a third view to me (suggesting that since we're unwilling to fix the problem we may as well invest in disaster preparedness), a more tangible third view is unlikely to surface as long as the polar views are willing to drown out new voices. As I said, non-communication.

Perhaps with a hint of sarcasm, I blame Al Gore. He had an opportunity to share facts in “An Inconvenient Truth" and mostly he did, with exception to several moments of political bitterness. One would think, after running for president, he would have learned by now to stay on message. If it was about global warming, then maybe that would be enough.

The American media could use a shot in the arm on this issue and others too. Do we always need two talking heads taking the polar position on each and every view? Sure, I appreciate "controversy" is one of a dozen or so definitions of news, but I dare say the public is becoming addicted to rubbernecking accident scenes. Based on blog searches alone, controversies seem to rule the day.

Meanwhile, as we play polarization in the United States, the British government announced a 100 million pound fund to help the National Health Service in the battle to beat the global warming crisis. The fund is intended to help hospitals and other health sector buildings cut carbon dioxide emissions, increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.

"Whilst there is much more we need to understand - both in science and economics - we know enough now to be clear about the magnitude of the risks, the time-scale for action and how to act effectively," Sir Nicholas said, who recently released a review that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20 percent.

It's a global review that is gaining traction elsewhere in the world, even if it is not so in the United States. The only reason it is over there and not here, in my opinion, is because the the British, although they too disagree, seem less addicted to polarization to such a degree that politicians will actually switch positions on an issue once they learn it is embraced by an opponent or opposite party. Sure, contrast messages work in politics, but not so much when they are fabricated for the sake of contrast.

From a communication observation that can be applied anywhere, keep in mind that polarization is non-communication. Whether it is a small issue like "should blogs allow anonymous comments or not" to very big issues like "should we store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain" or not.

In conclusion, on the issue of global warming, the debate is over. Everybody lost. Now that it is over, can we please get to the business of saving people from global warming, because it seems to me that people will need more saving than the planet.

Working In A Bubble

There has been ample discussion about transparency, as it relates to blogs in particular, but it seems to me corporate transparency is optional, and best left to the discretion of each individual company. You see, I don't subscribe to the notion CEOs shouldn't blog. I think it depends on the CEO and, more importantly, the company's business strategy.

It seems to me the only problem with corporate transparency is the number of CEOs that try it without really understanding what it means. Worse, few consider that working in a bubble might be a different environment all together, becoming a public figure aside.

Maybe the answer to the question, whether to blog or not, lies within a seemingly unrelated question. How prepared are we to manage our reputation once we gain transparent visibility?

It's tricky stuff, doubly so if you have any hope to keep your message consistent. Here are 8 basic questions (I collected them from several experts and executives over the years) to ask about your corporate reputation management, adjusted a bit to skew toward CEO blogs.

1. Can you keep your focus narrow and potential issues manageable?
2. Are you willing to take responsibility (not necessarily accountability) for all employee actions and outcomes, even those outside of your control?
3. Will you maintain a positive, assertive, calm communication style that focuses attention on the most important aspects of any problem?
4. Are you willing to move toward resolution despite any negativity, including antagonistic reporters and crazy bloggers?
5. Are you ready to concede that if your local disaster becomes regional or national, that it is totally your doing?
6. Do you realize that your actions and posts will influence those around you and have an impact on your reputation and the company?
7. Are you prepared to answer tough, probing, and sometimes trick questions from not only the media but also anyone who happens by?
8. Are you willing to share your ideas internally or with consultants prior to posting in order to ensure everyone is on the same page?

If you answer no to any of these questions, then you should probably stay out of the business of blogging. Of course, if you answer no to any of these questions, your company is operating without any concern for reputation management anyway, and sooner or later you'll learn the hard way (these questions apply to picking a company spokesperson too).

Having worked with CEOs and, even more maverick, politicians, I can safely say that the decision to be transparent or blog is an individual question. As many as I have advised to blog, there are dozens more I have advised not to blog. For each, I base my advice on whether it makes strategic sense for the company and if the CEO (or anyone for that matter) is fit to be a blogger.

