It seems that Facebook may or may not have hired former Bush Administration Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris to help the company deal with impending regulatory changes.  The truth is, it matters very little.

In fact, the noise about Muris’ joining Facebook and his resume is misdirection. So, too, is the point — assumed but quite logical — that his hiring is all about brokering a deal with the FTC.

A sharper point is the uneasy state of Facebook’s relationship with its users. The catalog of actions that have brought the company to this “point” are well-known. What ought to come next, though, is more than hiring a “fixer” or cutting a deal with regulators. Until Facebook makes privacy an understood and essential aspect of customer service, it will look like any other self-interested company seeking to protect a market, not the rising tide it fancies itself, lifing all boats.

Privacy is not a standard (set by law or regulation) that needs to be met.  Instead, it is a negotiation between customers and the companies with whom they do business.  Just like return policies and direct marketing and affinity clubs, privacy must be formed to support the relationship; clear in each moment, but flexible to respond to changed circumstances.

Facebook is an essential part of its users’ days.  Mr. Muris’ job status makes little difference as to whether 400 million users become 4 billion or 4 million.  That is up to Facebook.

Share

Forbes took a look at what has become a controversial Nike ad featuring Tiger Woods and the voice of his late father.

Here is how they set it up:  “Golf superstar Tiger Woods has fielded tough questions about his extra-marital affairs. Now the disgraced athlete faces them from his late father, Earl, whose voice-over is used in an unusual new Nike commercial.”

From a marketing perspective, the ad does more than create controversy and the complementary public debate.  It moves the story forward from where it is to where Nike and Woods want it to be — on golf and the stuff one needs to buy to play the game.  I said as much in the article:

“‘The emotional content, Masters’ timing, black-and-white treatment, Tiger’s silent gaze and his late father’s prescient voice-over creates context that demands viewer attention. It has gotten people talking about what comes next. Nike deserves a lot of credit for the concept and convincing Tiger to just do it,’ said John Berard, CEO of communications consultancy Credible Context in San Francisco.”

I might not want to have Mr. Woods over the house for dinner, but I can appreciate the campaign to reconstruct his brand.

Share

Xeni Jardin, co-editor of BoingBoing.net, was offering a review of the iPad when she set the bar for any technology company aiming to succeed in either the business or the consumer market.  She said:

“When the operating system gets out of the way, when the experience of a computing device is so seamless that you’re not aware of the operating system, all you’re aware of is the information or the experience or the enrichment that you’re after…that’s when you know you have really sweet design.”  She called that moment “magic.”

She may have been channeling Arthur C. Clarke, whose famous laws included this one: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or she may have merely been channeling the frustration of consumers and business people alike who have grappled with voice mail or gotten lost in an interactive voice response menu or lost hours of work to a system crash.

Five years ago, the Gartner Group, a technology industry research firm, said that the next 10 years would be dominated by a handful of trends that included the “Consumerization of IT.”  More than predicting the rise of smartphones and wireless, remote access, the trend was painted as a danger for companies who resisted.

“As perceptive CIOs seek to transform their rigid, legacy-ridden infrastructures into agile, efficient, service-driven delivery mechanisms, they must adopt a pragmatic approach to managing the risk of consumer IT while embracing the benefits,” said Steve Prentice, vice president and research director at Gartner. “Otherwise, the CIOs risk being sidelined as the ‘enemy’ by their constituencies.”

Now that the smartphone has become ubitquitous (and been given netbook and iPad siblings), now that wireless, remote access has become the Mobile Web and settting aside the question of “who saw what when,” it is clear the market has moved in this direction.

IBM no longer sells software, hardware and services that can be mixed-and-matched, it promotes a smarter planet.  Cisco is not content to sell routers, it now enables a human network.  Even Oracle, born as smart but homely database software, is now complete.

Each in their own way is trying to create magic — letting the audience see the rabbit without worrying about the size of the hat. Companies that can will be rewarded.  Those that can’t will either get bought at a good price by those who can or fall away.

Share

Today’s New York Times was no optical illusion.  As if often the case when public relations gets significant attention from the newspaper of record, it’s not positive.

The “On Language” column in the Magazine retraced old steps in making the case that “optics” is just the latest bit of industry jargon used to suggest there is some science to the art of public relations.

Here is a pertinent bit: “Of course, elected officials have worried about outward appearances since time immemorial, but optics puts a new spin on things, giving a scientific-sounding gloss to P.R. and image-making.”  Taking more pains to make things look right than be right is not limited to elected officials, though they make a good case study.

Without using the “O” word, the President’s public relations guy, David Axelrod, took it on the chin on page one for much of the same reason.  Here is a pertinent bit from that story: “’The Obama White House has lost the narrative in the way that the Obama campaign never did,’ said James Morone, a political scientist at Brown University. ‘They essentially took the president’s great strength as a messenger and failed to use it smartly.’”

