Blacklisting Vegas: President Obama

According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA), Las Vegas hosted 22,454 conventions and meetings that attracted more 6 million business people and conventioneers in 2008. It accounted for an economic impact of $8.5 billion, employed more than 46,000 Southern Nevadans (75,000 with indirect employment), and represents close to 15 percent of the city's total visitor volume.

On Monday, President Obama said he wanted to end that.

“We’re going to do something to strengthen the banking system. You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back. You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime. There's got to be some accountability and some responsibility.” — President Obama, Town Hall discussion in Elkhart, Indiana

There does have to be accountability and responsibility.

"Mr. President, I understand the enormous burden you carry in dealing with the worst economy since the Great Depression. I also understand the need for accountability, but your comments are harmful to the meetings and convention industry as a whole and Las Vegas specifically." — Mayor Oscar Goodman, Las Vegas, Letter posted at Las Vegas Now

Careless research and ill-advised words damage lives.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, President Obama based his decision on a report that cited "$300 hotel rooms" as an example of extravagance. The Venetian, which is a more upscale property, lists rooms for $189 per night. The LVCVA reports the average room rate was $119.19 in 2008, with a low of $96.39 in December.

Specifically, businesses attend conventions and meetings in Las Vegas because of its room rate discounts, reasonable air fare, diversity of offerings, and the strong local infrastructure to support it. Since 2000, the city has gone to great lengths to carry a dual message that, despite its party town image, it is an extremely smart and cost-effective choice for business.

At least four major companies have already canceled their plans to meet or hold conventions in Las Vegas this year. Some of the cancellations have to do with the perception of Las Vegas, while others might be because of their own financial constraints. State Farm planned to book 11,000 rooms in September, but those rooms will now remain vacant. Wells Fargo, which received some bailout money, also backed out of a 12-day junket in response to cries that the meeting represents wasteful spending.

Unless replaced, the damage caused by these lost bookings could be severe to a local economy already experiencing a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, well ahead of the national average. It is anticipated to hit double digits this year, with the state facing a economic crisis, which began after it was hit especially hard by the subprime mortgage situation.

The campaigning needs to end and bailouts too.

During campaigns, politicians are sometimes quick to call out and vilify opponents, industries, and government. The message becomes simple. Everything is bad, and we need to change it all. While I'm not a fan of peddling fear, many campaign managers understand all too well that these trumped up rally cries can move certain publics to the polls.

However, once elected, most politicians are seasoned enough to understand that the communication needs to shift in order to govern. As elected officials, most know that effective leadership requires the polarization to stop and productivity to begin. They recognize that they no longer represent campaign slogans but rather the Wall Street stock broker in New York and the maid in Las Vegas and the automotive lineman in Detroit. They are no longer entitled to pick and choose which American people they represent. They represent us all.

Regardless of how you feel about Las Vegas, President Obama's message did not communicate anything about this city as much as it communicated something about the recent waves of bailouts and the stimulus package in general. The power of the purse is the ability of one group to manipulate and control the actions of another group by withholding funding, or putting stipulations on the use of funds. This power grab is alive and well in America.

After Monday, it now seems all to clear that President Obama is intending to use this power and perhaps abuse it, under the guise of protecting taxpayer money. However, in delivering this message, he neglects the obvious. The 46,000 Americans directly employed by the convention industry in Las Vegas are taxpayers too. They are owed an apology.

Good night and good luck.

Looking For Leadership: Engage Employees

As the economic downturn continues, employee engagement remains the critical component for companies to weather the worst and remain on track. It is not enough to simply demand more from top performers or expect employees to hang on with with the hope that job security seems safer than facing unemployment. Leaders need to energize the base.

Watson Wyatt, a global consulting firm, recently released a report that shows highly engaged employees are twice as likely to become top performers. They also miss 20 percent fewer days of work. And, three-quarters of them exceed or far exceed performance review expectations.

The benefits for highly engaged employees benefit the organization as a whole. Organizations with clear leadership and internal communication enjoy 26 percent higher employee productivity, have lower turnover risk, and have earned 13 percent greater total returns to shareholders over the last five years. They are also more supportive of organizational change initiatives, willing to get behind near-term plans even when they ask for sacrifice.

There are two catches. Executives need to be leaders more than managers. And, each organization requires its own plan.

“There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to employee engagement," said Ilene Gochman, global practice leader for organization effectiveness at Watson Wyatt. "Segmenting the workforce and tailoring communication, performance management programs and other resources to specific employee groups is the most effective way to engage workers.”

• Capitalize on “engageable moments.” In the best of times, companies can most easily energize new employees. Currently, most companies do not. Even after six months, employees tend to be less motivated to do their best every day. Instead, especially at organizations with hiring freezes, challenging economic times can become the catalyst, assuming management hasn't settled into complacency.

• Demonstrate strong leadership and clear direction. As we recently mentioned, employees want to know about their organization’s specific plans and progress. "What plan" matters less than the fact there is a plan.

• Manage organizational change with effective communication. Especially in an economic crisis, employees are anxious to learn the rationale behind decisions. Authentic communication from senior management will give employees a sense of purpose.

• Emphasize customer focus. Employees are already aware that job security is strengthened by satisfied customers. The two challenges most leaders face is if employees are too focused on internal rumors (will there be more layoffs) or if employers are not providing employees enough support to satisfy customers.

• Invest in the core. One of the most interesting aspects of the study was the emphasis placed on energizing the base. Highly engaged employees that are already top performers can be limited by their less engaged co-workers. Companies need to establish engagement with more than 60 percent of the workforce before productivity shifts.

From our own research, the majority of organizations have settled into a "holding" pattern, attempting to wait out the economic crisis. This presents a tangible opportunity for companies that energized to turn the economic situation into a clear advantage. As simple as it might sound, the decision can be articulated in a few lines from Robert Frost.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

The only question that remains is which road will your organization take? Without question, the choice will make all the difference. Our company, fortunately, has already decided to take the one less traveled by. And, we recently were engaged by an organization to help them do the same. What about your organization? Wait and hold or engage and grow?

Related reading:

City of Collinsville: We work to bring the employees into the decision making.

Edleman: One in four employees will consider switching jobs when the economy picks up.

The Employee Factor: Employee engagement levels erode over time.

Compensation Force: Recession-driven sense of shared destiny - are we missing an opportunity?

Spinning Salmonella: Peanut Corporation of America

"PCA is second to nobody in its desire to know all the facts, and our team is working day and night to recall affected products and to complete its investigation." — Peanut Corporation of America

With the FBI issuing search warrants to assist the FDA in its ongoing investigation of the Peanut Corporation of America's (PCA) plant in Blakely, Ga., and corporate headquarters in Lynchburg, Va., it seems everyone wants to know the facts well ahead of "nobody."

Recently, the Associated Press reported that federal officials say the PCA knowingly shipped salmonella-laced products from its Georgia plant even after tests confirmed the contamination. Since federal law forbids producing or shipping foods that could be harmful to the public health, it also seems there will be charges.

Specifically, the FDA believes that the plant sold peanuts that tested positive for salmonella before receiving the second test and even after confirming salmonella was present. This is no longer a crisis communication case study as much as it seems to be a criminal investigation. Period.

How botched crisis communication is often indicative of cover up.

Some public relations specialists might be tempted to spin, but there is only one right answer when public safety is concerned. Tell the client or employer to come clean, immediately, with full disclosure and complete transparency. If they refuse, inform them that you are obligated to go forward without them.

We saw a similar case study unfold in the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada last year. The communication failed because there was only one thing to communicate — the bad practices were done, knowingly unsafe, in order to cut costs. In fact, the same might be said to Dr. Dipak Desai's attorneys. They claim Desai cannot testify after suffering two strokes. His inability to testify is still in question. Get it over with already.