Or perhaps I shouldn't say "blogger" given the industry push to change the term. What is a blog? Seems to be a lot things to a lot of people, and I don't think narrowing the definition will change that.

Of course, if we are all going to make our companies "bubbles," I propose a new occupational title: "window washer." Just kidding.

Managing The Message

“I still feel like a passenger on that JetBlue flight that's watching helpless on my seatback satellite TV as the plane I'm on makes a crash landing,” said one Jobster employee about the recent interest in Jobster, fueled largely by one of the most horrifically handled communication accidents in recent memory. Unfortunately, unlike JetBlue, not all passengers will be landing safely.

According to Jobster, the reorganization to better align its business to focus on the most efficient sales and support channels, as well as its Website, will result in the loss of 60 positions, primarily those supporting in-person sales and support efforts. From a communication perspective, Jason Goldberg and Jobster — which maintains their first priority was to inform affected employees who were left waiting for days to learn their fate in between ill-advised blog posts — lost much more than that.

Although it reads as one of the better posts ever presented under Goldberg's byline, one that causes me to sincerely hope Jobster's smaller and more focused vision for 2007 will return the company to the start-up success story it was in 2004, I wonder if it will be enough to erase the reputation damage it endured externally and employee morale flogging it weathered internally.

You see, reputation management, which includes crisis communication as noted in my last Jobster-related post, can be equal to if not superior to a successful product. When you lose control of it, which is relatively easy to do, it's difficult for anyone to believe your next message.

If we subscribe to the ideal that it takes 80 impressions to make a message stick (and that negative impressions are eight times more impactful than positive messages), Jobster's rebranding as a company and employer that can be trusted will be a difficult, though not insurmountable, task in the year and years ahead.

The reasons are simple enough. As much as we (especially those of us in the advertising and communication field) would like to believe that we control the definition of our company or clients' companies, we really don't most of the time.

Instead, companies are defined by everything executives and employees communicate about themselves daily (whether written, spoken, or by action); everything executives and employees say about the internal working environment; everything others (from members of the media and bloggers to customers and competitors) say about the company, whether real or perceived; and everything other companies (primarily competitors) say about themselves, which causes people to wonder if the company measures up.

At the end of the day, you add up all these messages and therein lies the "real" (not self-perceived) definition of a company. While there are strategies in managing all these messages, most companies or even advertising agencies do not know where to begin. I'll work harder at sharing some insight here and there for those who care to know; most answers take longer than the single confines of a post to appreciate (and that's not to say I have all the answers), starting with eight questions to ask yourself if you are managing your reputation, which I'll share tomorrow.

To all the other social media experts and bloggers who have contributed to (and will continue to contribute to) this living case study, my gratitude. To all the folks remaining at Jobster who read my posts, I sincerely hope you did not find my criticisms and comments too harsh, but an attempt to provide objective commentary. To Jason Golberg, I hope you keep up honest blogging, perhaps though, with a bit a more sensitivity to the message you want people to read. And to all those who are being asked to leave Jobster, this too shall pass. Good night and good luck.

Reading Minds Online

Whether you know it or not, you probably have a ZEDO cookie in your browser (go ahead and look). Most people do.

ZEDO cookies are relatively harmless, put there by Silicon Valley's largest ad serving company. They track billions of online ads per month and their services are evolving.

Today, ZEDO announced the newest solution is a profile and behavioral tracking system that allows publishers to determine and prioritize up to 1,000 demographic tags and activity tags. In sum, a 25-year-old male snowboarder who earns $45,000 per year and a 35-year-old female lawyer who earns $120,000 a year can be served two completely different automobile campaigns when they are reading articles about cars.

What does that mean? For consumers, it means future Website advertising will become extremely personal. For those in advertising, it means you have another reason to up-sell your clients by producing multiple campaigns based on narrow demographics. And for online privacy advocates, it means marketers gathering too much personal information. For ZEDO, according to Roy de Souza, it means “Our new system is the first of its kind and ensures visitors are served ads they actually want to see. This benefits users, publishers and advertisers."