Optics is jargon for the way things look and when they look bad, rehabilitating a reputation is more than a math problem. Ask Toyota after viewing the worldwide Oscars broadcast.  Co-host Steve Martin noted that two best director nominees, James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow once were married.  He said “the pair congratulated each other by exchanging presents: a gift basket with a timer from Bigelow and a Toyota from Cameron.”  Ouch.

Each case points up a problem the public relations industry has created for itself — arguing that the science of the profession trumps its art.  Science might suggest that once something is proved, it is OK to move on to something else.  Fermat’s Theorem has finally been solved, what’s next? But public relations is far more like art, changing with the popular tastes of the day, with lines being drawn and redrawn.  It is science that helps the artist understand expectations so that they can be met or upended as best works for the task.

There is an earlier version of the Mona Lisa lurking below the surface of the one hanging in the Louvre.  And much like the wisdom in the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall (”practice, practice, practice”), persistence is the essential virtue of public relations. Persistence  – practice — make public relations professionals better at the business.  Take care of the small things and the optics take care of themselves or at least the right choices will become obvious.

Share

A snappy bumper sticker can help move a product, a candidate or an idea.  Better is a track record of delivering on the promise of the phrase.  Best is when every action of a company is aligned behind it.  Toyota has long stood as a leading example of the best.  Look no further than this from the LA Times:

“For its part, Toyota has come to stand for utter reliability, financial prudence and a certain intelligently independent style. From that perspective, the Prius hybrid represents an America in which personal mobility and personal responsibility are happily compatible.”

But that, of course was before the slow recall of millions of its vehicles for problems on both sides of a really bad penny: sudden acceleration and delayed braking.  A comment at GlobalPost.com showed just how steep a climb the car company faces:

“A few American voices are emerging in Toyota’s defense, but the overriding sentiment is one of anger — mixed with disbelief — that a company synonymous with quality and reliability has come unstuck in such devastating fashion.”

The question now is whether the company can regain its footing no matter how much time or investment.  Much like the tanker Exxon Valdez, the unsinkable Titanic and Union Carbide in Bhopal, Toyota is on the verge of becoming a noun, not a name.

“This book is a Toyota,” said Robert S. Norris, the author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian. “The publisher should recall it, issue an apology and fix the parts that endanger the historical record.”  Norris was quoted in a NY Times article revealing that a celebrated best-seller on the Hiroshima bombing was based on lies and self-promotion.  Say it to yourself:  “This book is a Toyota.”

It is one of a few, early instances of the shift of Toyota being an emblem for what’s wrong, but it makes the company’s climb steeper back in to the good graces of the market.  What will come next likely will be a rallying of support, over-communication of changes made in design and manufacture, and better deals on the cars.

But to regain its market-leading standing, Toyota will have to successfully perform in full view of the public over generations.  In the competitive marketplace that autos represents today (see: India, China) that may be too much of a big, hairy, audacious goal.

Share

The massive Toyota vehicle recall has been described as both a savage hit to the company’s reputation and bottom line.  It has also pointed out the fact that not all context is the same.

In the normal course of a product problem, the kind of release issued by well-respected online automobile advisor, Edmunds.com, would have had real effect.  Here is the lead of the release:

“Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information has obtained and reviewed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complaint database.  A key finding: despite being the subject of intense scrutiny of the company, Toyota ranks 17th among automakers in the overall number of complaints per vehicle sold.”

Based on market share, consumer complaints put Toyota ahead of Honda and BMW.  The problem is that the Toyota story — a high-quality, low-defect, long-lasting automobile manufacturer — has been tarnished not because of the sudden acceleration and slow-braking, but because of the company’s response.

It is thought to have delayed its decision to recall and then did it in a piecemeal fashion.  Toyota’s is not an engineering problem, but one of its image.  NHTSA data is no match for having jilted its consumers.

Here is how one blogger deflated the Edmunds.com trial balloon:

“So, what does all of this mean? That’s debatable. Consider that these issues, which were reported to NHTSA by consumers themselves and entered into an database that’s not checked for accuracy, are not weighted for severity. So, a seemingly trivial issue counts just the same as one that could lead to a serious accident or death.”

The real damage was described well in The Washington Post:

“One thing that has probably changed forever is the idea that the Japanese have superior quality,” said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Toyota is a great company and they’ll go on, but that historic concept of superior quality is probably gone forever.”

Mr. Cole may have some hometown interest, but his point is well-made (no pun intended).  If Toyota is to regain its standing (Edmunds.com projects a one percent drop in U.S. market share as a result of this mess), it will have to deliver on its original promise, one customer at a time.

Share

A report today from Information Week supposes that Microsoft will introduce its own slate-type tablet computer.  The key bit in the story had nothing to do with the quality of the product, but the lack of enthusiasm it has so far engendered.  “Microsoft has not officially confirmed the (New York) Times’ report, and investors largely shrugged at the news. Microsoft shares were up .16%, to $31.01, in early trading Wednesday on the NASDAQ.”