While it is too early to say that the PCA operated with an equal and complete disregard for public health, the FDA is clearly moving in that direction. Even more interesting to us, the communication breakdown of both the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and PCA are surprisingly similar.

Ten similarities between the crisis communication breakdown at the Peanut Corporation of America and Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada.

• At the onset, both owners aggressively defended their operations, claiming that every safety precaution was taken.
• Neither expressed remorse, regret, or empathy despite unsafe practices (until someone told them to express empathy).
• Both regretted having to take action, but did not express any regret for their responsibility in harming others.
• After new evidence surfaced that demonstrated it was an ongoing practice, virtually all communication was cut off.
• There was virtually no communication with employees as they were laid off; former employees then came forward.
• Neither offered any compensation for those affected by their negligence, which, in this case, included deaths.
• Neither expressed any desire to compensate anyone for pain, suffering, and anguish at being put in harm’s way.
• Neither would pledge that they and their management team would never work in the profession again.
• Both continually reinforced not everyone was affected, even when it meant neglecting those who were.
• Both attempted to draw out the investigations as long as possible; and both resisted while claiming cooperation.

While it is too soon to call this case over as criminal charges have yet to be filed (although it seems likely there will be charges), Stewart Parnell, PCA president, could likely join those who put pennies before public safety. And even if he does not, his peanut days are done. The PCA and its various direct-to-consumer brands have crashed.

It happened fast, but not over night. Like all brand failures, they usually erode one shaky step at a time.

Measuring Communication, Intent Part 3 (ROC)

According to Julia Hyde, people expect a "real" company to have printed sales literature (even online companies). Specifically, she says, every company needs a brochure if you want people to "know you mean business."

She then goes on to define twelve steps needed to produce the most effective brochure possible. Some points are better than others, but one key question is missing. What is the intent of the brochure? Since Hyde only provides one answer — to be credible — it seems she never really asked the question.

Most people never ask that question. It's apparent because most brochures start and end the same way — the presentation of a formulaic template, starting with "about us," following with "products" or "services," and concluding with "clients" or maybe "contact" information. Right on. Most Web sites read the same way.

If you want the right outcomes, ask the right questions.

Don't misunderstand me. Brochures, sales collateral, and Web sites can all be extremely useful. However, the better question is "what is the intent of the brochure?" as opposed to "what size brochure?" In fact, in asking this, the company might even decide there is a better communication tactic or tool for the intent of the communication.

The same can be said about the basic news release. The better question is "what is the intent of releasing this news?" as opposed to "what can we get in the news this week?" Or online, the question might be "what is the intent of the Web site?" as opposed to "how many search terms can we capture?" or "how cool can we make it look?"

While all communication tactics might be useful to companies, defining the purpose of the communication or campaign needs to be tied to the outcomes you hope to achieve. And, at the same time, whatever tactics are decided upon must still meet the objectives of the company, its communication strategy, and reinforce its brand equity in the short term.

If there is no intent, then any outcomes are nothing but luck.

For example, I often wondered what the intent of Burger King's Whopper Sacrifice gimmick was before it was disabled by Facebook.

If it was to give away free burgers, then maybe it worked. If it was to generate "online buzz" about Burger King, then I suppose it worked (except for the 233,906 people de-friended.) If it was to demonstrate the company's philosophical differences with Facebook, there is no question it worked. But other than meaningless intent, did it sell more burgers?

Did the free burger campaign only capture Burger King fans that would have bought one anyway? Did all the buzz drive McDonald's diehards to Burger King instead or make someone who eats one Whopper a week buy two the next week? Do anti-social campaigns reinforce the Burger King brand?

And for that matter, do people want to eat angry burgers? Take a look at the logic, and then maybe you can tell me. Or better yet, tell them. It's clear there was no intent whatsoever.

Defining the purpose of communication helps make it measurable

If your intent is to engage customers, then maybe a brochure can wait. If you want to establish an expert position in a market, then maybe a mass blast to journalists on the set schedule of eight releases per month (or whatever) contradicts that goal. If you want to attract prospects toward a sales funnel, then simply owning top searches (YahooBuzz, yesterday: Stimulus Package, Obama, and Jessica Simpson) that attracts everybody doesn't make much sense. (It might even make some of them mad.)

On the contrary, most companies simply need to connect with people who are looking to purchase a product or service that they offer (eg., Southwest Airlines vs. major airlines). Some companies have to change people's behavior to get them to purchase their product over another (e.g., iPhone vs. smart phones). A few companies need to sway public opinion so potential customers ask questions that will eventually lead them to the company (e.g., Subway vs. burger chains).

Can a brochure do this? Can scads of news releases? Can online buzz?

Maybe it can and maybe it can't. Or, to answer Karen Somerville's question "do micro sites work effectively in raising brand awareness and allowing content to be spread virally?" with some questions ... does the micro site even convey Burger King's brand? I see a logo, but the brand? And what is the intent anyway? Is it supposed to motivate people to do something related to the objectives of the company?

Sure, the original angry onion commercial made sense in terms of product branding. It was a new spicy burger. Got it. Nice creative too.

The micro site, on the other hand, had a flawed intent. The intent was to go viral. And that basically means the intent was to make noise. Right on, but making noise and buying a burger are different. Unless, of course, someone is counting this post among earned column inches. (Don't laugh. Someone is counting column inches on this blog and others. I assure you.)

More often than not, the "why" you need to communicate and the "what" you communicate, will dictate the "how" you communicate. So if the intent is to introduce something new (which the micro site does not), then that intent is different than than the objectives of increasing sales or capturing market share (which is what Burger King really wants to do).

Or, going back to the original example, when the intent of communication is to engage customers, then a brochure might not be the most effective communication tactic. And, if you really do need a brochure, then you might consider what outcomes you expect it to achieve. (To educate prospects about your products or services is not an answer.)

Maybe. But if you want to know the truth, most people who accept formulaic template brochures do so for one of four reasons: to show to the real decision maker (which means they need it for their credibility and not yours), to compare you to your competition (because you didn't close the deal), to remind them to visit your Web site (because they already know they won't remember you), or because it's a polite way to conclude the conversation. If you hope it does more, you need a better intent.

Next week, we'll begin exploring intent realization. There are other considerations to ensure intent measures up.

Download The Abstract: Measure: I | O = ROC

The ROC is an abstract method of measuring the value of business communication by recognizing that the return on communication — advertising, marketing, public relations, internal communication, and social media — is related to the intent of the communication and the outcome it produces. Every Monday, the ROC series explores portions of the abstract.

Getting Personal: From Phelps To Psychology Today

"Like most Americans, and like Michael Phelps himself, we were disappointed in his behavior. Also like most Americans, we accept his apology. Moving forward, he remains in our plans." — Subway

The statement reportedly came late today after speculation that Subway intends to drop Olympian Michael Phelps' sponsorship deal. Apparently, Subway is simply pushing back promotion plans until the smoke clears.

Kellogg Co. (Kellogg's) was less understanding. Yesterday, it said it would not renew its sponsorship because of the photo. However, some speculate it was Honey Nut Cheerios that did him in last December.

Should Kellogg's Have Dumped Michael Phelps?

For all the kudos we gave Kellogg's in its handling of the peanut recall, it seems this one wasn't handled with the same crisis communication savvy. Regardless of how one feels about the Phelps photo and subsequent apologies, the Kellogg's contract was coming to a close anyway. It would have been best to let it close quietly.

Instead, the company's reaction to the photos has made Kellogg's the story. And I mean that very literally. Psychology Today made John Harvey Kellogg the story, apparently asking if Kellogg was consistent with the company's image.