For the rest, it simply means thinking twice before you lie on a Web publisher survey. Not really. Your profile and behavior will simply be determined by which sections you click through, which may make you think twice before clicking hot topics.

Managing Bad News

Happy New Year!

Last week, I offered to provide some basics in managing bad news when faced with a situation like Jobster as part of a living case study in communication. (Spoiler: If you're looking for dirt, I am sorry to disappoint. You can find plenty of nastiness on Jobster's own blog.)

Perhaps James E. Lukaszewski, APR, of The Lukaszewski Group (one of the most quoted crisis communication management consultants and prolific authors in the field), said it best during his speech to the Canadian Investor Relations Institute in 2001: In the era of instant communication, people will likely bet against you when trouble comes. "Your ability to understand and communicate with confidence in real time with constituents will be the key to winning the perception struggle that crisis always creates," he said.

He is spot on of course. With the exception of crime, malfeasance, or environmental catastrophe, most crisis communication situations are all about perception, and this seems to be the area where Jobster has struggled the most.

You see, downsizing, unfortunately, is part of business when companies are not performing as expected. There is nothing wrong with it, other than the unfortunate impact it has on people. Most people understand this and most CEOs lament the decision, which means companies are generally judged solely on management's handling of layoffs. This is also why I suspect Jason Goldberg's decision to blog about upcoming changes before clearly communicating all the details to employees (just prior to the holidays) was met with such widespread criticism.

Why? First and foremost, he didn't seem to understand he was in a crisis communication situation. Usually, crisis communication situations are identified by one of the following: a dramatic drop in stock prices, a member of management is indicted, outside activists attack the company, acquisitions/mergers/takeovers, anti-corporate government action, and the one that is hardest to identify but best applies here — founded and unfounded rumor.

It doesn't make a difference whether a rumor is founded or unfounded, both can have equal impact on a company's reputation and it is up to a CEO to manage them, with or without the advice of communication specialists (not necessarily public relations practitioners). If they do not, they run the risk of demonstrating that they are not leaders, but simply managers. The difference is that managers generally run an organization by the numbers (try to make the forecast or exceed it at all costs) whereas leaders lead through inspiration, motivation, strategic vision, and people management.

When faced with bad news or a crisis, assuming management recognizes it as such, the best leaders will always consider the following (a sliver from my playbook) once the founded or unfounded rumor surfaces:

• Talk about it as soon as possible.
• Tell the whole truth, even if it means bad news, negligence, or wrongdoing.
• Be clear and concise, addressing details without obscuring the situation.
• Offer full disclosure of all relevant facts, history, and related information.
• Demonstrate empathy or remorse as appropriate to the situation.

By all counts, it seems to me that Jobster did none of these things. They did not seem to consider that, in today's world, communication has an impact on ALL company publics very quickly (employees, shareholders, media members, customers, etc.) and each of these publics will react to information differently. They did not seem to consider most people have gut reactions before listening to the facts and background or waiting for post-holiday explanations. They did not seem to consider that all information, no matter how contained it seems, will eventually be released by someone. And they did not seem to consider that the media, people like the Seattle Times, will frequently turn to additional sources for opinions and comments when management avoids an issue, which could further erode the reputation of the company.

Suffice to say, even if Jobster finds a way to keep every employee (I hope they do, and am sorry if they don't), how the rumor and supporting evidence was managed will still have a negative impact on the company, especially on employee relations. Sure, they don't teach most of this in many MBA programs, but the most experienced leaders in today's business world learn it anyway, either the easy way from "handlers" as they are called by Goldberg, or the hard way.

Given that reputation damage most often occurs from the inside out, I sincerely hope others learn from this living case study. History does not have to repeat, even though it almost always does. Companies are fragile things. Treat them wisely.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that there has been much criticism over whether people should be discussing Jobster at all. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Jobster executives and team leaders have to appreciate that no one but no one gets to choose what others find newsworthy or interesting. On the contrary, you invited bloggers and members of the media to take an interest in the company from day one. You cannot "uninvite" them.

