Misspeaking Costs Credibility: Health Care

With more than $263 million already spent on lobbying for health care, surpassing spending on all other issues this year without including what AARP reports as $1 million per day on advertising (with the health care bill outspending opponents 2-to-1), there are plenty of problems that might already be solved in the United States. Add to this the untold costs of the President and other proponents traveling across the United States to push the plan, and sometimes with disastrous results.

"AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" — President Barack Obama

Except, AARP is not endorsing any bill. AARP is disgusted by all of it. And the misstatement of fact by the President, not once but several times, forced the silent observer to issue a correction to that statement.

"Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson said in a statement.

Polls also indicate that senior citizens largely disapprove of health care reform ideas so far. In fact, only 20 percent of seniors (and falling) believe any legislation currently proposed will improve their situation, and they represent the largest consumer of health care products in the United States with, in some cases, the most to lose. This is the worst news for the authors of the over-bloated legislation that touches areas that far exceed the intent of the sound bite almost all Americans agree on, especially the President who didn't misspeak once, but several times, in relation to health care.

"And that's one of the reasons that AARP is so supportive, because they see this as a way of potentially saving seniors a lot of money on prescription drugs. Okay? — President Barack Obama

No, not okay. Because AARP does not endorse any bill.

At the same time, that does not mean senior groups are thrilled with the overstatement of what part of one bill — "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.” — might mean. Again, sound bites are winning out over real solutions despite the fact that euthanasia and death panels are not specifically included in the bill.

But this blog isn't about health care. It's about communication. And the most recent example of miscommunication by the President, followed by the twisted remedy offered up by the White House press secretary.

"Well, the president said -- well, AARP has said they are certainly supportive and have been for years on comprehensive health reform. I don't think the president meant to imply anything untoward. I think he discussed the notion that AARP is supportive of -- or, I'm sorry, an agreement that would fund filling the doughnut hole for seniors as part of Medicare Part D, as well as additional savings for comprehensive health care reform." — Robert Gibbs

It's easy to see the spin in the sound bite as Gibbs reinforces the misstatement more than he offers up any clarification or correction such as either the President was unaware AARP isn't so supportive of a bill or he knowingly overreached. Gibbs then goes to add that "if you ask AARP this -- they have been supportive of comprehensive health care reform for a long time."

Not so right. The truth is most poll data reveals that 95 percent of Americans believe we need health care reform. What we don't agree on is how to do it. And what the majority of Americans are saying is that ANY existing bills being debated don't measure up. So while Gibbs can make that statement, it flies in the face of accuracy within the context.

Expect more of the same. As time wears on and these bills are bulldogged into some sort of misrepresentative statement such as "you're either for reform (and supporting this bill) or you are against it," we will see rhetoric become even thicker. Already, after the President, um, misspoke several times, the White House has decided to launch an e-mail campaign, supposedly to combat the increasingly "fishy" e-mails being pushed by people they describe as an angry mob.

Unfortunately, it seems, the so-called "angry mob" is also an overstatement in that it seems to consist of seniors, which leads many to believe that the political communication in this country is continuing its regression to a time when the rule of thumb: the message "must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Even, and/or especially, if it is not true.

The net result is not always the same as it used to be, however. Misspeak too many times, out of ignorance or intention, and erosion will set in sooner or later. And that seems to be the case with health care propaganda, er, public relations.

Owning Social: Digital Readiness Report

According to the the 2009 Digital Readiness Report, public relations leads marketing in the management of social media communications channels whereas marketing leads in managing e-mail marketing and SEO. While the sampling size is relatively thin, it does track a greater trend in communication. People are wondering who owns social media.

According to the report, it says that public relations has taken the lead in 51 percent of all organizations compared to 40.5 percent where marketing leads. The balance belongs to a mix of executive management, IT, and other departments.

Other Highlights Related To 'Owning' Social.

• Public relations is responsible for blogging at 49 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for blogging at
22% of all organizations.

• Public relations is responsible for social networking at 48 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for social networking at 27 percent of all organizations.

• Public relations is responsible for micro-blogging (which can be best defined as message services) at 52 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for microblogging at 22 percent of all organizations.

Why Would Public Relations Want To Own Social?

As traditional media continues to die or shift toward digital convergence, what has become a priority function of public relations professionals — securing editorial space — is slipping away. Never mind that public relations ought to be something else, the impression measures have changed as editorial space and circulation have shrunk.