Obviously, Kellogg's missed the research that suggests an image isn't what you say it is, but rather what other people say it is. They also missed that celebrity endorsements have always been a mixed bag. Now they've lost on this one, twice.

Meanwhile, comments of support continue to be left on Phelps' Facebook account after he posted his appreciation today:

Hey guys - thanks for your comments. I really appreciate you standing by me…this has been tough…I meant what I said, I made a mistake and I’m sorry. And for those who are mad at me or no longer support me, all I can say is I'm sorry.

This is in no way an expression of support for Phelps' actions. As our Fragile Brand Theory suggests: it is always more important to stick with your image — whether you choose a halo or horns — than the choice you make.

Trending Generations: Pew Research Center

The Pew Internet and American Life Project, an independent public opinion survey research project that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues, posted the results of its Generations Online in 2009 last week. The comparative study evaluates data between 2005 and 2008.

In keeping pace with Harris Interactive's poll in 2007 and the Universal McCann study in 2008, Internet users range from the very young to the young at heart. Right on. The Internet is for everybody.

The Internet Has Become Multigenerational

• 24 percent of adult Internet users are ages 55+ (Boomers, S.G. and G.I. Gen)
• 22 percent of adult Internet users are ages 45-54 (Younger Boomers)
• 23 percent of adult Internet users are ages 33-44 (Gen X)
• 30 percent of adult Internet users are ages 18-32 (Gen Y)

The largest increase among a singular age demographic were Internet users ages 70-75. While only 26 percent of this group participated online in 2005, 45 percent participated in 2008. Participation among ages 75+ also increased from 17 to 27 percent. Ages 60-64 increased from 55 percent to 62 percent.

Other Key Findings Online From 2005 to 2008

• Ages 18-32 are more likely to use social networks, seek entertainment, read blogs, and create content
• Ages 33-64 are more likely shop online, perform tasks (banking), visit government sites, and research products
• Ages 65+ are most likely to research products, obtain health information, visit government sites, and use e-mail

A quick evaluation of the general differences reveals that younger Internet users are increasingly active and much more likely to engage content creators and become content creators. In fact, it is interesting to note that despite calls by Wired that blogs were dead, Internet users ages 12-38 are more likely to create and read blogs than ever before.

But why does any of that matter? So what?

After scanning several dozen blogs, it seems few people drew conclusions beyond the Pew data. But then I remembered a post penned in December called Generation "Why". As Valeria Maltoni pointed out then, the context is changing. And with it, so are the conversations.

Marketers may even be making a mistake. While most are attempting to become increasingly targeted, Internet demographics are becoming increasing diverse. And that might mean marketers will have to learn how to balance targeted content with inclusive conversations that touch multiple publics. How do you do that? It begins with listening.

Tracking Topics: Tweetfeed Adds Value To Twitter

Twitter, the real-time short messaging service that works over multiple networks and devices, continues to grow exponentially, increasing its membership from 500,000 in Dec. 2007 to 4.43 million in Dec. 2008. Membership is not the only area Twitter has grown. So has the number of tools.

There were approximately 60 tools noted by Mashable's Palin Ningthoujam in Sept. 2007. He added 140 in May 2008. One of my favorite Twitter term and tool lists was compiled by Shannon Yelland at SiteMasher.

While it's not complete, the color coding and short definitions make for an easy novice scan. (She includes Celebrity Tweet, which helps people stalk celebrities, presumably those verified as real.) Webdisortion also sports a good list too, and includes Tweetfeed.

What is Tweetfeed and why does it add value to Twitter?

Tweetfeed is one of the newer applications that allows people to create customized search term feeds, and track those topics in real time. What makes it stand out from Twitter's native topic search engine, in addition to presentation options, are the search operators.

Feeds can be generated based on exact phrases, either or phrases, from specific dates, by attitude, sent to or from specific people, and within a certain proximity, among others. There are sixteen operators, assuming you count some basics such as hashtags (#) or attitudes (which is basically a smile or frown search).

We used it a few days ago to help capture a conversation between Shel Israel and Scott Monty. It proved more useful than toggling back and forth between the two in order to find the start of their conversation on Twitter's native search engine. It also made it easier to capture portions of the conversation that occurred hours apart.

Tweetfeed is also "Share This" enabled, allows for custom CSS presentation, and Web analytics. (The combination of features, along with larger type, makes it ideal for "Twitter walls" that are becoming more common at conferences.) The customization features add flexibility.

What are some potential applications for Tweetfeed?

1. Social Media Monitoring. You create a custom search on your name and/or your company and add it to your bookmark service. Like every other tracking application, this is probably the most common usage.

2. Information Sourcing. You can track topics to help you identify people with similar interests or stay up-to-date on content being sourced and linked to by people on Twitter. It could also be used to help determine what is the most popular discussion point around a certain topic.

3. Presentation Augmentation. "Twitter walls," which have become especially common at social media conferences, can be customized with conference colors and brands. The feeds can be customized beyond hashtags and include the presenters or topics relevant to the presentation.

4. Comparative Models. As illustrated by one of the examples, Tweetfeed tracked McCain and Obama in single feed, which could have been later analyzed for compare frequency, attitude, tone, or even topical content between them.

5. Sharing Content. Since it's "Share This" enabled, sharing a link is easy. The "Share This" feature publishes the feed link with your account name and the name of the feed (you can edit it before posting as long as you save as a draft).

There are several more possibilities, but these five capture enough for an introduction. Of course, this is not to say Tweetfeed is perfect. Like most beta services, Tweetfeed has some setbacks, including: frequent login prompts, a missing feed delete option (you can edit a feed), and the lack of RSS. However, these issues might be corrected in the near future.

What else is there to know about Tweetfeed?

Although still in beta, Tweetfeed was recently acquired by our friends at BlogCatalog. BlogCalalog has a solid track record as a member-driven social network for bloggers. It's safe to assume that public feedback will be read. Some requests have already been met.

"I looked at it as a tool that bloggers could use to help them track hot topics," Antony Berkman, president of BlogCatalog, told me. "Twitter is great in that tends to capture the pulse of the Internet. Tweetfeed makes it easier to manage that information around topics, people, and companies."

The acquisition may bring new life to Tweetfeed. Given its potential uses, it may have never received the attention it deserved.

• Simple tips for success: follow your fans on Twitter
• TweetFeed - customizable page that displays Twitter activity
• Taking the time to turn out tweets using Twitter

Bracing For Aftershocks: Peanuts Cause Reactionary Communication

The epicenter of the salmonella epidemic may have originated at a Georgia processing plant owned by Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), but continuing aftershocks will be felt by everyone. To date, it is linked to as many as 529 sicknesses, eight deaths, and 430 product recalls.

While new salmonella cases seem to be subsiding, public outcry continues to be on the rise. With each new aftershock, an exponentially increasing segment of the agricultural industry may be impacted. It's true. What started out as one bad processor practice is quickly escalating to encompass everything as reactionary communication becomes the new normal.

Peanut Corporation of America

After several weeks of mishandling a non-existent crisis communication plan, PCA seems to be working toward ending a self-imposed communication blackout imposed after the criminal investigation began. The Web site now offers a media inquiry number. The decision to provide a number comes after the PCA was likely prompted by what happens when reporters are provided no contact. They start speaking to everyone else.

Yesterday, the Associated Press ran a story with several quotes from former employees. One account describes managers as so concerned with the bottom line that they would allow soggy peanuts and five- or six-year-old peanuts onto the production line. Today, the Associated Press learned that the PCA processing plant in Plainview, Texas, has operated uninspected and unlicensed for years. The plant manager pushed off the communication on the corporation, where he said he sent the paperwork more than a year ago.

