How best to integrate social media into organization marketing

I have been fascinated by the number of organizations who are hiring for social media managers. I have spoken to a few of these people and I have seen some very interesting things. By and large the one finding I have noticed is that they see social media as a bomb to be defused. They approach it in the way the technicians in the "Hurt Locker" approached their jobs.

It has become apparent to me that the concept of social media in the marketing and communications field has yet to be fully defined. For one thing there is a tendency when defining the role responsible for social media to look out and see what's popular in social media and try to find a way to fit into all outlets. Very little forethought is given into what may be the best social media outlets. This is very similar to bringing the furniture into a house before the windows have been installed.

Fortunately, one trend that does seem to be emerging is the desire for marketing and communications to handle the social media platform for the company. Given that on a professional level this didn't really exist 2 to 3 years ago, this bodes very well. Those of us who were around remember how when the internet took off, web design and structure was set off very distinctly from marketing to mostly disastrous results.

Still there runs a grave risk of placing some type of mystique into social media that doesn't belong. I had one person tell me that they wanted someone who had a "feel" for social media meaning someone who was younger. My main concern here is that if someone doesn't understand marketing, how can they develop an integrated strategy? Physicians do this all the time, they go off and learn about new procedures and new tools. They don't just bring in doctors just out of med-school with the idea they know more, it is expected that physicians keep up to date on the latest technology and integrate it into their years of experience. This is something which marketing and communications people can adapt to social media.

So what do marketing people do when it comes to social media and how do we fit social media into our current marketing platform. One of the best methods to follow may be that of our friends in the medical field. We need to keep up to date and most importantly find a way to integrate new and emerging trends such as social media into our own field of expertise. By assuming ownership of what is new in the world, we can fully contribute into the organization's climate. We also need to make sure we don't shut out the lessons we can learn from those who may have less mileage overall, but may have a special expertise we lack. Remember professional learning never stops!

Is the Press Release Dead?

There was an e-mail or blog posting which went around a few weeks back asking if PR was dead. That seemed to raise an ire within the PR and marketing communities and I believe the general answer is that PR is most certainly NOT dead. Still, one can't help but wonder if it may be sick because certain sickly elements of it give it the appearance of death.

Case in point is our old friend the press release. Many a PR person has burned the midnight oil waiting for a C-level executive to make sure that the i is dotted and the t is crossed. One thing is certain and that is that senior executives love to see a good old fashion press release. They love to pontificate like a prophet from the hill top, extolling the ignorant masses with the blessings of their brilliance.

What is shocking is that from a cost perspective the press release often is a huge money loser. Consider that most distribution services charge you for every word after the first 500 and the first 500 usually only get you past the headline, sub head and maybe the introduction paragraph. Very rarely do the bean counters want to stop a senior level executive from having their pulpit and thus most press releases cost between $1500 and $2000. The saddest part of all is that no one outside the organization is reading them!

Yes that is the sad and true fact. Information both anecdotal and factual indicate that the news media do not read news releases and choose not to receive information for the news they cover from them. Modern technology has allowed press releases to be distributed via Google and other aggregate services so people are seeing them, the level of penetration and how much information is being absorbed still remains questionable. Sadly, the more this becomes apparent, the more we seem to double down on the press release.

So back to the initial question is the press release dead? Well not entirely. Contractual and regulatory requirements plus the the need to distribution information will always require some form of the press release. What needs to be changed is how the information is distributed. For one thing, try a mental exercise. Ban the use of the term press release in 2011. Instead substitute the term news release. While this may be an exercise in semantics, it can also force people to think long and hard about what they really want to say versus putting every iota of information that crosses their desks.

Secondly, once you have adopted the term news release, try putting a hard cap on the number of releases issued. Say for example you agree to 6 per quarter. This will allow you to focus on the most important news and not on the trivial. Secondly, you can focus on delivering your message to key spokespeople and not simply drafting, approving and distributing a release. Lastly, you can significantly cut the costs of your PR operations and deliver results which will have an increased ROI and thus make PR a more significant player in your organizations marketing programs.

The press release is dead in 2011. It's offspring, the news release its younger and more productive offspring the news release. By focusing on news and choosing information which will raise visibility, strengthen the brand and ultimately sell more products we will create a strong and more responsive PR operation. PR does not stand for press release!

