I’m not going to critique each ad, you should do that, but they are worth looking at to see interesting alternative ideas for how candidates can communicate their message.  Of course, some also highlight why the ad agency approach is not the best choice to lead in political campaigns which are zero sum  (e.g., do we really want the world voting as one proposes? It would raise awareness but being the global winner can easily backfire domestically).

Reading this did remind me that companies should also be looking for new ways to communicate their brand messages.  This does not mean constantly firing agencies (a common mistake), but having alternative sources of creative and strategic inspiration that the agency(ies) can then put into action.

The problem for McCain is that there area easy counter attack lines for both these messages and the commercial as a whole smells a lot like Bush era scare tactics using making fact time claims that have a fairly shallow basis - something voters may be very wary of at this point.  From Obama’s perspective, it’s easy to show how he’s in fact against foreign oil and may try to wean the nation off oil (even T Boon Pickens will side with Obama on this…not good for McCain).  As for higher taxes, Obama’s main tax message has been on too many tax breaks for the wealthy over the last few years while the rest of the nation saw little gains in earning.  

One early indicator can be seen in the last two months of blog posts.  Just in the last week there is an update of posts that come up with McCain and the keywords rove, negative, and attack ads.  All these are words that, with an average politician would not be a big deal. But this is supposed to be John McCain, the non-Bush (Rove), non negative, non attack-ad politician. 

Per some of my previous posts, I wonder how much reputation forecasting the campaign management did before putting out this commercial.  While negative campaign works (sadly), did they also consider how this particular type of negative campaign may be overplayed?  Did they also calculate how doing commercials that go against McCain’s historical appeal of being a straightforward, no spin politician may cause a greater than average backfire?  If they did, I’m betting their calculations were off.  We’ll find out soon enough.

Watch the ad here :

And Obama’s reply:

In the case of the IOC, a common sense approach to reputation analysis would have told them the initial decision had potential disaster written all over it.  In the case of Yahoo, a similar previous decision by MSN would have shown them the potential for damaging their brand as one consumers can trust.

In both cases, I suspect they did not seriously, or at least properly, weigh the potential economic damage by the reputation impact.  Had they, a week of very strong criticism would have been avoided.

So how does a company weigh such decisions?  There’s no one magic formula but a basic approach would be as follows:

1. Do a social and regular media forecast analysis to determine how the decision may be covered.  This includes determining probably positioning based on previous reporting of similar decisions, confidential facts that may be leaked or uncovered, and how widely it may be covered.  This should be based both on previous reporting as well as the use of panels of former journalists under NDA (yes, such panels are available).
2. Survey relevant audiences as to how the decisions will impact their view of the brand (obviously this has to be done carefully, and in many cases on a blind basis, to avoid damaging leaks)
3. Include questions relating to economic impact such as likelihood of watching programming or using a service after hearing news
4. Use data from the previous question to determine what the potential revenue or investment impact is over the short and long term
5. Calculate if the cost of not making the decision (or changing it) is greater or less than the economic impact.
6. Determine if there is a second stage plan that can take place should the communication of the announcement not go well.  This plan (such as Yahoo’s - see below) should recover the cost of the goodwill with the remaining reputation impact being worth the risk.  This is core to the risk analysis.

Obviously, this is a simplistic approach but the bottom line is this: regardless of messaging and positioning of a tough (and bad) decision, the bottom line is to project the worst news reporting context, the impact on buyers and investors and see if you still want to make that decision.

Taking a look at the Yahoo case, they may have already done this.  They quickly announced a compensation plan for buyers of digital music.  Obviously, the cost of the plan is was worth rebuilding some good will.  It’s quite possible they had the plan in the pocket and took the risk of not initially announcing it figuring that if the reporting was negative (and it was), the cost of asking forgiveness was still worth the remaining reputation impact.

So when I saw the AP article on local British governments committing to cutting out “non-words” I had a moment of embarrassment for PR industry.   Why weren’t we making this call?  Here’s what the local British government association is aiming to achieve:

The Local Government Association, whose members include hundreds of district, town and county councils in England and Wales, on Friday sent out a list of 100 “non-words” that it said officials should avoid if they want to be understood.

The list includes the popular but vague term “empowerment;” “coterminosity,” a situation in which two organizations oversee the same geographical area; and “synergies,” combinations in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Officials were told to ditch the term “revenue stream” for income, as well as the imprecise “sustainable communities.” The association also said councils should stop referring to local residents as “customers” or “stakeholders.”

Reading this got me thinking that if there’s one thing the PRSA and other PR related industry groups could do, it’s lead the charge to eradicate business buzzwords and bring back the English language.  Doing this would address several key problems for the industry is seen (other wise known as perception problems):

1) Helping companies clearly communicate to the people who care (i.e., the stakeholders).  I’m sure we can do better if we are using the offending buzzwords as much as any other consulting profession.

2) Providing true leadership in communications.  Right now, a [British] government association taking a communications lead on something as fundamental as speaking clearly.  Let’s be the communications leaders we should be and, as an industry, call on corporate America to do the same.

3) Provide the best possible communications counsel.  I don’t think we are doing this now if our counsel does not start and end with asking our clients to speak clearly and in plain English.  How can it if the presentations to our clients are filled with this very jargon (I’ve been in enough to know).

If anyone has seen this actual list, I’d love to get a copy.  It may be our next great piece of PR literature.

(disclosure: I’ve used the offending language including stakeholder, value-add, maximize and other 6+ letter words more times than I can admit).