True, this is the company’s second bite at the tablet apple (pun intended) and so naturally would not create the “shock of the new.” But it is more likely a response rooted deeply in the minds of consumers who more comfortably categorize Microsoft within the four software walls of Office, than among untethered consumer-focused devices.  It is a matter of context.

We make sense of a noisy world by applying context created at the point we first encounter a company or product and is then reinforced by performance.  This makes it really hard to expand or pivot a company’s reputation.  If Apple is a design company, what isn’t it?  If Dell is a manufacturing company, what isn’t it?  If Microsoft is a desktop software company, what isn’t it?

Google, with its introduction of the Nexus One “smartphone” has demonstrated one way to break away.  Afterall, if Google is an advertising-driven search service, what isn’t it?  It is not so much advertising-driven as it is advertising-disruptive.  It has taken the market’s acknowledgment  of these qualities — shaking up the stodgy for the benefit of consumers — to add new services (like gMail), buy other companies (like YouTube) and enter new markets in need of disruption (like mobile phones).   Microsoft has no such market permission.

It can get it, though.  The early reports on its new operating system suggest the kind of exceptional performance in a core business that is required for acceptance in adjacent ones.  This is what helps the success of the company’s market leading Xbox game console.  Think of it as a desktop for the home.

Increasing market demand for wireless devices will earn Microsoft a second look for its software-driven smartphones and tablets.  Turning consideration into market leadership will depend on the company’s ability to reveal how it has been looking out for our interests all along.

Share

Apple’s plans for bringing iTunes to the Web was big news, but it was a simple, apositive phrase, late in the story in the Wall Street Journal, that carried greater import.   In talking about how Apple will give users access to their accounts via any web browser, the Journal said, “That approach, known in technology circles as cloud computing, could…”

In technology circles? It is easy to think that the ubiquity of technology — smart phones, GPS devices, payment fobs, Fast Passes and the rest — has not only made it a part of our lives, but also a part of our vernacular.  Not so.  Companies promoting products and services to the market need to heard and understood.

The burden is even greater for technologies that don’t make an obvious impression.  The iPhone is a complex and powerful computer, but it is so darn cute and easy to use.  That’s easy to get and accrues to Apple’s benefit.  Nearly 20 years ago, computer chip maker Intel was able to break out of the box with its significant “Intel inside” branding and advertising campaign.

But multi-million-dollar ad campaigns don’t have the same effect today and customer skepticism undercuts “because I said so.”  So what is a technology company to do?

For one, they should use the language of the market they seek to serve and not fall back on the jargon of their own.     A column by a CEO from a deep technology company in Fortune makes the point.

When Neustar’s Jeff Ganek links his company’s deep technology of network hub directory services to edge services like Web browsing, texting and keeping the same phone number when you leave AT&T for Verizon in a fit of pique, he goes a long way in speaking the market’s language.

It is a good model for others.

Share

There is more than a scramble for hotel space in Vancouver for the upcoming Olympic Games there.  The Wall Street Journal reports today that Canada itself is scrambling its image.  No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Here is a bit of the story: “Dominick Gauthier, a former Olympian now coaching two of the country’s top medal prospects, describes the country’s new Olympic philosophy this way: ‘Canada,’ he says, ‘is finally more concerned with winning than being nice.’”

Like any good rebranding, the effort promotes a snappy tag-line, too:  “Own the Podium.” Holy Poutine, Batman, we are not in Halifax anymore!

All this is a bit jarring to someone introduced to the Canadian spirit by Benton Fraser of the Mounties (as in “Due South”), described by his Chicago cop sponsor as “the nicest man on the planet.”  Bennie, how did you lose your way?

Or did you?

It may be a natural evolution of the culture as the systems that have sustained it (and the rest of us, too) have disappeared or changed.  Borders are less meaningful, distance is less meaningful, climate is less forbidding and it is easier to now know what we could ever hardly have conceived.

In the midst of such change, if you don’t speak for yourself, who will?   Start there — concerned more about yourself — and it is a short jump to a more self-centered brand.

So, despite what Robert Hughes might call “the shock of the new” in the rebranding of Canada, I hope they do get to “own the podium.”  Otherwise there will be disappointment on a scale the formerly even-keeled folks never had to confront.  But that is progress.

Share

Plug the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 30,491 results.  That’s up from the last report, driven by events like the Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Microsoft’s launch of Office 2010 and the Major League Baseball All-Star game.

Truly interesting was this bit of advice from an employment blog from Canada’s National Post:

“When networking and interviewing, use any personal information you find about others carefully. If you choose to use personal informaiton about someone, make sure the context is appropriate.  Remember that old saying: Its not how much you know, but what you do with the information that counts.”

The same advice holds for companies, institutions and officials who seek to advocate for a product, plan or point-of-view.

Share