That, in essence, is what public relations (just one aspect of strategic communication) is all about. It's about managing communication, perception, and reputation in good times and in bad. Never should a company expect one without the other. That would be silly.

Remembering Top Posts Of 2006

With the new year upon us next week, we would like to say goodbye to 2006 with a recap of our five most popular communication-related posts, based on the frequency and the immediacy of hits after they were posted.

Wee Shu Min’s Post Impacts Economic Reform

When Wee Shu Min, the teenage daughter of a Singapore member of parliament, stumbled across the blog of a Singaporean who wrote that he was worried about losing his job, she thought she’d give him a piece of her mind. She called him “one of many wretched, under motivated, over assuming leeches in our country” on her own blog and signed off with “please, get out of my elite uncaring face,” a post that received international scorn and had such an impact that the Singapore government paid out S$150 million to about 330,000 low-income workers five days before its recent election.

Links: Wee Shu Min, Wee Siew Kim

Jobster Loses Control Of A Blog Rumor

After starting a rumor that 2007 would mean more profitability for Jobster, the rumor runs away from the company as bloggers speculate whether that will mean layoffs at the young, but fast growing online recruitment company. The outcome leads to one of the worst public relations and internal communication nightmares in recent memory. From the net to mainstream media, the Seattle Times picks up on what continues to be an interesting communication case study. A few more days and Jobster might have overtaken Wee Shu Min’s post. Go figure.

Link: Jobster

Wal-Mart Fires Julie Roehm

Julie Roehm never intended to gain her most fame for being fired by Wal-Mart, but that is exactly what happened after Wal-Mart allegedly grew uncomfortable with her friendly connection to Draft FCB, which she had pushed for to become Wal-Mart’s agency of record. Draft FCB was fired three days after Roehm. Still spinning an upbeat message, Roehm told Advertising Age she would take “60 days to find out exactly what I want to do and take advantage that people want to talk with me…” Her other alternative, she said, is to open her own shop.

Links: Roehm, FCB Draft

Jim Gibbons Elected Nevada Governor

Fueled largely by last minute assault allegations made against Jim Gibbons by Chrissy Mazzeo, a 32-year-old cocktail waitress at Wynn Las Vegas, the governor’s race in Nevada became a hot topic nationwide. Eventually, Gibbons overcame the obstacle after video evidence proved he was not in the location where the incident supposedly took place. Gibbons won over Dina Titus, 48-44. For our part, we worked on Gibbons mailers for the Nevada Republican Party’s Victory 2006 campaign after working with State Senator Bob Beers on his spirited policy-changing primary.

Links: Jim Gibbons, Gibbons Wins

Miss USA Crowns In Turmoil

The Miss USA pageant scandals remind us that all of us have personal brands. Donald Trump capitalized on the publicity by teasing Miss USA Tara Conner with the statement, made days ago, that he would be "evaluating her behavioral and personal issues and would make an announcement within the week." He forgave her, but Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, did not fare as well when 3-year-old photos surfaced on the Internet. The decision prompted many to ask whether the Miss Universe Organization had double standards in regard to ethics rulings.

Links: Rees, Conner

Those were the top five topical posts in 2006, followed closely by predictions for YouTube, e-mail disasters, Stoern’s publicity stunt, business card techniques, and Sam Sethi’s dismissal from TechCrunch.

Links: YouTube, E-mail, Stoern, Business Cards, Sethi

Let us hope 2007 brings more attention to the best practices as opposed to the biggest mishaps. Happy New Year!

Knowing When To Post

Jason Goldberg is an Internet pioneer of sorts, not only for developing Jobster (one of the first employee recruitment search engines), but also for starting one of the first truly transparent corporate blogs three years ago. It has never been as polished as some corporate blogs, but Goldberg seems to prefer it that way and it seemed to work, er, until now.