The other night I was unpleasantly surprised to hear The Gap offer me a new credit card using an automated dial out message.  Hearing this, all I could think was “dear Gap, just how dumb are you?”

Companies often do not put business decisions that impact public perception through the PR ringer.  They should.  Maybe The Gap would have done this anyway but I can’t image The Gap wants it’s brand to be seen as one known for harassing people at home to buy a credit card using automatic messages.  First, these calls come across as very low end.  Second, it’s bad enough to disturb the dinner hour, but to not have the decency to do it with a real person adds insult to injury and sends the message that we have no personal touch.

Next time someone brings up The Gap, this phone is what will illustrate my opinio.

I’ve always stated that everyone spins - journalists, PR people, marketers and people in everyday conversation.  What’s important as a professional is that the spin, or context, in which you present a story or fact be completely backed up by verifiable facts.  I don’t expect dinner partner conversations to keep this in mind, but I do expect public relations professionals to do so (which is why we are always pushing research so hard).

The problem with the WSJ article, according to the CJR, was that it presented buy and bail real estate as a phenomenon but then presented no facts to back it up.  It only cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence.  If that’s all there was, either it should not have been published or should have been written as a potential problem that the system currently allows (even then I think it’s shaky as what is not a potential problem).

In fact, the article addresses this by saying (down low) the practice does not appear to be widespread.  But if so, they just admitted they overspun when referring to it as a new phenomenon.  It’s a potential one, not a new one.  This is lesson two for professionals, pick your facts and then pick the right words to present them.

Spinning is, according to my definition, for presenting a biased view of a situation and facts.  This is in fact a part of every day conversation (ever talked politics in a social setting)?   The problem with spin is that is easily leads to facts being misrepresented or potentially made up.

This isn’t about gloating over journalists spinning as much if not more than public relations professionals.  It’s an example of what not to do and a reminder that whatever your position is in the marketplace, be prepared to back it up.

And that’s Sears’ problem right now.  They seem to exist to survive and not serve a purpose to customers and communities.  After reading about yet another bad quarter and misguided strategy, I thought I’d compare how Sears describes itself versus competitors (as defined by media reporting on Sears).

In taking a look at the about section of Web sites, here are the key lines that jump out for each company:

I found the positioning contrast between Sears and competitors surprising and not a good sign.  Wal-Mart, Target and Lowe’s leading statement all focus on the need . they fill for customers.  For the consumer, they outline why they want to shop there For the investor, they outline their market place position.

Sears, on the other hand, simply makes a market leadership position that is not event quantified.  If you’re going to use the word leading, then back it up with a big number in a market people can relate to and that sows growth.  But that’s only for investors.  Sears isn’t clearly communicating why customers should shop at its stores.  It’s as if Sears is thinking without a sense of mission or specific market in mind.  It’s a drowning business that’s just thinking about saving itself.  That’s fine, but it needs to give customers, the audience most important to its survival, a reason to  save it.

There are a few key areas that stood out in terms of what senior level public relations professionals

1. More than a quarter of respondents reported that they have international or global authority over their organization’s PR activities.
2. Reporting to the CEO, Chair or COO is the preferred structure. 
3. Reporting to the c-suite also means having greater responsibility, influence and budget.
4. There is still inadequate resources devoted to PR evaluation.  This is despite increasing press to show value. 
5. PR organizations that reported to the c-suite where more strategic in their evaluation.  For example, evaluation may include contribution to market share and  stakeholder opinion.  PR organizations that reported to marketing were more tactical and focused on clips.

 
There were no major surprises though I think it’s important to see the difference in how PR measures itself based on wether it reports to the c-suite or to marketing.  It seemed to highlight how PR can be a marketing tactic or a strategic center of excellence.  In the past I’ve found many that use PR both ways with corporate communications being the strategic center of PR excellence and public relations being the marketing department.

When reading the report for the purposes of creating a more strategic, c-level public relations function, think about what skills are needed in both the senior PR executive and staff.  Most public relations and corporate communications departments have most of the tactical skills down (e.g., media and blogger relations).  However, there is a separate list of critical skills (survey and other research skills, reputation modeling and risk management, message analysis and more) needed to qualify for the c-suite level of public relations and corporate communications.   

(Thank you to Professor Jerry Swerling who led the study).

While I’m out there every day talking about the importance of social media, I’m doing so by first discussing how to determine if and how your company needs to engage in social media activities.  The world is more complex than simply saying you must do it.  Just as not every company needs to be engaging broadcast media, not every company needs to engage in social media. 

A core example is using social media to listen to the customer.  Easily said but not always clear how to implement.  Apple vs. Dell is a high profile case in point. 

Apple is not known for designing products based on customer feedback; they are good at designing what they believe customers will love.  And while they do talk to and listen to blogs, they do not seem to rely on them to make business changes.  In fact, they’ve sued blogs that leaked secrets (something many other companies are wary of doing) and loud blog complaints often fall on deaf ears (e.g., battery replacement issues).

Dell, on the other hand, had a worsening reputation for PC design, quality and customer service.  They’ve been using social media, blog outreach and other forms of social media driven customer communications to gain a reputation as a company that is listening to customers and improving based on what they hear.  So instead of simply coming our with product and process improvements (a la Apple), they are showing how they listen first and will then, hopefully, execute.

Two companies, same industry, similar customer base, very different approaches.    Bottom line: always seriously consider and pursue a social media strategy but first make sure it’s the right one for your company.