Time to stop falling for the latest fad

One of the great weaknesses in marketing, or any aspect of business for that matter, is when a certain technology or skill is seen as unassailable and/or beyond criticism. A very worrisome trend is that social media is beginning to approach those standards in some respects. When any media vehicle is seen as a cure all that every one is in love with then it is time to take a step back and wonder if we're really doing something intelligent, or if we are like a herd of lemmings about to plunge over the cliff.

Now to be absolutely clear this is not by any means an assault on the viability of social media. Quite the opposite it is in my opinion a rare attempt to assess it based solely on its merits and avoid repeating the errors made when the web first came on the scene. For those not around or of short memory the Internet was seen as a magic cure for all that ailed the organization. Of course when this proved false organizations were forced to scramble because now they had to rely on more traditional marketing methods which had been largely shelved if not forgotten.

There was an insane posting I saw lately that I think demonstrated just how much the disease which is the passion for social media has infected marketing. One blogger actually referred to social media as marketing on steroids. So if I understand it clearly, and I think I do, social media is being compared too a drug which provides very little short term benefit, no long term benefit and ultimately kills its user? This is yet another brick in that wall of why PR, communications and basically marketing are not taken seriously as disciplines. We fall in love far too quickly and seem to completely lack any sound judgment or discipline.

Marketing people need to learn the art and science of self-discipline. We need to remember that gorging on appetizers will not allow us to properly enjoy the main course. Instead we need to focus on building a well balanced, well formed plan which combines the best of the old and the best of the new. That means that we will use some elements of both and that we will not use some. To act as if one program is completely without fault because it is new is as foolish as disregarding it for the same reason. It is up to marketing people to get their heads on straight and to think long term and constructively and deliver results which will build a brand!

Why are we so afraid of failure?

I had the chance to speak to an agency big wig at a recent networking event and shocked her when I told her about the question I love to ask agencies during the screening process. It doesn't matter because her agency is not in a field that I would hire but she proved the point I was trying to make. People have an irrational and complete fear of failure and it drives them to distraction.

We are set up to believe that there is success, from which all good and bounty flows, and there is failure which is where all failure goes too die! Sadly this is not the case. To get back to my original question, I had asked this woman how her agency deals with failures when they are the ones responsible. Sadly the response I saw was all too typical. Fear of showing weakness seemed to trump any desire to be an open and honest vendor rather than putting on the typical facade that in the end makes them look silly as if they have never made a mistake.

Failure is one of those things that happens in the client relationship. It is not desirable but it does happen. Mature people and agencies make mistakes, deal with it and move on. Immature people and agencies act like it never happens and when it does seek to find people to blame. They never learn from their mistakes because they are too busy ducking blame and aren't interested in assuming responsibility.

I have found that by asking people to tell me about a time they have failed I get a really interesting response. First of all, most people are floored by it. The truth is that there is no right answer. Some will give a specific example, some will will try and turn it into a learning experience. Either way both are right, and both are wrong, but the question really turns on how someone tries to answer the question. Do they try try to evade it or do they stand up and admit to having failed in the past and having learned from it and moved on.

The simple fact is that failure is a part of our lives as professionals and while no one strives for failure nor should it be a goal it is something to be managed and controlled. It becomes a big issue when we dodge the issue and try to convince the world that we have not failed. Failure is a learning tool when it occurs. It is fuel to the fire of ignorance when it is ignored.

Using Marketing to Lead the Way to Better Times

All we need to do is to turn on the TV and see that the recession is lingering and how poorly we are all doing. Yet a quick look at corporate earnings tells us that companies are booking record earnings and profits. This seems to be a disconnect in this aspect and it makes me wonder what the heck is going on. While one answer to this question is certainly cost-cutting and keeping costs low, the other aspect is just as clear, there is zero marketing going on. People are being fed a message that feeds upon itself and discourages people to make any decisions that may help boost the economy.

Let me address the issue of cost-cutting first. Tom Peters is attributed as saying either "you can't grow by shrinking," or "you can't grow by cutting costs." What ever the correct statement is, the sentiment is true. If you think strategically and invest in market growth and market your product appropriately, you product will take root in the market place and revenue and, if managed intelligently, profit will follow.

The other mentality is that of the C-level. As usual they see no benefit in marketing and choose not to market their way to prosperity. Instead they choose to entrench and try to survive, not realizing that a downturn or recession has been shown to be an exceptional opportunity to seize advantage in the marketplace. It is telling that Apple, Google, Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble have all increased marketing spending by at least 10% during the past few years. As a result, they have increased market share and have successfully launched new products.

