Plug the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 29,176 results.  This is a continuation of a downturn over the last couple of week.  The totals are driven by coverage of the national health care debate, the announced review of the CIA torture program and the uneasy future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

There are even people calling for more context when there is little to be found.

What may be my favorite use of context this week may come from the Boston Globe.  It reviewed a new book dealing with the historical record of the Donner Party, which, on the way West 170 or so years ago, resorted to cannibalism in the face of deprivation.  The Globe gives the author, Daniel James Brown, credit for “…humanizing the people and putting their travails in historical context.”

Context has a way of letting us see what we don’t at first.

Share

It will likely only last for a few days, but the back-and-forth over the self-dealing of Burson-Marsteller president Mark Penn by building business on the back of a column written for the Wall Street Journal has the look of mock outrage.

Think of Claude Rains as Captain Renault, in 1942’s “Casablanca,” who closed Rick’s Cafe because he was “Shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here” only to be handed his winnings.  Even if it is only on the basis of Penn’s work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is widely k nown as a public relations executive who is comfortable with more than one master.

The industry has helped create this problem with its focus on transparency as the sine qua non of communications.   So, if  Penn’s position is well-known and the Journal was clear on his intentions — the New York Times reported that “Robert H. Christie, a spokesman for The Journal, said, ‘the reality is that freelancers do use their columns as ways of marketing themselves.’” — what’s the problem?

The problem is context.

When Penn gave Senator Clinton bad advice, he was a bad advisor, but when he traded on his position to curry favor with the Colombian government, he was far worse.  When the Journal decided to give Penn a column bearing the same name has his book, it likely sought business advantage in the endorsement, only to be surprised that some found the business advantage an, well, outrage.

There is calming advice for all of us in a film that ought to be on every public relations person’s list of “Top Ten.”  “The Big Kahuna” is a 1999 film starring Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito as industrial lubricant salesmen setting up a customer suite at a conference.  They are searching for the largest customer — the big kahuna.

They also have brought along a novice, there to learn the ropes.  Here is the length of that rope that resonates most:

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.’ That doesn’t make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch. And you’re not a human being; you’re a marketing rep.”

Cancel your subscription to the Journal if you will, don’t hire Burson-Marsteller if you must and scratch Penn’s next book from your Amazon “wish list.”  But don’t buy into the outrage.

Share

In a column by Rob Preston, vice president and editor-in-chief of Information Week, he laments a coming wave of regulation affecting the information technology industry.  In his August 17 “down to Business” column, Preston argues that such a move by Congress will only “toss more goo into this economic engine of growth.”

While it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, sometimes cursing the darkness is satisfying, so why not do both?  I tried to do just that in a letter to Preston.  My point is that understanding the way Congress works, standing on the sidelines (where most technology companies have stood) opens the door to unnecessary regulation.

Here is (most of) the text of my note:

You properly forecast an increase in technology regulation but improperly weight responsibility and ignore the nature of Congressional oversight.  As someone who spent 15 years working in Washington, D.C. and nearly that much time since in San Francisco, I can assure you that regulation is Congress’ response to upcoming elections and the cash needed to underwrite them.

The history of technology companies’ reticence to engage in politics gives them little leverage when Members of Congress see the chance to earn support by “standing up” for constituents and interest groups concerned about what might happen when their world goes digital.

I have seen this play out for years in the privacy arena.  The FTC’s “red flags” are only the most recent example of new regulation aimed at the threat of identity theft.  It is getting close to the kinds of warning labels placed on lawn mowers prohibiting consumers from lifting them for use as hedge trimmers.

But before anyone gets too smug about the “illiterati” who cause laws, rules and regulation to get in the way of the future, note that the technology industry has done little to give Congress a chance to see things differently.  Every industry ought to be subject to appropriate regulation.  The rule of law replaced dueling many years ago.  That’s why we have lawyers.  Whether we have the right number of them is a question for others.

But it falls to the technology industry, individually and collectively, to make its case now that the indictment has been handed down.  As any lawyer will tell you, when the defendant does not appear, the court has no recourse.

Share

Plug the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 30,073 results.  This is a bit of a downturn over the last ten days as some of the stories driving the totals, like the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and and the heat created by people contesting the citizenship of President Obama, have subsided.