The main reason Jobster has suddenly resurfaced on everyone's radar is because the company, the biggest new Internet company in Seattle, recently instituted a hiring freeze, which venture blog writer John Cook says is a sign that the company may have grown too big too fast. Shortly after, rumors began to surface that the 145-person company would announce significant layoffs.

Although a minor communication crisis was already brewing, Goldberg made it big with a post that asked people to "put down your pencils .... calm it down, relax a bit, and have a nice holiday. We've got no news to give ya before the new year."

From an internal communication perspective, posting this was paramount to the captain of the Titanic asking passengers to refrain from dropping lifeboats in the water until the ship's quartet finished his favorite song. To make matters worse, Goldberg added a post to justify Jobster's future decision to focus on profits in 2007. And again, he asked people to wait for answers.

"why would a young company like jobster care about profits? hmmm... vs. many of the dot com companies not too long ago who didn't? many answers to provide here ... will have to wait for now. but in the meantime I will point to a few big things ..." and goes on to list four of them.

No, there is nothing wrong with streamlining a company to become more profitable, but it is usually a good idea to let your employees know before the rest of the world. Not to mention, asking them to "have nice holidays" before facing major layoffs is almost too painful to post about.

Will there really be layoffs? According to an e-mail, again published by Cook, Goldberg writes: "What I can say is that the changes we will make are 100 percent voluntary and (management) proposed (versus) board dictated."

All this news and continuing updates from Cook has created a second wave of criticism about Goldberg and Jobster. It's unfortunate because this could have been handled better. One of the first golden rules of any crisis communication situation is to deal with the most urgent and critical matters as early as possible. In doing so, the spokesperson or CEO must be direct, decisive, and empathetic to anyone who could be negatively affected by the bad news.

Instead, Goldberg, apparently panicked and without the aid of a seasoned communication professional, wrote from his Blackberry: "I made a personal pledge to be a very public and open CEO, knowing that it could come back to bite me sometimes. I promised to speak my mind and provoke and prod the industry a bit, again knowing that it could open me up to greater criticism and sometimes backfire."

He went on to encourage his readers to read all about the "beating" he received from comments made by anonymous posters on Cook's blog. "Rather than run from it, I encourage folks to go read it."

Um, Mr. Goldberg, please, please stop throwing kerosene on the deck of your sinking ship and you just might save it yet. You see, there is a difference between being a very public and open CEO and one who is empathetic to his employees, investors, and fans.

Lesson for today: Don't tease with bad news, lead with it. It's not fun, but at least it's manageable.

Striking A Visual Chord

The Fifth Column is a group of bloggers who pride themselves on attempting to "whittle away at the dominant culture, the status quo, and the accepted and the norm."

I mention them today — as Islamic fighters and Ethiopian-backed government soldiers begin to clash in Somalia, potentially sparking a civil war and dragging in the entire Horn of Africa — because one of them effectively demonstrated the power of a single image. The photo, showing white doves of peace growing darker as they fly upward past a tank, is a bold social commentary on current events in Africa and, unfortunately, most of the world.

The LA Times has an excellent write up on this growing conflict at a time when most men and women are wishing for peace on earth.

In sum, Islamic leaders, who recently seized control of Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia, are calling for a "holy war" against Christian-dominated Ethiopia unless the neighboring nation withdraws its troops, which were sent across the border to prop up Somalia's weak transitional government. Both sides have been massing weapons and troops in strategic points around southern Somalia in recent weeks.

Should this occur, Eritrea and Kenya will most likely be drawn into the fray. The United States could also become involved, given that our government has been funding some warlords as part of the greater war against terror. Other than funding select warlords, it has been hands off in Somalia after 18 American servicemen were killed in Mogadishu. The story, of course, was popularized by the book and film "Black Hawk Down." According to military sources, other players include Syria, Libya, Yemen, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt supplying funding and logistical assistance to Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys.

Moving back to the topic of striking a visual chord: this one works because it accurately presents a framework for their entire column, which is how photos work best. Despite the old adage that a picture paints 1,000 words, most cognitive studies have found considerable evidence that effective working memory is increased by using dual media rather than a single medium to communicate.