It can't be said that only consumer companies have been successful doing this. The marketing arms of a number of tech companies such as TI have done great things and are reaping vast rewards. Sadly, these companies seem to be an exception and not the rule. Most companies are taking on a bunker mentality and live in fear of tomorrow which in a sense means they are tying their own noose and will be completely unprepared to take advantaged of a new burst when the economy resumes humming.

The conclusion that can be drawn here is that some companies are choosing to take the lead and market their products to their customers. These companies are the ones who will be uniquely positioned as the next wave of market leaders and some may continue brand leadership, others may sit on their hands, focus exclusively on the near term and lose any market advantage. Investment in marketing and communications will result in brand leadership and market growth if not now then in the future. The question is if you are an entrepreneur and see marketing as an investment with low to moderate risk or if you're completely risk adverse and are willing to sacrifice future growth for short term satisfaction.

Shaping Marketing and Communications During the next Recovery

As the recession lingers on we often wonder if we will return to a period of prosperity. History tells us we will and it also tells us that we struggling with the dark areas of recession and feeling sorry for ourselves when all of a sudden we find we are in prosperity again. In fact a recent study showed that most analysts and pundits are as correct in their guesses on the economy as a bench warming ball player is about getting a hit. That's roughly 20 percent.

The big question I am wondering is if we will emerge a little chastened or if we will jump right into more excess and create another warped bubble where it's a party train and we think the good times can never end. Marketing and communications have a lot to do with creating bubbles and excess and of course we bear a lot of the costs when the bubble bursts. I am often reminded of the person who parties to excess on Friday night, only to swear off it Saturday morning and then goes out and does it twice as hard.

One tool that is rarely exercised in marketing and communications is the tool or restraint. Sure we hear the old cliche about striking while the iron is hot and so on. What we rarely see is marketing to step up and try to guide the brand so that rather than being some rickety old roller coaster, we are a high speed thruway where our top of the line sports car can cruise easily along. Marketing needs to guide and not just tag along for the ride.

Another tool to ensure marketing survives the next great wave is to make sure we are a council to the C-level executives. The C's like to go on a spending spree when their is a few extra dollars and they tend to spend like sailors on liberty. Marketing should force a strategic focus on spend money on what is most important and not necessarily what is fashionable or even worse, what is transient. While we all know that companies who spend more on marketing and communications during a recession often emerge stronger, we have to make sure that the position of strength is not squandered on either an early celebration or a bunker mentality.

Good times are destined to return that much we know. Sadly, I don't have a crystal ball which allows me to say when it will end, but when it does marketing and communications need to be ready. It's time to get off the crazy bubble train and bring marketing and communications into the world of manageable and strategic partnership within the organization. Rather than be a cost center we need to prove, yet again, that we are a premium revenue producing arm and, through our management of the brand, a vital component of the organization.

Is PR Dead?

A good friend of mine, and a journalist no less, asked on his blog if PR was dead and, or dying. This wasn't a shot at PR in so much as he was questioning why companies spend a great deal of money on something which, in his opinion, is of very little value and which the news media pays no attention too. I corrected him on the two errors I see in the story, the first being that PR offers no value and the second being that we offer members of the media no value.

Now the easy thing to do here is to fly off the handle and say that this person has no idea of what we do and how important we are. But that would be only petulant and self-serving. I think we are better served if we use this as a means of examining the value we do bring and if we are offering true value to the organization or if we are muddying the waters and are a professional in search of a role?

I will say that I believe that a number of PR organizations, specifically some agencies, do a great disservice to the organization by being petulant and immature in their dealings with the media but also being petulant and immature in how they deal with the concept of public relations. Having worked with a great number of agency people I have seen no shortage of immaturity and almost infantile behavior. Now before I am strung up by my colleagues in the field I will freely admit I don't believe they are the majority but that they are a large enough minority to give those who do their job's right a black eye.

I also disagree, in the strongest terms possible the stereotype that all PR people are spin doctors or that we all bend the truth. First, I believe strongly that there are two sides to every argument and they deserve to be heard. Granted it can be an argument between right and wrong but that still is an airing of opinion which in an open society is a very good thing. Secondly, certain professions tend to get smeared by the acts of a few. Lawyers can certainly attest to this. But let's not forget the positives that have come out of these fields.