In fact, there was no single story or small group of stories that drove the total.  This makes it all the more remarkable.  Context as a concept, context as a mandatory element, context as an aid to understanding the news is being applied far-and-wide.  It has taken hold in politics, art and even math.

This is good news.

Share

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that “Companies are using fewer advisers for mergers and acquisitions than at any point since 2001, as they look to cut costs amid the downturn…”   It saves money, sure, but it also is more likely to surface acquisition candidates that are better known to the company.

It makes sense to stick closer to home, taking a classic strategic acquisition approach.  No need to throw long passes when the price of failure is heightened by economic uncertainty.   Cynics can argue that this follows an historical 20-or-so-year cycle that moves between this view and a “buy what you can” ethos.  That’s OK.  But it is clear that even if strategic acquisition — to more deeply serve the existing customers or fill a gap in products and services — is back in vogue, it is different, too.

The difference can be seen in the way we measure the benefits of any combination.  More than building deeper relationships with existing customers (as is the likely intent of the Oracle acquisition of Sun) or improving “vendor” relationships (hoped for in the deal between Microsoft and Publicis for Razorfish) or adding a new feature to an already strong platform (said to be behind the IBM deal for SPSS), what will determine the ultimate value of the deals is whether the market first believes and then sees that the new company can deliver.

Right now customers don’t trust many companies.  The ones they do trust are those that have a reputation for persistently meeting customers’ expectations.  Acquisitions made by that kind of company have the best chance to succeed quickly and over time.

Next Fifteen, a UK-based communications holding company, is one such trusted company.  When it bought New York-based M Booth & Associates to “build a global consumer agency,” it was not the companies’ people or intellectual capital or relationships as much as it was the market credibility of Next Fifteen, the acquirer, that signaled its likely success.  The expectation will give Next Fifteen more time to make it work, too.

Consider this reaction against the likelihood that the Oracle/Sun deal will yield customer benefits.  Or whether Microsoft and Publicis will be able to share Razorfish.  And if IBM will be able to create the smart analytics system it desires.    The answers are tied tightly to the market credibility of the acquiring companies.

Right now, I have one “yes,” one “no” and one “maybe.”

Share

Plug the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 32,769 results.  This is a continued uptick, 7 percent over a week ago.

The totals continue to be led by coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor as we get close to the Senate vote on her confirmation.   The man who nominated her, President Barack Obama, is a close second.  Driven by the persistence of the “birthers” who claim the President is really foreign-born and the noisier arguments over health care reform.

One interesting note is that the concept of context is moving off-shore.  In New Zealand, it is reported that the unemployment figures are not as bad as they seem.  They need to be seen in context.  This is no sleight-of-hand, but a realization that information isn’t insight until it is seen in context.

Share

The economy in the U.S. is getting better for all of us but not for each of us.

That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the upturn of the stock markets and signs of life in housing even as jobs continue to be lost.  This is called a “jobless recovery,” where, according to Forbes, “…companies can increase production by investing in new technologies, and thus delay re-hiring people.”  Real change may not come for “several years.”

The odd coupling of good-and-bad news has had an effect on consumer spending.  Whether described as down or up, it is clearly lower and slower than we have come to measure as normal.  It is natural for consumers to use a sharper pencil on expenses in the face of economic uncertainty.

But how should whole industries respond to a similar threat?

In recent weeks, we have seen reports from media companies — newspapers, magazine, broadcast and even online properties — that advertising revenues are off, way off.  With their sharper pencils, many have still found a profit.  It is axiomatic, though, that you can’t persistently cut your way to profitability.

As recently reported, “Gannett swung back to profitability in the second quarter, probably attributable, in part, to savings from numerous furloughs and layoffs nationwide.  Still, the plunging ad revenues suggest there is scant hope of a near-term recovery for Gannett — or the newspaper business in general.”

It is ironic that at a time when newspapers are read by fewer people, people and newspapers face such a similar circumstance.  With news that the Federal Reserve thinks unemployment will top 10 percent and that national advertisers, like Macy’s, have cut their spend in half, we may wind up with even more alike the less we have in common.

Share