Recently came news of a new lobbying communications program launched by the Business Roundtable.

Dubbed “Delivering Innovation,” it tells the stories of how “companies across America - led by their CEOs - innovate to create breakthrough products, services, processes and solutions to the world’s most difficult challenges.”  A laudable idea, but if the goal is influence, it is undermined by context.

Visit the site and the first video launched is from Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T urging us to invest in education as his company has done.  At a time when the AT&T network performance has become a subject of comedy and lay-offs have drawn the legal ire of the companies unions and state attorneys general, flying the education flag seems more misdirection than rallying cry.

It is a matter of context.  Does AT&T, or the Business Roundtable, or that matter, have permission to tout innovation?  Here is how I put it:

The attempt to rally support for business by waving a flag of “Innovation!” brings to mind the often quoted comment from Samuel Johnson, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

There is much right with innovation and, as is said over and over, it is the key to our economic success, but it is not a substitute for business practices that are a fair compact between company and nation.  Nor should it be a shield when the deal is unfair.

Consider the current “jobless recovery.”  The stock market is up, but unemployment benefits are running out and extending them as been rejected.  Where is business on this?  Downsizing and off-shoring jobs in a global economy are good for the bottom line, but it seems an unbalanced burden.

Consider the cost of health care.  In a difficult economy, insurance companies are more profitable than ever yet they seek to raise premiums and reduce the number of people covered.  Where is business on this?  Moving people from a regime of preventive care to the emergency room seems an unbalanced burden.

Consider the cost of public services and taxes.  Municipalities, states and the nation are grappling with shortfalls for basic services — fire, police, emergency services, schools, transportation.  Where is business on this?  Tax breaks and enterprise zones, pitting one jurisdiction against another for the right to site a plant or serve as the corporate headquarter’s Zip Code further unbalance the burden.

A top-line communications and lobbying program like “Delivering Innovation” can be a meaningful and effective element of a multi-faceted campaign –  if the elements are aligned.  The restructuring of the U.S. economy alone (see BusinessWeek on the “Permanent Temporary Workforce” and the “Disposable Worker“) gives individuals a crystal clear view of the burdens we each face.  There is no flag so big that can obscure it.

Share

A former Fleishman Hillard colleague, Peter Verrengia, has written a take on privacy worth noting, whether you are steeped in the subject or just now coming to grips with the danger misuse of customer data represents.

Writing on the firm’s Reputation Point blog, he offers this caution:

For now, businesses that come to be known as privacy thieves will face a serious reputation problem.  Those companies pushing for the use of more private information from their online users should ask themselves if their advocacy of personal transparency is matched by corporate transparency?  So far, it’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation.  Most online information harvesters are saying that their proprietary business interests prevent them from sharing all the information they gather.  Understandable from a business point of view, but perhaps not from a public policy viewpoint.

In fact, companies that have misused their customers data, either by not protecting it, reselling it or using it in ways never intended, have long been subject to such a penalty.  In my comment to the blog I noted:

It was 14 years ago that a group of (mostly) technology executives gathered at the now defunct PC Forum conference in the desert and saw the same thing. The emerging Internet needed the confidence of consumers to thrive and TRUSTe was created to help promote the values of privacy, security and trust.

In the time since then, smart companies have come to embrace a commitment to those virtues in hopes of building stronger customer relationships. For these companies, privacy, in particular, begins with a willingness to inform people of what information is collected, why and how long it will be kept.

All this is a result of the constant negotiation that goes on between customers and the companies they support. Ten years ago, “notice-and-consent” was the rule. Its effect was the adoption of privacy policies for all to read (though few did).

Today, the watch phrase is “data collection and retention,” wherein customers know what is collected, for what purpose, for how long it will be kept and to which they have access to review and limit.

What is clear, no matter which generation, is that information that comprises a person’s identity (a definition that is also still in flux) is protected from loss and abuse, whether by third-parties or the company collecting it.

Companies that are found to be doing less will pay a heavy reputational price.

As the governments in the United States and elsewhere focus more closely on privacy, security and trust, enforcement will go beyond the market’s ability to affect a company’s reputation.  It will, as is often heard in the halls of Congress, add up to real money.

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 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

The recent snowstorms in Washington, D.C. led to more than closed schools, postponed events and shovel-sore muscles. The unusually cool atmospherics became a hot metaphor in the argument against climate change. After all, how could the climate be warming and there be all this snow?

The back-and-forth was captured in a story on Fox News:

The battle between science and politics also was the subject of a recent NPR  “On the Media” story on the now-debunked link between a measles vaccine and autism.  Here is what Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, had to say:

“We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now.  What we don’t seem able to do is we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in a public space about difficult, controversial issues, without people drawing a conclusion which could be very, very adverse.”

The most disturbing part of what Dr. Horton said, because it seems to be true, is “we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation.”  For communications professionals this is at best a caution, at worst, a call to arms.  Most of our work is focused on adding context to the actions of our clients.

But context — be it scientific, medical or financial — requires an ability to see in three-dimensions.  How can we succeed when our public discourse is locked in black-and-white?  It demands we be more precise.

When the LA Times took another look at the D.C. snowstorm it did just that:

“Increased snowfall fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures warm the world’s bodies of water, leading to more evaporation.  Climate scientists say the amount of atmospheric moisture has increased, which they predict will bring more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures.