While it's almost odd to think that communication professionals who would sometimes snub bloggers seeking content just a few years ago would suddenly make a play for the space out of necessity, the profession is seeking new revenue streams. For some, it's not just about online space; it's about everything they consider "below the line," which includes marketing functions that also garner media attention.

If there is any truth to this trend, public relations professionals are trending toward communication generalists: professionals who always had to look at the big picture. Since there is some evidence to support that it is happening, the real question to start asking is whether or not most public relations professionals are ready. Jason Falls at Social Media Explorer says no.

If There Is Confusion, It's Because Nobody Owns Social.

Although every spring and a few other times a year at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, I make the case that public relations professionals need to learn social media skill sets with increasing frequency and veracity to such a degree that class has evolved well beyond any textbook available, the truth is that nobody owns social media. Simply put, if there was ever a communication channel that required integration, this is it.

Tomorrow's communication professional needs skill sets that are not being taught as part of the curriculum because communication has largely become as departmentalized at universities as it has within many major corporations. Marketing emphasizes the classic strategies that businesses understand; advertising focuses on the creative properties of communication; public relations teaches how to reach the media (and hopefully other publics beyond that).

Meanwhile, most major companies then begin to split it up further, delegating some to IT, human resources, corporate communication, government affairs, investor relations, community relations, social media, front line sales, customer service, and so on and so forth. (Never mind that content development requires some strong editorial skills too.) And, often times, all of these departments work in specialized silos where the objective sometimes becomes dominating other departments instead of, you know, working to meet the objectives of the company.

So is there any wonder why companies are confused about social media?

Social media touches, crosses into, influences, and impacts all of these areas. And the percentage of professionals who understand this represent about a fraction of one percent (written for effect, and not a currently proven statistical truism). Worse, some relations professionals, at least in this market, are taking their social media training from some "social media experts" who have managed to make a splash online for themselves despite having no experience in communication.

There are, generally, people who say things like never mind conversations, jump in anyway. The result? We all have a better chance of reaching other communication-related professionals on Twitter than we ever have of reaching everyday consumers because the conversation is dominated by people in the field. (Don't get me wrong. I like Twitter, but it is not representative of an entire population of people who might care about every product.) That works for why I use Twitter. It does not nor will it work for some of our clients.

More importantly, platform training does not equal social media skill sets. Social media or social marketing or social networking or any of it is much more situational in setting objectives, developing content, and implementing strategies.

Until companies, and perhaps public relations professionals or whomever operates within the space understand this, executives will continue to be surprised to watch their stock fall away because the intern charged with making friends on the Internet entered a forum discussion about how many cell phones were being returned because they failed to meet expectations.

That's right. It doesn't matter how big your public relations firm is when that happens. Just saying. It happens. And it will continue to happen until communication becomes integrated.

Being Generic: RadioShack Becomes The Shack

When most people talk about "The Shack," they are probably talking about the controversial book by Paul Young, except in Santa Monica.

In Santa Monica, "The Shack" probably means a place to party with wings, burgers, and other things, except basketball.

If you mention "The Shaq" within a context even close to sports, social networks, or down-to-earth celebrity, there can be only one.

And yet, for the strange oddball "rebranding" reason, RadioShack, an international chain of electronics retail stores, hopes to break into millions of brains and reshuffle their indexing system. When we hear "The Shack," they want us to think about them.

Ironically, the abrupt identity change last week has done more to reinforce the electronics chain as an out-of-touch brand.

Although the company's push claims to be a "legacy" brand trying to put a cool, hip spin on itself, "The Shack" is about as hip and cool as being called "Siffy" or forgetting that the orange juice you make is not from concentrate. Worse, the communication plan calls for the company to retain "RadioShack" signage on retail stores in an effort to "hold onto its brand heritage and attract more tech-savvy shoppers."

Brand heritage? They must be kidding.

Not only are the dual objectives in conflict, but one can easily argue that RadioShack's brand image is what earned it an "F" from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) last April. Since, it has made amends with the BBB to receive the much better grade of "C-."

If they really wanted to capture any semblance of brand heritage, they would have to go all the way back to the days when Isaac Assimov endorsed them or well before the near-bankruptcy that convinced the Tandy Corporation to buy them in 1962. Back then, "Realistic" meant exactly what it meant. It meant "generic," which is exactly why all the other brand names — Presidian, Accurian, Optimus, Enercell — that RadioShack has invented have never become household names when compared to any number of greats like Kenwood, Pioneer, JBL, Bose, and a host of others.

A campaign launch on Times Square has about enough chance to change that as passing out T-shirts to employees and calling it an internal rebranding effort designed to change corporate culture. A much more appropriate T-shirt would have read: "My employer spent $200 million on rebranding and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." And on the back: "And a travel mug. Oh boy."