Lesson: Once you commit to communicate as the PCA had done, albeit unprepared, you have to remain committed.

King Nut Companies

A few weeks prior to the crisis, Kanan Enterprises, which owns King Nut and Peterson Nut Companies, was celebrating that Matthew Kanan, executive vice president of sales and marketing, was awarded one of the top 40 executives under the age of 40 in Cleveland by Crain’s Business Magazine. Today, it's fighting for its life with increasingly aggressive messages.

King Nut was originally cited as the possible source of the epidemic by the Minnesota Department of Health before the company revealed it did not manufacture its own label. On Jan. 29, the company sent a release expressing "shock and dismay at findings that report the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) knowingly released a product with potential salmonella contamination into the food supply, as released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

While the company distributed products under the assumption that the required safety certification was accurate and cooperated with authorities to locate the source, the message of being "only a distributor" is likely to deliver mixed results because at least some of the products carried the King Nut label. Unlike companies that received peanut ingredients or distributors who solely distribute, King Nut took on the appearance of a manufacturer by offering its own label.

Lesson: Never put your name to another person's work until you have verified the quality.

U.S. Food And Drug Administration

The U.S. Food And Drug Administration has released a recall widget to help all interested parties keep the public ahead of the curve. Since the beginning of the epidemic, it has taken a no nonsense approach in its investigation into one of the largest food recalls in history.

However, it seems investigators are not exempt from contempt. U.S. President Barack Obama said this morning he is ordering a “complete review” of the Food and Drug Administration after it failed to detect shipments of salmonella-contaminated peanut products. The Consumers Union shares the President's view.

Lesson: Don't bark too loud at the fox who ate the chicken if you were the dog responsible for the hen house.

Kellogg's And Those With Recalls

Given how many companies facing recalls made missteps (with Jenny Craig among the worst), we decided to focus on one company that is providing a near perfect model. Kellogg's was among the first to place a hold on its products and first to issue a recall.

It immediately built a recall page that addresses the situation in a non-accusatory manner, preferring to focus on providing customers the information they need, including an FAQ that covers what to do, where to seek more information, and who to contact at the company. All of the information provided is right to the point, with an emphasis on proving facts and information on consumer safety. On the rare occasion the company did offer a quote, it was were clear, empathetic, customer focused, and direct from the company president.

Lesson for everyone else: If your communication team doesn't know what it is doing, consider what the best did.

The J. M. Smucker Company And Those Without Recalls

Never underestimate the impact of a crisis. After the FDA issued a video statement that correctly stated to err on the side of caution and not eat peanut products unless you know the source, many consumers stopped buying peanut products all together, dragging companies that were not affected into the crisis.

The J. M. Smucker Company is one of several that immediately took action to ensure customers that its products are safe because it does not purchase any ingredients from Peanut Corporation of America. In addition to pop-up announcement, J. M. Smucker Company provides a link that includes all of its brands as well as a customer service number. In addition to being smart, the announcement remains balanced, devoid of any marketing messages.

Ironically, we visited several company Web sites with recalls and, unless you look in the press section, you'd never know it.

Lesson for everyone else: You don't have to be part of a crisis to be part of a crisis. Manage only what impacts you.

American Peanut Council

Ever since the American Peanut Council issued the harshest albeit correct language in a statement released on Jan. 29, it continues to draw attention. Some companies are even including Archer's quotes in their own news releases.

“This is a clear and unconscionable act by one manufacturer,” said said Patrick Archer, president of the American Peanut Council. “This act is not by any means representative of the excellent food safety practices and procedures of the U.S. peanut
industry.”

The Peanut Council may not be at the heart of the crisis, but it knows it will be charged with helping clean up the mess. In addition to attempting to help association members by publishing a list of brands NOT impacted by the recall, The Peanut Council will likely face an uphill battle fending off reactionary legislation. Ironically, its communication added even more fuel to the blaze.

Lesson: Never add fuel to a fire that your industry will eventually expect you to put out.

Reactionary Communication is Not Communication.

As these aftershocks continue to rattle the nation, it might be time for someone to lend a voice of reason. If someone does not, reactionary legislation and regulations will likely impact the entire agricultural industry, all for the actions of one irresponsible company. And that could bad for all of us.

Measuring Communication: Intent, Part 2 (ROC)

Last week, we presented Measuring Communication: Intent, Part 1 as part of the exploration of the ROC abstract. While that post focused on the mission statement, it takes much more than a mission statement and its various counterparts (purpose, vision, core values) to establish clear communication objectives and define communication intent.

The reason is simple. While mission statements often present the qualities or characteristics of organizations, they do not necessarily define how that organization interacts with the world around it and tend to change at much slower pace than the needs of organization and the needs of communication. They are generally not the best verbatim message for an organization.

In other words, stating a mission statement might even be likened to saying one expresses empathy. It's not meant to be said. It's meant to be demonstrated. For this reason, other strategic planning processes must also be considered to effectively establish the objectives of communication. These methods help move beyond having a foundation and toward establishing guidelines for how this foundation wants to interact with the world around it.

SWOT

SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture.

• Strengths Defines the attributes of an organization that are helpful.
• Weaknesses Defines the attributes of the organization that are harmful.
• Opportunities Considers external conditions where objectives can be expanded.
• Threats Considers external conditions that could damage the business.

SWOT Benefits: Introspective Analysis, Set Organizational Goals, Unique Selling Points, Short Term

While many references claim there is no point of origin, SWOT was primarily developed by Albert Humphrey, a business and management consultant who specialized in organizational management and cultural change, as part of a research project at Stanford University. It was originally referred to as SOFT.

At Procter & Gamble (P&G), for example, the organization had become complacent after a long period of market dominance. In fact, in the 1980s, it almost lost market dominance. Recognizing this, management realized that in order to retain market dominance, it needed to create a more "nimble organization and to increase the speed and quality of innovation. (Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, 2006)."

The result was the development of an aggressive play-to-win strategy that was encapsulated in its corporate moto “Touching Lives, Improving Life.” However, when you look at the full product line at P&G, you might notice there are many other product- and market-centric messages that reinforce its communication.

CORE

Core message systems, which we will refer to as CORE, is a message development process used to evaluate existing and potential internal and external communication in order to identify, determine, and develop specific key messages that will resonate in the marketplace. It has also proven useful in developing core values.

The core messaging process was originally developed by the Leadership Institute, a training organization for public policy leaders founded in 1979 by Morton C. Blackwell. We employ an evolved model at our company, and this only includes the initial evaluation portion of the process.

• Internal Sources. Captures organization stakeholder messages to internal and external publics.
• External Messages. Captures what other industry organizations are saying to external publics.
• Public Feedback. Captures communication from competitors, detractors, and customers about the organization.
• Stakeholder Response. Captures what the organizations stakeholders might say about competitors and detractors.

CORE Benefits: External Awareness, Consensus Building, Contrast Points, Consistent Messaging, Short to Mid Term

We've been involved in dozens of CORE sessions that range from candidates and small start-ups to major corporations and international organizations. Without revealing specific clients, some examples include: helping a national pool builder break away from price point modeling typical in the industry and shifting to a message of reliability; breaking a technology service provider away from industry stereotypes and establishing a culture of friendly professional service; assisting a nonprofit organization transform its "feel good" messaging into a return on investment message for the state it served.

Simply put, the CORE message analysis process rediscovers assets that already exist within the company and then prioritizes those assets based on the environment in which it operates. Done properly, the resulting messages communicate tangible contrasts (beyond unique selling points) between the company and various competitors.

Real Time Communication

While there are many methods, real time (RT) messaging, in this instance, pertains to messages that fall outside of normal communication parameters. With the possible exception of SWOT on occasion, short- and long-term communication do not generally include for specific situational events.