‘All you need is cold air and moisture to meet each other’ to make snow, said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. ‘And with global warming, the opportunities to do that should be more frequent.’”

The misunderstanding and misuse of the word “warming” in the “global warming” warning undercuts its value as context.  Perhaps “change” as in “climate change” is more effective, but, based on Mr. Michaels said to Fox News, that may be lost, too.

The  most effective argument at a time when science is so willingly dismissed may not yet have been made.  But just because the task of adding depth and perspective to political, social and commercial conversations has gotten difficult doesn’t mean it cannot be fought and won.

Share

The Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy had a twist of an ending — Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat (and current State Attorney General) Martha Coakley.

In moves reminiscent of a call to “round up the usual suspects,” Democrats are pointing fingers and conjuring conspiracies while Republicans cite the one-state result as evidence that the nation has rejected the policies of President Obama.

Sadly, it is not important which, if either, has a leg to stand on.  What matters is that politics, the way it is practiced in the United States, has again played its trump card over policy.

The status quo may need to change, but change is unsettling to the special interests who benefit from holding it at bay.  Worse, it may be that those who need the status quo changed the most had a hand in maintaining it.

Newly minted Senator Brown won the election with about 1.17 million votes.  Combined with the 1.06 million cast for Ms. Coakley, the total represents just 54 percent of Massachusetts’ registered voters (and only about 45 percent of people in the state eligible to vote).  Where the heck was everyone?

In November ‘08, 72 percent of registered voters went to the polls to elect President Barack Obama.  The 18 percent difference in registered voter turnout between then and now represents 750,000 votes.  Brown beat Coakley by 110,000 votes.

The Presidential and special Senate elections suggest there is a positive relationship between the number of people who vote and the responsiveness of our politics.

As more people vote, the contributions of special interests hold less sway.  As more people vote, politicians are caused to listen more closely to constituents so as to keep elected office.  As more people vote, there is a premium put on leadership. These seem like good outcomes.

So, why don’t we vote?  Where were the good people of Massachusetts who turned out at the end of 2008, but stayed home in early 2010?  Maybe they did not think they had a reason to vote. This is not a political problem but a communications challenge.

Perhaps they felt the race was over days in advance as media reports persisted in reporting on the race, not its reasons.  Perhaps they thought their cause was lost, having learned of the U.S. Senate’s new math where 41 is a majority.  Perhaps they resented the way each candidate was foisted on them, wishing a pox on both their houses.

Here is a thought.  Presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel has said “change requires a crisis.”  If he is right, when it comes to elections the best kind of change might be the anarchy that would arise if everyone voted.

If all 4.2 million registered Massachusetts voters had gone to the polls, it would have created havoc for those who benefit from the status quo.  If all 5 million who could vote, did vote, it would instigate just the kind of uncertainty that leads to anarchy.  And if that became the norm, well, now we’re talking real change.

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

There is nothing like the excess of Las Vegas to focus the mind.  And, as the consumer electronics industry gathers in the Nevada desert this week, it is only fitting that a product no one really knows exists is on the minds of  most.

The so far mythical Apple tablet has turned a lot of e-ink and burned even more cycles among those who hope the Cupertino company can again bring some clarity to a market segment in chaos.  As consumers and business users continue to seek a single device that can satisfy the need to text, talk, watch, play, create, edit, find and report, the task is getting harder even as the stakes get higher.

In a report in the Financial Times, the countervailing forces of hope and hype are on display with regard to the introduction of smartbooks — a computing device for people who “don’t necessarily need the full PC functionality of a laptop or netbook all the time, but they do desire a device that can give them a rich web and media experience on the go with a stylish and cool design…”

Share

The landing of the Android-driven smart phone has fomented a frenzy of  “it will” and “it won’t” kill the iPhone commentary.  This persistent portrayal of the market as a zero-sum game distracts from the real benefit of the competition for share.  Computing devices are going to emulate more of our behavior.

The disconnect between they way computers have worked and the way we live was best captured in a snarky back-and-forth between Microsoft and General Motors about 10 years ago.  Bill Gates suggested that if the car company had kept up with technology, its vehicles would be more efficient and less costly.  The response from GM was along these lines:  yeah, but would you want to crash a couple times a day?

Both companies are a bit different today but GM has come further than Microsoft.  It is hard to imagine cars with more computing power and software applications than have today and as for Microsoft, well, let’s hope 7 really is a lucky number.  But now that devices have come untethered, it is the smart phone, e-book reader, tablet that are setting the pace for human-style computing.

Credit Motorola and its clam-shell cell phone, kudos to Palm and its hand-sized design and add a shout-out to companies like NCR who took touch screens from science fiction and added them to automatic teller machines.  The career achievement award for making computers more like us, though, has to go to Apple.  Which brings us to the iPhone.

Much like the ATM changed an industry and the way we interact with it, the iPhone is making ease-of-use and value — two relatively new concepts in computing — essential to success.  The new black.  Looked at in this way — from our perspective — the competition won’t be based so much on the number of applications, but the way the apps work, not so much on the power of the network, but if the connection is reliable.

There is early evidence of success, but what comes next will be the real test of how competition can shape a market to look more like the customers is says it serves.

Share