The truth about names and branding is branding better come first.

It's really very simple. Branding makes a name. Naming does not make a brand.

RadioShack's half-hearted rebranding campaign "Our friends call us The Shack," complete with an ugly thumb, is not likely to recapture the $1 billion in lost revenue over the last four years. If anything, it's likely to accelerate the problem created by inflated pricing, lackluster customer service, and "it's stupid" being the most common consumer reaction to the new campaign. If RadioShack wants to save itself before it goes belly up like Circuit City, the most obvious first step is to retool the entire company starting with the people who thought "The Shack" was a good idea.

It seems clear enough that not everyone liked it. If they did, "The Shack" wouldn't be a campaign nickname. It would be the new name. But even if they did commit, it would still have a long way to go before advertising could reverse the mess they made of a once viable company. Nowadays, the only distinguishing feature for this defunct company seems to be that it is a defunct company.

After all, while Best Buy isn't everyone's favorite big box electronics retailer, it does have an image that beat The Shack on price and people some years ago. Meanwhile, Fry's Electronics seems to have the stronger position on staffing knowledgeable people and offering a diversified product. While those two are among the best known, there are more than two dozen other retailers looking to make the The Shack nothing more than a stepping stone for their success.

Want more about The Shack attack? It's not pretty.

"Radio Shack rebranding to 'The Shack'?" by Joshua Topolsky for engadget.

""Yeah, RadioShack is turning into the Shack" by John Biggs for CrunchGear.

"Bringing Down The Shack" by Blake Howard for Matchblog.

"RadioShack, er, the Shack makes its case for relevancy" by Dan Neil for The Los Angeles Times.

"Radio Shack rebranding: Why? Why!?" by John Biggs for CrunchGear.

Seeing The Future: Cellular South

If you want to see a glimpse of things to come, Cellular South might provide a stellar example. Its new integrated sports programming initiative is hyper-local and mobile.

"Y'all vs. Us" features original programming around five of the South's biggest high school football rivalries. In addition to television broadcasts of the five biggest rivalry games, the initiative includes a 10-episode television reality series following two rival high school football coaching staffs throughout the 2009 season and a five-episode documentary series telling the story behind each featured rivalry game.

Why "Y'all vs. Us" Might Work

• It features original, professional content provided by a sponsor without being about the sponsor.
• It targets specific hyper-local events with very specific audiences who are serious stakeholders.
• It is augmented by user-generated content, contests, and education-related mobile Web engagement.
• It is exceptionally mobile, but also includes multi-channel reach, including broadcast and online programs.
• It expands content to include a mobile version of each school's Web site, and complete calendar of events.

"Some of the biggest grudge matches aren't always played on Saturday or Sunday in college and professional football games," said Dr. Ennis Proctor, executive director of the Mississippi High School Activities Association (MHSAA), which helped identify 10 teams that would be highlighted during the season. "They're played in high school football games and pit the collective community pride of entire towns and cities against one another for regional bragging rights."

While Cellular South sees the initiative as a way to give parents, student-athletes, teachers, and fans new and creative ways to interact with the company, the initiative also celebrates historic high school football rivalries (content people want to see).

Cellular South is tying in its educational outreach program, Cellular South's Gameplan, which is a statewide education initiative designed and funded by the company to inspire, prepare and inform the state's 90,000 high school student-athletes about the possibilities of reaching their dreams through academic excellence.

Young & Rubicam (Y&R) New York is credited as being instrumental in the creation of the concept (making us wonder how Forrester Research missed it before handing out agency awards). It will serve as the executive producer of the program and is responsible for an integrated campaign that will reach beyond the initiative. If the concept is successful, broadcasters, newspapers, and other carriers ought to shake their heads in wonderment and ask "why didn't we think of that?"

Good question. We've been tracking the trend in this direction since AT&T launched U-verse in 2006. Back then, we asked, "how hard do you think it would be for [blank] to add a channel with convenient and/or exclusive content (complete with user engagement) to create another unique selling point?"

Three years later, another company, Cellular South, comes up with the answer. This is one to watch.

Fearing Social Media: Executives

According to a new survey by Minneapolis-based Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law, fear continues to underpin companies considering social media.

• 51 percent percent of executives fear it will be detrimental to employee productivity.
• 49 percent fear that participation will likely damage company reputation.

Among companies that have not considered social media as part of their communication plan, it's much the same.