Since this section on real time communication (or immediate response) is a compilation of communication processes such as crisis communication, disaster response, social media, or other immediate conflicts as they occur, the following is only meant to provide a baseline evaluation.

• Situation Analysis. Evaluate the situation or event, with an emphasis on collecting all known facts.
• Determine Impacts. Determine the potential impact of these facts, including public perception.
• Synchronize Messages. Define and synchronize messages specific to the crisis or event taking place.
• Designate Spokespeople. Designate a spokesperson, recognizing that the messenger is part of the message.
• Collect Feedback And Adjust. Provide for mechanisms that collect immediate feedback and adjust communication.

RT Benefits: Event Specific, Consistent Message, Crisis Sensitive, Flexible, Immediate

There are dozens of examples that show how better real time communication could have benefited companies and organizations on this blog. In almost every case, the proper implementation of situational communication demonstrates why crisis outcomes and communication breakdown are seldom related to what organizations do, but rather how they respond to what occurred.

RT communication is also becoming more pervasive as companies adopt social media as a communication tool. Daily success often relies on how well the communicators can make minute-by-minute situational assessments.

Tying the mission statement to strategic planning methods.

Any or all of these strategic methods are influenced and can influence the ever-present communication offered by a mission statement. In some cases, depending on the outcome of these evaluations, they may even indicate when a mission statement has become outdated and requires refinement. However, in defining communication intent, what is most important to consider is that these strategic methods, together with the mission statement, define the objectives of the communication.

Next Monday, we will present how to define the tactical portion of intent, which begins by understanding the specific purpose of an individual communication component or campaign.

Download The Abstract: Measure: I | O = ROC

The ROC is an abstract method of measuring the value of business communication by recognizing that the return on communication — advertising, marketing, public relations, internal communication, and social media — is related to the intent of the communication and the outcome it produces. Every Monday, the ROC series explores portions of the abstract.

Breaking Pride: Peanut Corporation Of America

The day before federal health officials began a criminal investigation into the actions of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), Beth Falwell, daughter of PCA founder Hugh Parnell, in an ill-advised exclusive interview spoke to a local station, asking for understanding and the benefit of the doubt.

Federal investigators says PCA shipped out peanut products that had tested positive for salmonella at least 12 times during the past two years. The FDA says PCA shipped each out after retesting with a different laboratory. The interview reveals two messages from Falwell. One is a distraught family member, obviously concerned for the family company that is not likely to survive the crisis. The other is more defiant, claiming that the FDA investigation is exaggerated.

“Right now it’s not a law, maybe it should be. But he didn’t break any laws,“ Falwell said.

On Thursday, we revealed how the PCA had emphasized safety, quality, and freshness of product. However, even Falwell could not deny any allegation of cockroaches in the plant, a leaky roof, or the presence of mold. "I'm not saying there weren't," she said.

Based on the interview alone, it's extremely clear that the Peanut Corporation of America doesn't have a crisis communication team in place. While we pointed to a breakdown of the first step — situation analysis — in the crisis communication process, it seems the communication matches the operations, with extreme negligence. Not once, that we are aware of, had the company expressed any empathy or remorse for those afflicted until the criminal investigation was launched (see the newest statement).

In addition, we recently stumbled onto evidence that this is not the first time the plant has had to recall product due to improper and unsafe operations at its plant in Gorman, Texas, which is now closed. Although the report dates back to the 1990s, the Peanut Corporation of America recalled thousands of pounds of product because they exceeded the FDA's established tolerance level for aflatoxin. Aflatoxins, a fungus, are toxic and among the most carcinogenic substances known.

While manufacturers and processors have recalls from time to time for any number of reasons, the report stands out because mold was one of the many problems that the FDA noted during this inspection and, for years, the company has claimed "providing a quality product at a fair cost has been the credence our business has grown up with for the past 28 years." Incidentally, the family did not own the company between 1995 and 2000 (they sold the company, and bought it back).

Developing Networks: The Hierarchy Of Need

For as long as there have been social networks, there have been tip sheets on why you need them and how to make them. But do social networks really work this way? Are there tips, tactics, techniques, and secrets to Digg, Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, BlogCatalog, and countless others? Enough so that you need an entrance strategy? Maybe.

Or maybe it's much simpler than that. Abraham Maslow, who published A Theory of Human Motivation and the hierarchy of human needs, suggested that people tend to prioritize basic needs before personal growth before achieving self-actualization. Maybe they do online too.

Scaling The Maslow Slope In Social Networks

• The Need for Hope. When people first join a social network, most of them are looking to fulfill a hope: personal interaction, professional development, community involvement, or some combination of the three. Their initial focus tends to be concentrated on learning the culture of the social network. (Equivalent to physiological needs.) "Maybe this is the next big thing!?"

•Security. As they begin to engage individuals and develop relationships, they start to feel more secure within the network. Their focus shifts to engaging others in conversation, especially people they have met in person or people who support them. (Safety and security.) "Everyone is so nice!"

• Acceptance. As their confidence grows, they begin to feel accepted as part of the group and stand on their own. They are more likely to initiate conversations, even among strangers, because they belong. (Belongingness.) "We belong here!"

• Achievement. As their network grows around them, they receive more recognition and respect. They are more likely to set topic agendas, lead conversations, and earn the respect of others. (Self-esteem.) "Wow! They think I'm brilliant!"

• Change The World. As their perceived influence reaches a peak, they feel empowered to problem solve and perceive social networks as a means to change the world. They take more chances. They originate more ideas. (Self-actualization.) "We can change the world!"

Reversing The Curve In Social Networks

• Insecurity. If self-actualizers distance themselves from people or promote ideas that do not resonate, they become more likely to seek out support from their friends. They are also more likely to leverage relationships for validation. (Self-esteem.) "Maybe I need to look at other people's ideas."

• Reputation. As they leverage relationships, they become more concerned about their reputation and image. They look for ways to recapture their sense of belongingness instead of indebtedness. (Belongingness.) "I was here first."

• Fear. As their individual networks shrink, they become less focused on presenting ideas and more focused on why they are losing followers. Their focus shifts toward attempting to please others. (Safety and security.) "Why am I losing followers?"

• Despair. As the content they share diminishes, they eventually claim network fatigue and abandon the network or reduce their presence. Some will look for other networks; others will claim social media failed to meet their expectations. (Equivalent to physiological needs.) "This network isn't what it used to be."

Staying In A Place Of Self-Actualization.

This might even be why so many people advise that you be yourself. That you don't confuse yourself with a product. And you never mistake authority for popularity. People are people. Maybe you can be too.

"What a man can be, he must be. This need we call self-actualization." — Abraham Maslow

Clashing Communication: Peanut Corporation of America

The Web site of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has named the source of the salmonella typhimurium epidemic, is radically changed.

A few weeks ago, the PCA site read much like any site. Although dated, top news items included the opening of a new peanut blanching and granulating facility in Plainview, Texas; a message from Stewart Parnell, president, who expressed that quality and freshness of product are what bring our customers back; and a 2004 “Superior” rating from the A.I.B. (American Institute of Baking) audit at a balancing facility that praised the quality control manager for taking food safety seriously.

At Peanut Corporation of America, we know we need to shine so that you and your customers can be assured of consistent quality, safety, and dependability when you allow us to process your peanuts.

Unfortunately, just as the site experienced its largest and only traffic spike for the wrong reasons, all of that information has been replaced by the Peanut Corporation of America Media Page (illustrated above). The oldest item, entitled "Peanut Corporation of America Announces Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Peanut Butter," ends with: The company prides itself on the quality and freshness of its products and strives constantly to maintain an environment in compliance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines to provide a clean, safe product.