In fact, one theory, called cognitive load, suggests that the best form of communication is one that is limited to two representations of the same material at one time: aural/pictorial or written/pictorial. You can give readers the third option, but two remains the best option (which explains why users hit the mute button on "musical" blogs).

Regardless, images, particularly photographs, are thought to be easier to assimilate and to be more universal than words. When combined with words however, they create a compelling message.

For example, The Fifth Column appropriately gave this photo the caption: this is what it sounds like when doves cry. Imagine what a different impact the photo might have with the caption: world peace at last.

Maybe it's my profession, but I have always been fascinated with the psychology of communication as much as the execution of it. Now if only those leaders vying for power on the Horn of Africa could consider that most differences, regardless of distance, can be bridged with communication. Or, at minimum, they could at least begin to understand each other, even if they cannot agree.

Stacking Online Votes

On Christmas Day, Seth Godin did something nice for a few dozen blogs. He posted them on his blog, Seth Godin, and encouraged people to visit.

By creating a plexo at Squidoo, he enabled others to include their own blog (or blogs they liked) and vote for any they felt seemed interesting. "There is no A list, so there can't be a Z list. There's just good blogs," he wrote.

Unfortunately, one blogger felt otherwise, turning the true spirit of Godin's post into a case study that is similar to the challenges Reddit experienced a few months ago when overzealous marketing types voted their articles up and other articles down. However, unlike the Reddit stacking, Kim Klaver and a handful of her readers were less than anonymous. On her blog, which I won't link to, she wrote: "If we push it to #1, I'll take a screenshot pronto and post it here. We'll be 'Queen for a day.'"

Her marketing tactic worked, driving several readers to vote and then report her blog's progress. In fact, they voted hers up and other blogs down, enough so, that one commenter on her blog finally wrote: “You know, sending an email out in order to ask for votes is really quite lame. ... Deceptive if you ask me. Isn't this the very thing you preach against?” Obviously not.

"I don't mind asking for votes though, since people can do it or not. I might even send out another email, so be forewarned...hehehe,” Klaver replied. "If the blog writers didn't tell their readers about the popularity contest, how would they know and how could they help their favorite writers?"

Klaver seems to have missed the point of the post entirely. It was never meant to be a popularity contest, especially because Squidoo doesn't track IP numbers, only e-mail addresses. This means that anyone with multiple e-mail addresses can vote for whatever blog they like as many times as they like. With Klaver's encouragement, that is exactly what her readers seemed to do.

The most basic Internet tracking reveals the story behind her empty victory; many blogs were voted down despite never being visited. It is a shame, because I visited many of those blogs today and several were worthwhile despite being voted down.

But then again, I suppose that is the difference between Klaver's "new school of marketing" and communicators like me. I subscribe to a code of ethics that includes credible communicators "engage in truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding."

Sharing Happy Holidays

Their lives are beautiful,
sparkling like stars.

Their moments are fleeting,
ending in a second.



Let their imprint be an avalanche,
these fragile snowflakes of all seasons,
our family and friends.

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.

Stocking Stuffers For Public Figures

While most people are heading home for the holidays, Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, decided to release some unwanted stocking stuffers for a few politicians. Here is the 2006 “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list:

1. Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist
Abramoff is at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice

2. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
In January 2006, Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation was fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in contributions to Clinton’s Senate 2000 campaign.

3. Former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA)
In November 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion.

4. Former Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Tom DeLay, who was forced to step down from his position as House Majority Leader and then resign from Congress, decided in 2006 not to run for re-election.

5. Former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL)
Foley left the House in disgrace after news broke that he had been sending predatory homosexual emails to a House page.

6. Representative Denny Hastert (R-IL)
In addition to mishandling the Foley scandal, outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert allowed House ethics process to ground to a halt on his watch.

7. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated staggering liabilities ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000.

8. Representative William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D-LA)
Jefferson is alleged to have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to help broker high-tech business deals in Nigeria.