If not for public relations, we would have never heard of the ills of smoking, the need for seat belts or advocates for people with disabilities. All of these great causes were advocated by pressure groups which all use PR to advance their messages. Are there excesses in PR, of course, but there are in education, finance and even in media.

There is one thing PR can do a much better job at and that is letting the world know about how it helps make us healthier, happier and safer thanks to PR. Is PR necessary, absolutely because every legal organization, now matter what we think of it has a right to have its voice heard. Also, despite crying how much they hate it, the news media would be lost without a public relations person to help them meet the right people. Good journalism owes its life to good PR. So PR does contribute to the success of so many organizations. We are not just a cog in a machine, we are a strong driver or a full gear and when used properly we help the entire engine run much smoother.

Sorry but the rumors of the death of PR are greatly exaggerated!

Why marketing may need to fight the C-level for control of the brand!

Communications and marketing people have a tough job that much is sure. No department in the organization is faced with such a rapidly changing means of reaching out to their target audiences, thus doing their jobs, as the Marketing and communications teams. Still there is one group that makes our job extremely difficult. It is the C-suite's slavish devotion to short term gains with a full knowledge of how the long term results will produce nothing but harm for the organization.

One key example of this is that the C-suite often expects marketing and communications to produce immediate results, while all the time reducing the budget we have to work with and shortening the amount of time to allow a campaign to work. Imagine if we told a doctor that a certain surgical procedure needs to take only 4 hours instead of 6, they can only use 75% of their tools and we expect the patient to be functioning at 120% inside of a week. People would laugh because these conditions are the height of irrationality, yet we think nothing of expecting marketing and communications to work under these conditions.

The most egregious weakness in this scenario is usually found in public companies. It is almost laughable how in many public companies the sole audience the C-level is interested in is the investment community and in keeping them happy. I have seen C-level executives prance around like they are in a dog and pony show and do self destructive things all for some short term benefit which, like a sugar rush, is often gone before it's enjoyed. Hardly any degree of attention is shown to the customer or retaining the customer. I have found it mystifying that a C-level executive will often dodge a customer call, yet will happily speak to some freshly minted MBA from Harvard or Princeton to keep the stock rating positive and thus up a penny or two.

An intelligent C-level executive sees the brand as the key to organization survival and thinks in the long term. The best analogy I have ever heard is that running a company is like climbing a mountain. You keep your eyes on the peak but also focus on the next ledge. That's a great analogy for what marketing can do to help a C-level executive succeed. Rather than being a cost center or a prop shop, marketing and communications can help the C-level executives reach the next level of success as well as that eventual peak. In fact, we're the only group who can get the program off the ground.

Marketing and communications can only succeed if they are viewed as a long term, strategic tool. Seeing them as a temporary, tactical tool to be cut and expanded on a willy, nilly basis is not only short-sighted but it is self-destructive. Visionary leaders in marketing and communications need to take the lead and need to confront the C-level on the responsibility to defend the brand and ensure its long-term success.

Let marketing drive the company

This is a very obvious statement so please forgive me if I insult your intelligence. An automobile needs a steering wheel, accelerator, gear shift as well as brakes to operate properly. A bike, needs much the same things with the big change obviously being that it doesn't need the accelerator as that is the person riding. In the world of business, communications is what provides the acceleration and to some degree provides warnings of the course corrections and changes required as well as providing warnings about the crazy drivers in the other lanes and even the speed limits.

What's the reason for this automobile analogy? Well marketing and communications are far too often seen as entirely functional or tactical tools and far too few organizations see the value they bring as strategic assets to the organization. Can you imagine for a minute if you reacted when the person in front of you slams on the brakes or when the other driver runs the red light? Just like in marketing, a great driver needs to be in command of the situations, needs to know the course and needs to be able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, what is likely to happen soon.

Now the key thing to see here is that accidents will happen and perfection is impossible. Sorry, C-Level executives seem to think we are perfect when in fact we are not, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact remains however that the true guidance of the organization should be the domain of the marketing and communications department because we are the ones who understand how to chart an organizations long term voyage through the various ups and downs the organization will face. In addition, the marketing and communication team will be one of the few groups who do not live from quarter to quarter and have a more long term, strategic outlook.