The newest item, as of Jan. 28, includes a "Statement by the Parnell Family and Peanut Corporation of America (PCA)." The heavy-handed response "categorically denies any allegations that the Company sought favorable results from any lab in order to ship its products."

The statement comes after a flurry of condemning news stories based on the release of a document that lists observations made by FDA representatives. The report details that some lots of peanut butter had tested positive for various salmonella strains. The firm then retested the lots and received a negative status. This occurred several times since as far back as June 2007.

According to the FDA report, the possible cause is that the company had "not established the effectiveness temperature, volume, or belt speed specific to this roster to assure it is adequate as a kill step for pathogenic bacteria." Additional observations included: failure to maintain equipment to protect against contamination, failure to store food under conditions to protect against contamination, and environmental swabs at the facility revealed several areas tested positive for salmonella strains.

Why The Crisis Communication Process Of The PCA Places The Company In Jeopardy.

Since the beginning, the PCA has embraced the classic step-by-step response to the crisis when a step-by-step crisis communication plan did not meet the situation. The result is that the PCA is in a much more critical position that may not be recoverable even upon the insistence that the FD-483 documents “… do not represent a final Agency determination regarding [your] compliance." As soon as that statement was posted, the only analogy that fit was "runaway train."

While the PCA branding efforts had already placed it at considerable risk under the rules of our fragile brand theory, the real breakdown seems to have occurred at the very beginning, during the situation analysis portion of the crisis communication process. Situation analysis requires an unsympathetic internal review of the facts to determine the communication.

A seasoned crisis communicator might have asked the right questions. In this case, they seem all too apparent.

• What happened? A quick assessment of what seems to be occurring on the forefront establishes the context of the communication. At the PCA, the context, simply put, is that they seemed to be the source of salmonella typhimurium epidemic.

• What is the truth? Asking what happened is not enough. Having been part of several crisis communication situations, the very next question is "what is the truth?" Or, in the case of the PCA, it might have been asked differently. Someone needed to ask "were we negligent in our operations and did we do everything we could do to avoid this as we have continually pledged to our customers?"

• What evidence will support or distract from this truth? While it seems unlikely the PCA could have beat the FDA inspectors in discovering every observation, several items in the report could have been discovered first. While the crisis communication team was drafting non-committed but empathetic recall statement, an investigation could have already been underway.

• Despite personal feelings, what do these findings mean? Often times in crisis communication, perception will overshadow any facts. Simply put, it doesn't matter what the FDA concludes. Observations made by the FDA have concluded a severe breach of safety standards that the company had committed to and reinforced in virtually every piece of communication, including the first recall statement. The perception of evidence needed to be determined, and perhaps isolated to specific events, in the situation analysis phase.

• Never hazard a guess. Considering most crisis communication processes have to be executed within hours if not minutes, it is not feasible to assume that all the facts will be gathered. Under any circumstances, do not guess. When Parnell included that the safety of consumers is a priority in his first statement, it was possibly a guess. While it does not excuse the plant from wrongdoing, the question he needed to ask was "were my people ensuring safety as a priority?" And if not, why not?

It is never easy to see companies self-destruct under the weight of a crisis. But as communicators, whether internal or external, it is our job to be even tougher on our clients or customers during a crisis. Had the PCA crisis team been tough on the onset, it may not have saved the company, but it would have made the crisis much more manageable.

More on this crisis next Tuesday or possibly as events occur, including highlights on how other companies handled a crisis that may not have originated with them, but impacted them and their customers nonetheless. It's important because most people have never heard of the PCA. Customers only know products.

Poisoning PR: Peanut Corporation of America

Almost 20 full days have passed since the Minnesota Department of Health suggested King Nut brand creamy peanut butter as a likely source of salmonella typhimurium, and was quickly linked to Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), which provides ingredients to more than 180 peanut butter products.

In the days following, company after company began recalling peanut butter products: Snacks, cake mixes, candies, cookies, crackers, ice creams, pet foods, pre-packaged products, etc. Jarred peanut butter is not part of the recall.

Kellogg Company was one of the first, placing on hold on certain Austin® and Keebler® branded Peanut Butter Sandwich Crackers immediately following the news that the PCA was the source on Jan. 14. It recalled those products two days later, and has expanded its recall since. Jenny Craig, Inc. was one of the last. It issued a voluntary recall of select Anytime Peanut Butter Flavor Nutritional Bars on Jan. 27. It is important to note that involvement in the recall may be precautionary.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also publishing a long list of company recalls issued by company here. Although most of the recall releases follow the FDA recommended guidelines, the subtle variations suggest vast differences in corporate cultures, crisis experience, and customer relations.

Some companies offered refunds. Some offered replacements. Some offered nothing.

Some companies offered direct contact lines. Some companies offered the CDC hotline. Some offered no contact.

Some companies included quotes. Some companies quoted the FDA, CDC, or even the president of PCA. Some did not.

Highlights of recall release notes from several companies.

“Landies Candies apologizes for any inconvenience to our customers,” said Lawrence R. Szrama, president. “Landies Candies’ product quality and consumer safety have been our top priority for over 23 years and our decision today reflects that tradition.”

"The health and safety of our clients are our number one concern,” said Amy Armish, Director of Food Technology and Quality Assurance, Jenny Craig, Inc. “We are communicating directly with our clients and consultants and are urging all clients who have purchased or are in possession of this product to immediately destroy them. Clients seeking a replacement bar are being asked to visit their Jenny Craig centre or call their Jenny Craig consultant and a replacement bar will be issued in its place or an adjustment made to their next order."

"We are in full cooperation with the FDA during this recall process as we only want to provide the best, and safest product to our customers. Thankfully no illnesses have been reported in conjunction with any of our products," said Jay Littmann, CEO and President of Chef Jay's Food Products.

Mark Tarner, President of The South Bend Chocolate Company, said: “we are taking these steps out of concern for our customers”.

"We regret the need to take this action, but the complete safety of our customers and consumers is our highest priority," said Chris Geist, Chief Operating Officer, Premier Nutrition.

"The safety of our customers is our highest priority, and in keeping with the recommendations by the FDA, we are urging all consumers who have purchased or are in possession of this product to immediately destroy them," said Sharon Tate, Vice President of Quality Assurance, NutriSystem, Inc. "Customers seeking a replacement bar are being asked to call a NutriSystem representative at 1-866-491-6425 or e-mail PBbar@Nutrisystem.com and a replacement bar will be issued in its place."

"With an abundance of caution and given the FDA's ongoing investigation of PCA, we're doing all we can to ensure consumer safety and trust," said Gary Erickson, owner and founder of Clif Bar & Company.

"The safety of our customers has always been our number one priority," said Stacie Behler, vice president of public affairs for Meijer. "Meijer has taken these precautionary steps to help protect our customers and will return this product to our stores only once it is safe for our shoppers."

"Product quality and consumer safety have been our top priority for over 90 years and our decision today reflects that tradition,” said Robert Denning, president and CEO, Perry’s Ice Cream. “We apologize for any inconvenience to our customers."

"The actions we are taking today are in keeping with our more than 100-year commitment to providing consumers with safe, high-quality products," said David Mackay, president and CEO, Kellogg Company. "We apologize for this unfortunate situation."

When compared side by side, the differences between the communication becomes the communication. It reveals where the company places concern, who they feel is best suited to deliver the message, and to some degree, which have a crisis communication plan in place and which might not. We recommend all companies have a crisis communication plan.

We also recommend all communicators and public relations professionals buy an AP Stylebook. Titles need to be lower case when they follow a name (except CEO when used as an acronym). Yes, this includes "president," except President of the U.S.

The most telling recall releases of all are from the PCA.