• 51 percent said they did not know enough.
• 40 percent said they are concerned with confidentiality or security.
• 37 percent said they worry it will be detrimental to employee productivity.

The reality of misplaced fear in the modern workplace.

As the adoption rate of social media as a critical component of any communication plan increases, all the attention seems to have catapulted social media to the top of many corporate fear factor lists. And, with the recent ban by the U.S. Marines, considering it the number one concern for decision makers certainly feels justified. Or is it?

While our company has long maintained fear itself is the underlying cause of most corporate meltdowns and lackluster results, placing social media at the top of the corporate fear list is preposterous. Here are the leading causes for lost employee productivity, reputation damage, and security threats:

• According to the Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, low employee morale and depression are the leading cause of lost employee productivity.
• According to an abstract by Elsevier Ltd. and several other studies, management credibility is the leading cause of reputation damage among companies.
• According to several studies by Deloitte, human error remains the leading cause of security threats over technology, with employee misconduct being the number one concern.

Are any social media fears justified on any level?

Not knowing enough about social media may be temporarily justifiable for slow moving companies (as too many jump in without any semblance of a plan), but the root cause for all other fears — productivity issues, reputation damage, and security threats — are almost always symptoms of internal communication problems and/or bad management.

In other words, the reason for not engaging in social media might even communicate more about a company or organization than had they ever engaged in the first place. How about your organization?

Smelling Fish: The White House

As an award-winning former campaign and political reporter with experience covering the Enron scandal in 2002 turned senior campaign advisor for the Obama campaign, Linda Douglas told Media Bistro that "my intention is that I won't spin … I absolutely vow that I will tell the truth.”

Unfortunately, it seems something happened on her way to the White House.

As communications director for the administration’s Health Reform Office, Douglas seems to be employing the White House's handicapped communication channel as a means for little more than pushing back against citizen dissent. In fact, her communication team suggests taking it one step further, asking everyday citizens to tattle on their friends, family, and neighbors to the government.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" — The White House

While the post was penned by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media who oversees Whitehouse.gov, which nowadays is closely coordinated with Internet operations at the Democratic National Committee instead of the American people, Douglas' late response to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn's appropriately scathing letter clearly places credit where credit is due.

"There is a lot of misinformation about health insurance reform circulating on the internet and elsewhere. Some of it is intentionally misleading,” Douglas responded in an e-mail. “We want to be sure people have the facts about health insurance reform that will lower costs, protect consumers from insurance regulations that deny them coverage and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans. We are not compiling lists or sources of information. We may post fact checks from time to time to be sure Americans know the truth about health insurance reform.”

By fact checks, Douglas seems to be referring to sound bites like those she used in her video appearance, placing what President Obama has said over what may or may not be included in any legislation. Specifically, she cites speeches where Obama has said that "if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them."

However, that bit of misinformation has already been vetted as inaccurate by media outlets like Investor's Business Daily because "Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Given how often employees change jobs, the likelihood you won't automatically be enrolled at some point seems painfully obvious. And, worse, once you are in the grips of it, leaving seems likely to be reminiscent of the lyrics to "Hotel California."

But all that aside, the real communication debacle that Douglas will forever regret is allowing any mention of asking citizens to collect and report "fishy" communication, which takes us all the way back to McCarthy-era politics except without the benefit of Edward R. Murrow. Someone needs to share with Douglas the lessons learned from the past, taught by journalists who didn't trade their hats for political hocus pocus.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. — Edward R. Murrow, See It Now

Murrow might have been talking about a time when external threats struck fear into the hearts of the people, but they apply equally well when peddling fear seems to be quickly becoming a pastime for White House politics, a place that ought to represent its owners (the American people) over political agendas.

That's right. Elected officials merely borrow the space. They do not own it outright.

And if that idea sounds fishy to you, feel free to submit this post to be scrutinized and "fact checked" by government staffers who are paid with your tax money to support the plan you may not even want. Maybe they'll learn something, even if it is something as simple as how one heavy-handed post in social media tends to erode credibility at a faster pace.

Americans have a right to express themselves publicly and ought to retain the right to express themselves privately, without fear that mere opinions may be reported to the government. Truly, if Douglas didn't want to know the sources, she ought to have suggested people ask questions about sections they might be confused about rather than submitting "sources" so they could be corrected.

What's the difference? The difference is communication intent. One request may seek to clarify (even if that clarification is spun up by professionals) while the other smacks of collusion.

What's the cost to White House credibility? When I mentioned the White House post during a presentation in a room full of people with mixed political leanings, they all raised their hands with the hope that the government might add their names too.