So the long story short is that the guidance and acceleration of an organization who sees itself as a leader should be run through the marketing and communications group. Unlike most of the business world marketing and communications, when done properly, are long term strategic departments. That is necessary in order to help an organization survive the temporary hurdles which will come across its path from time to time. The organizations' who pursue other courses may succeed but it's like driving with a blindfold on. As long as there aren't any disruptions in the road, you will do fine. If you focus on marketing and communications as the leads for the organization, you should be able to avoid a number of pitfalls and in doing so, leave those organizations who choose another method of guidance well behind you.

Where do we set the bar on ethics?

One of my favorite shows is Mad Men. It has won the Emmy for best drama three years straight. Besides presenting an engaging and enlightening view into the early 1960's. It combines strong characters with intelligent dialogue and just a dash of dark humor. I particularly liked the most recent episode broadcast on Sunday night here. For those who don't wish to know the plot skip the next few lines. As we know, Don Draper, the head of creative for Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce paid to have an open letter in the New York Times where he renounced any future intent to do advertising for cigarettes.

I find this interesting because it raises a rarely discussed part of marketing and communications and that is the aspect of where do we draw the line when it comes to marketing and communicating in an ethical setting. Now I will assume that no one believes that it is in anyway ethical to market a product which is illegal. The big gray area becomes whether or not it is unethical to design a marketing campaign for a product which is perfectly legal, but is certainly unhealthy.

Obviously the biggest market to consider is what Don Draper was considering and that was cigarettes. While they remain perfectly legal products, one has to consider if doing marketing for these products is unto itself unethical. While I do not smoke, and I am a huge proponent of preventing smoking, and it will kill you, the fact remains that it is a legal and highly regulated product.

Another industry to keep in mind is the fast food industry which sells meals which are extremely unhealthy and a leading cause of obesity today. But once again the fact remains it is a legal product and one whose risks, while not as sharply defined as cigarettes, are clear and distinct.

The final industry to consider is defense related industries. These people make weapons and let's be honest, weapons kill people. That is their purpose. If they fail to do this then they have failed! But having worked with that field the logic is that their products, if well designed, will save lives by making the other fellow less likely to start anything!

So now we're at the crux of the argument. Is is necessarily unethical for a marketing person to do their job in a field where the product is unhealthy. While some people may not like my answer, I believe there is nothing wrong with working for a company who is selling a legal product. Granted, there perfectly acceptable reasons to be upset with the products themselves but that does not render the product themselves unacceptable provided they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.

Kudos to Don Draper for making a stand and deciding that his company will draw the line at cigarettes. Notice that the writers did not put McDonald's in the script. If someone wants to take a stand and would not wish to work for a company which makes a product or promotes a lifestyle they object to, that is their right to refuse. Just remember, as Don Draper learned, nothing happens in a vacuum and there will be ramifications. Stands are very brave and should be respected, let's remember the old quip that in physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction while in business that reaction is 20 fold!

Time for hiring managers to exit the comfort zone!

As we all know there is a problem in the employment system today. No I am not speaking about the 9.6% out of work, but rather the fact that even with unemployment that high, companies can't find qualified people to do the job. I was speaking with a recruiter friend of mine recently and was told that many hiring managers are being so exact and so picky that it is making the job of finding a qualified candidate nearly impossible. Case in point, let's assume that the hiring manager wants a corp. comm person who has 5 to 7 years of experience in health care and someone comes along who has 8 in tech. Nearly every time that person will be rejected, despite the fact that the skills are there.

Similarly, managers can often hire someone and not fully fleshed out their position. I have a rule of them that when ever I am reading a job description if it is one paragraph or less, I keep looking. Granted there may be a gem in there but the fact is that if a company only describes a position in one paragraph then they haven't really invested the time in seeking the long term potential for the position and whomever ends up with it will most likely be going crazy in a very short amount of time!

Let me be clear on one thing, I do believe companies have a right and, to be honest, an obligation to construct a job description that works as much for the internal audience as for external candidates seeking to join. But that should be an ideal and not a straight jacked which prevents the hiring of a qualified individual for the role. While I can't claim to be an expert on other fields, I can be sure that a qualified and capable marketing or communications person has a set of skills which are capable of being used in any field. Speaking as someone who has worked in various industries I can testify that if you are a good marketing communications person for a software company, your skills will be equally useful in hospital setting.