The Exert on Jan. 10: PCA's facility and products are frequently and rigorously tested for salmonella and other microbiological contamination, including hourly sampling during processing and subsequent analysis by an outside, independent laboratory. No salmonella has ever been found in any of PCA's product.

The Quote on Jan. 13: “We deeply regret that this has happened,” said Stewart Parnell, owner and president of PCA. “Out of an abundance of caution, we are voluntarily withdrawing this product and contacting our customers. We are taking these actions with the safety of our consumers as our first priority.”

The Quote on Jan. 16: "We deeply regret that this product recall is expanding and our first priority is to protect the health of our customers. Our company has worked around the clock for the last week with federal regulators to help identify any potential problems. Our Blakely facility is currently not operating as we continue to work with federal food safety investigators," Parnell said.

The Truth on Jan. 28: Officials say the Peanut Corp. of America plant had repeatedly shipped products that the company's own initial tests found to be positive for salmonella. They say the company also failed to take standard steps to prevent contamination within the plant.

As of 9 p.m. on Jan. 25, more than 501 persons infected with the outbreak strain of salmonella typhimurium have been reported from 43 states. The infection may have contributed to eight deaths. Our heartfelt sympathies are with the families.

There are too many companies and too many conclusions to be drawn from such a sweeping epidemic in a single post. We are opening living case study, which will consist of a series of posts strung together by the label "PCA", beginning tomorrow with what seems to be a severe breach of public trust by that company. The posts will not be daily, but frequent.

It is our continued hope that communicators will learn how to better prepare for crisis communication by blending proven processes and a deeper appreciation for situational communication. Crisis communication is more than a list of bullet points and boilerplates. And every company, sooner or later, will face one.

Balancing Acts: Real-Time Communication

An interesting, spontaneous, and live debate occurred between Shel Israel, co-author of Naked Conversations, and Scott Monty, a new media communications executive at Ford Motor Company, on Twitter, the popular real-time short messaging service, today.

The discussion began shortly after Israel pointed to a New York Times article. It provides an engaging look at real-time social media in action.

Here is a portion of it, minus background noise and side discussions.

Monty: Shel, the issue is a little more complex than you're making it.
Israel: Issues are always complicated until a solution simply emerges.
Monty: A single, nationalized standard is what's needed, not state-specific standards.
Israel: Ca welcomes other states to join our standard. The Ca standards 1st offered 12 yrs ago. What progress has Detroit made towae=rd compliance during that time? During that time what has Detroit spent to block or delay the standards during that time?
Monty: The entire auto industry - not just *Detroit* - is behind a single, national standard. You should familiarize yourself with what Ford is already doing (and plans to do) to meet fuel econ & emissions standards.
Israel: So then, you should have no problem with selling Fords everywhere that comply with the new Calif, emissions standard, right? Now ask that question of your customers.
Monty: This is just me speaking (not Ford): I think a single, high standard would be preferable to multiple standards. We're raising the fuel economy standard across every single vehicle we make - to best-in-class or among best-in-class.
Israel: How much $$ was spent by Detroit to oppose tougher emission standards. What would have happened if you had invested in R&D.
Monty: It's not just R&D Shel. It's the associated $ to retool entire plants.
Israel: You know, I've been sympathetic to Detroit, but if given a choice between sustaining Earth & Sustaining Ford Motors--sayonara.
Monty: Just goes to show me that you know next to nothing about our sustainability efforts. You should research before you tweet. (To others: Please check out some of our efforts in the green area. There's lots here http://bit.ly/1KtP73)
Israel: Golly, Scott. You don't sound like that when I take Ford's side. Why is it that I'm considered knowledgeable then & stupid now?
Monty: Because you did your research then.
Israel: My position requires little research Calif chooses strict emission standards. Ford can choose to comply or not. I do not argue that Ford is working on sustainability. But you are unwise to say that the Feds should prevent CAlif. standards.
Monty: I don't think the CA should be denied (again, Scott talking). If we use that as the single standard, great. Not multiple states
Israel: When Calif acted out of frustration, Detroit went to DC to stop us. There's been a recent change in policy.
Monty: If CA wants to spend its money to fight global warming, good luck. There are other important priorities at stake in the economy.
Israel (hours later): [Scott Monty] wants to point out the good efforts Ford has made and in fact, I believe that's true. But Detroit doesn't get to set the pace.
Monty: You're absolutely right. There's a new pace being set - but at the same time we need to operate within what's realistic now.
Israel: With all due respect, that's precisely what Detroit said to CA in 1997, when hearing were held in this state. CA is throwing down a Green Gauntlet. It's an easier challenge than Kennedy saying man would walk on the moon in 8 yrs. It's time to take the issue seriously for the sake of your kids & my grand children.
Monty: With all due respect, Shel - when did you become an automotive analyst? We've got no problem taking it seriously. We're moving faster than you know. ... But real business decisions need to be made for today as well as for tomorrow. It's a balance.
Israel (hours later): With all due respect, no expert on automotive but I do see an entrepreneurial opportunity when I see one. I'll be happy with any company that complies w/standards. I'll be at the Ford showroom the day you meet that standard. I'll even tweet your virtues.

What wasn't communicated that could have added value to the conversation?

California took the lead in setting the strictest auto emissions because it began taking steps to regulate emissions well before federal standards were set. In fact, California has been at this much longer than Israel gives the state credit. The California Legislature passed the Mulford-Carrell Act, which combined two Department of Health bureaus — the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board — to establish the Air Resources Board (ARB) in 1967. The ARB wasn't even California's first emission reduction effort.

However, California is also the leading polluter in the United States. In 2008, the American Lung Association's 2008 State of Air Report, California metropolitan areas account for five of the top ten most long-term particle polluted metros (with seven cities received a failing grade) and five of the top ten most ozone polluted metros (with twelve cities receiving a failing grade) in the U.S. The cause isn't automotive as much as it is lifestyle.

Of course, much like California, the automotive industry has a mixed record on environmental issues too. You can find an extensive, and reasonably brand neutral, account of the automobile and the environment by Martin V. Melosi right here. It doesn't take an automotive industry expert to deduce that fuel prices more than any other factor dictate what consumers will purchase.

When gas prices are high, like they were in the 1970s, consumers buy fuel-efficient cars. When gas prices are low, they buy SUVs. The American automotive industry tends to compete better in the latter market, although Ford does have 13 U.S. models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or better. The Ford Focus was named one of the top ten greenest cars in 2008.

The American automotive industry has made significant contributions in the development of green vehicles, sometimes at the expense of their own viability (and sometimes for the benefit of competitors). And sure, they've made mistakes too. But blaming the automotive industry for attempting one of the trickiest balancing acts in history seems disingenuous.

You see, I drove one of the earliest electric cars in the 1990s. The public didn't want them. The infrastructure wasn't in place to support them. They were creepy quiet to drive. And, while researching them, nobody could tell me what they planned to do with all the spent batteries. In fact, almost 20 years later, there is no real indication that any of this has changed en masse.

The bottom line is that we need solutions. However, considering we all contribute to the problem every day, those solutions will only come from shared accountability and consensus building. We need discussion over diatribe, the kind that has helped us realize substantial reductions since the 1960s.

Do real-time online conversations add value to communication or cause confusion?

It depends on the conversation and the participants. This one today, despite praise from observers, doesn't add much value.

To his credit, Monty delivered more communication than non-communication during the discussion, better than 2-to-1. In comparison, Israel delivered more non-communication than communication, almost 3-to-1. But this wasn't a boxing match.

Nobody wins, especially those who were listening.

Even with what little truth was alluded to, it's difficult to walk away with a real appreciation of this complex issue beyond polarized content. Simply put, Twitter was not a suitable platform for this discussion. Beyond that, maybe you can tell me.