9. Former Representative Bob Ney (R-OH)
Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November 2006, three weeks after pleading guilty for accepting bribes from an Indian casino in exchange for legislative favors.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid came under fire in 2006 for failing to properly report to Congress a $700,000 land deal.

Judicial Watch has long maintained that public corruption is endemic to our nation’s capitol. To some degree, it is right. Many representatives arrive in Washington D.C. as average citizens and leave with the keys to newfound wealth.

For some, it stands to reason that serving in Congress will open doors of opportunity. After all, many companies look for skill sets that politicians acquire while in Washington. Others hope that partnering with or adding a sitting/former congressman will increase their company's credibility.

Still, what makes some, if not all, of these ten politicians a bit different is that they didn't wait for retirement to cash in or demonstrate any restraint or remorse when abusing public trust. Then again, sometimes the public gets what it asks for: Hillary Clinton still polls strong as a presidential hopeful and Senator Harry Reid will likely retain his seat in Nevada as long as he wants it.

That is the state of political affairs today, with Katie Rees, former Miss Nevada, being placed under more scrutiny for what she did five years ago than most folks, who are running the nation, might be doing right now. No, I am not saying all politicians are bad people or corrupt. Having worked in the political arena for about ten years, I can attest to the fact that there are some politicians who rise above the rest in terms of ethics. Thank goodness for them.

For those few honest politicians and anyone who reads this blog ... Merry Christmas ... Happy Holidays. Until our next.

Losing Fame In 19 Frames

It seems some people have an easier time forgiving the present than they do the past. Miss Nevada, from my home state, will not get a second chance.

Just days after Donald Trump refused to fire embattled Miss USA Tara Conner, Paula M. Shugart, president of the Miss Universe Organization, had no problem firing Katie Rees for photos that are five years old.

In a statement to the TV show "EXTRA," an attorney for Rees says, "Katie wants the public to know she was 17 and had a lapse in judgment. This was an isolated incident that occurred more than five years ago when she was a minor."

While I will not publish them here, the full set of photos has been published at TMZ. Despite block-out stars, several are explicit.

Ultimately, the decision to fire Rees raises an eyebrow over the ethical standards Miss USA is attempting to set. While impossible to defend the behavior in these photos, considering Miss Nevada is meant to be role model, one wonders about the arbitrary state of the pageant, given that press time played a role in the decision.

A week earlier, Rees might have been the one receiving a second chance. She seemed more deserving of one, given the photos are years old and she apologized more sincerely than Miss USA.

Yet, as I've often noted as a public relations instructor: it's always better to err on the side of caution in case you might one day be in the public eye. If not, your greatest embarrassment might be featured in the Wall Street Journal, er, on TMZ.

First runner-up Helen Salas will assume the Miss Nevada title and compete at the 2007 Miss USA Pageant on March 23 in Los Angeles. She was a second runner-up at Miss Teen USA.

Teasing Tara Conner

According to the Associated Press, Donald Trump refused to fire embattled Miss USA Tara Conner, despite widespread speculation that she would be stripped of her tiara. The rumors surfaced after allegations that the beauty queen, despite being underage, was a big drinker.

"I've always been a believer in second chances," said Trump, who owns the Miss Universe Organization, with a tearful and surprised Conner at his side.

"In no way did I think it would be possible for a second chance to be given to me," said the choked up beauty queen.

So why a second chance? Simple. Her bad behavior has garnered more attention for Miss USA than the pageant could garner on its own. The finals, broadcast by NBC, only attracted 7.75 million viewers, the second-lowest viewership since the pageant began in 1952.

In contrast, since the New York Daily News reported Conner had tested positive for cocaine, had lustily kissed Miss Teen USA Katie Blair in public, and had sneaked men into their Trump Place apartment, she has become a household name who suddenly made the title Miss USA relevant for a scandal-loving public.

Congrats to Trump for proving once again that he is a master at publicity by teasing Conner with the statement, made days ago, that he would be "evaluating her behavioral and personal issues and would make an announcement within the week."

Of course she got a second chance. Conner has single-handedly saved what an army of marketers could not save on their best day.