Measuring Communication: Intent, Part 1 (ROC)

Many executives lose interest in them. Some communicators dismiss them. And a few people have called for their death.

Considering the backlash, we might even ask: What did the mission statement ever do to deserve such dissent and disinterest? Or maybe the question ought to be: What didn't it do? Or even better: What did we do to it?

What is a mission statement?

Simply defined, a mission statement and its various counterparts — purpose, vision, core values — provides a brief description of a company’s purpose and answers why the organization exists for the publics it strives to serve.

"We have chosen to specialise within the hospitality industry, by offering only experiences of exceptional quality." — Four Seasons

It also needs to be in the forefront of every communicator's mind, regardless whether the focus is advertising, internal communication, marketing, public relations, social media, etc. Why? Because if a company and its employees cannot consistently define why an organization exists, then one day it might not exist at all. Seriously? Seriously.

Best Buy: Our business strategy is to bring technology and consumers together in a retail environment that focuses on educating consumers on the features and benefits of technology and entertainment products, while maximizing overall profitability.

Circuit City: ? (One of the most looked for, but never found.)

Why don't some mission statements work?

Internet searches reveal hundreds of different reasons why mission statements don't work, ranging from underdefined and overcomplicated to underutilized and overreaching. Take your pick. But in reality, the only reason mission statements fail is the people behind them.

Either people placed too much effort into defining what a mission statement "should" do and not so much effort in what the company does do or they abandoned it all together in favor of the flavor du jour. As a result, some mission statements become overloaded with statements about diversity, empty marketing promises, and ego-driven prose. Others become dusty while the company moves on without them.

Do strong mission statements have common denominators?

Having been part of several strategic planning sessions for various companies since the early 1990s, it seems to me that "should" only consists of four letters when applied to a strategic planning process. It's a dirty word. However, despite various opinions and schools of thought, there are generally four common denominators that the strong mission statements share.

• It defines what the company does.
• It defines what the objectives are.
• It considers various publics.
• It differentiates the company.

"We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world's consumers, now and for generations to come." — Procter & Gamble

Why is a mission statement important to communication?

Regardless of how a communicator feels about the mission statement, it remains as part of the presentation for communication development, brand management, and measurement. Just as a mission statement and its various counterparts provide an underlying direction for the company, it provides direction for communication.

"To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. If you have a body, you are an athlete." — Nike

It is also one of three components to consider in defining the intent of communication. As Philip Kotler once put it, the mission statement acts as an invisible hand that guides employees to work independently and yet collectively toward the same goals. It also provides a baseline of expectations that various publics will use to define their impression of the company.

While we could delve into the methods and differentiate product-oriented models vs. market-oriented models, the purpose of this post is simply to reestablish its importance in defining intent. After all, if an organization cannot communicate or reinforce why it exists, then it leaves its purpose open to interpretation and the risk of brand erosion or failure.

This doesn't mean the mission statement has to appear verbatim in all communication. Far from it. Since mission statements are measured by the experiences of customers, they can be reinforced in different forms across advertising, marketing, public relations, and social media.

For example, Four Seasons communication frequently reinforces exceptional experiences. Nike's "Just do it" campaign almost always captures inspiration. And Procter & Gamble, even though it markets multiple branded products, is still reinforced by "Touching lives, improving life" and "Everyday solutions" All three have public relations efforts that tend to follow suit. So do their community relations programs. And so does their internal communication.

In sum, the mission statement (or other definition of company purpose) is an ever-present part of communication, even as it is influenced by SWOT and other strategic planning methods (presented next week) or as specific communication tactics are developed to meet objectives. It is the presentation behind the presentation.

We help agencies, companies, organizations, and communities produce the most effective communication possible by composing powerful messages across all media. — Copywrite, Ink.

Download The Abstract: Measure: I | O = ROC

The ROC is an abstract method of measuring the value of business communication by recognizing that the return on communication — advertising, marketing, public relations, internal communication, and social media — is related to the intent of the communication and the outcome it produces. Every Monday, the ROC series explores portions of the abstract.

Moving Forward: How To Manage Criticism

Lauren Vargas, principal of 12Comm Public Relations, calls them killer bees or "jackals feeding off the blood and weakness of others." Valeria Maltoni, who writes the Conversation Agent (among other things), calls them seagulls — those who fly in, make a mess, and fly out again. And Umesh Sharma, clinical psychologist, includes not being a critic among his secrets for a stress-free life. Critics are like needles in a balloon factory, he said.

There is certainly some wisdom in their words. Seagulls and bees or needles and jackals don't make the most pleasant company. However, as Vargas points out and Maltoni has too, constructive criticism is not only welcomed, it's needed.

That leaves some communicators in a quandary. How do you tell the bees from butterflies and seagulls from eagles?

After all, very few people really like criticism, but everyone offers it from time to time. In fact, our aversion to it tends to be a prominent social media discussion point any time I speak with business people. "What if someone says something bad about us?" they ask.

I generally muse that people probably are already saying something bad about them, they just don't know it.

After all, the most common question after a dinner, show, movie, book, product, new car, etc. is "How did (or do) you like it?" or "What did you think?" One of the benefits — or setbacks — of social media is that it amplifies these criticisms from private conversations to public discourse. In some cases, it can even cause a crisis.

Personally, I consider it a benefit, but not all people do. So regardless of how you feel, what's a communicator to do?

1. Recognize the difference between critics and cynics. Critics strive to be open, objective, and offer suggestions for improvement or make an effort to understand various points of view. Cynics generally are closed, biased, and reject that any merit exists or tend to promote their point of view while dismissing the validity of any other. They deserve different approaches.

2. Distinguish criticism about something and criticism about someone. Valid criticism, even if you do not agree with it, tends to focus on the situation, work, or action. The worst criticism presents judgements about specific people. Care what people think, but don't care so much about what they think about you.

3. Consider the intent of constructive criticism and negative feedback. The intent of negative feedback, even if it appears offensive, or constructive criticism, which is generally non-confrontational, is to provide guidance. Even when comments seem inappropriate, focus more on the message and not the delivery.

4. Distinguish the difference between communication and diatribe. Someone opening up a conversation that makes us feel uncomfortable might even be an asset. Diatribe, on the other hand, does not promote conversation or communication. It aims to shout the other person down (sometimes by encouraging others to do it).

5. Recognize that cynicism communicates more about them than you. While criticism can sting if it is well presented, cynicism says more about them than it does you. Even when real time situations seem to favor emotional aggressors, post- event analysis tends to favor a steady hand. How you respond will always overshadow what is being critiqued.

If you don't manage the message, the message will manage you.

Communicators have to accept that we cannot control what other people say or do. We can only manage what we say or do, even when we are responding to what others have said. Planned action is always better than unplanned reaction. In fact, in preparing for such instances, the first person we need to consider is ourself. Are we oversensitive to criticism?

While I'm not a fan of psychological self-tests, I did vet one at Psychology Today for this post. It asks: Are you sensitive to criticism? Can you handle negative feedback or do you find you have to resist the urge to bite your critic's head off? Try it out. (The summary is free; the full analysis, which didn't seem necessary, carries a fee.) The exercise itself might be eye-opening.

Once you do, then consider the closing quote from author William Arthur Ward. Because if he were alive today, he might artfully remind people that how one receives and interprets criticism or cynicism is the key to being an effective communicator. He might also note that even the most practiced communicators, when confronted with criticism, tend to respond (or encourage others to respond on their behalf) much like the critics they profess to dislike.

"In the face of unjust criticism, we can become bitter or better; upset or understanding; hostile or humble; furious or forgiving." — William Arthur Ward