The other too that hiring managers must remember is that we do not always get everything we want. When we were young children we wrote out lists to Santa every year. Now if you were a young boy like me, you weren't really happy when you saw clothes in what you unwrapped Christmas morning but what you may not remember is how those clothes were put to good use. The same hold true for hiring a candidate. Someone may not be an exact match for what you want but if they have the skills, and have experience comparable to what you seek then you should find the best way to make them fit. Your industry can be learned a lot quicker than the skill set necessary to do the job can be taught!

I may be preaching to the choir here but I do think we need to have organizations realize that by adhering strictly to a pre-defined list of qualifications they may be missing out on some individuals who have amazing skills and who can bring fresh perspective and make a strong, positive impact on the organization. I don't recall the exact story but I remember hearing that in either Chinese or Japanese the characters for risk and opportunity were nearly identical? Well even if the story is wrong, the sentiment is dead on. Look at the candidate who can contribute the most to the organization, not the one who can simply fit the bill of what you're looking for!

Time for marketing to learn from failure!

There is a well known and time worn statement which goes, those who can not remember the past will be doomed to repeat it. The worse are attributed to the poet and philosopher George Santayana. These words are as true today as there were when they were first spoken. In fact they seem to be even more relevant because our periods of remembrance seem to be drawing shorter and shorter with each generation.

I bring this up today because there are direct ties into business and specifically marketing and communications. Another cliche that is often used is that success comes from many fathers but failure is an orphan. Both of these statements define what is wrong about business accountability in this day and age. More often than not if something goes wrong, the first thing organizations try to do is look for a scape goat and eliminate that person to keep the baying of the legal wolves in check. This quite honestly is stupid and in many cases counterproductive. If there is a complete and total violation of a companies policies as seems to be the case with Hewlett Packard, then dismissing the head of the company makes some sense. However I am here to talk about the lesser examples that often times do not make a lick of sense.

Having been around the block in marketing a while, I notice that many times senior level executives will wonder why their initiatives are not producing the desired results. More often than not marketing and communications people will look for an excuse or a reason to give as to why they are not. In most cases there is a simple explanation such as marketing conditions or even lack of support from other elements in the organization. It is not improper or unprofessional to refuse to fall on your sword because some other party has failed to participate in the successful development of marketing and communications strategy.

So what's the point here? That is simple. marketing, corporate communications, PR etc need to OWN the communications function and the message. We need to let the C-level know when they are not being reasonable and we need to both educate other groups in the organization and help them understand what marketing and communications is all about and how to work. What is very interesting is that organizations who view marketing and communications as a strategic tool, similar to finance or sales, find the greatest return on investment for their marketing dollar. They tend to stay the course and spend their marketing dollars wisely.

Organizations who are struggling or failing tend to share a common trait as well. They see marketing and communications as purely tactical weapons. Elements to be used only in reaction to market condition and not as a strategic weapon. A perfect case is how McDonald's reinvented itself to offset negative publicity as well as changing marketing conditions. This required a difficult reappraisal of their operations from top to bottom and included a major revision to how they went about marketing their products.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that in marketing and communications, as well as in any aspect of business, failure is an excellent teacher. This is not a call for everyone to fail, rather it is a call for us to stop treating failure as something that requires a quick trip to the gallows and then carrying on as if nothing has happened. Use marketing as a tool to build brand and build sales. You will fail along the way that can't be helped. What you can help is taking the setbacks, learn from them, and come back even stronger and assume an even strong position in your market.

And, if failure is an orphan then it can join, Nelson Mandela, Alexander Hamilton , Dave Thomas (who founded Wendy's) and Louis Armstrong. So being an orphan is never easy, but can lead to great things!

Time for Marketing and CorpCom to Grow Up

There is an interesting study out that claims that in a dictatorship, fear is less an issue than greed. What one often finds in this type of regime is that a select few are given access to power and its benefits (privileges, access to leadership, foodstuffs, etc.) that the average person does not have. This works to create a class of sycophants whose loyalty is to the organization and not to doing right.

I think of this because I believe that, unfortunately, there are far too many organizations who play the politics game and respond to lesser party's who act like a spoiled 5 year old rather than make the best decision for the organization. A classic case in point of this very usual circumstance making a rare appearance in the public forum was when AIG tried to justify the payment of large bonuses by saying the people being paid would go to other companies. Given that these people had run the ship aground this was a disastrous statement to make and show a tone deafness that, sadly, is not uncommon in corporate American today.

Now normally during one of my discussions I would offer an insight into how PR, Marketing and CorpComm could help with this. Well, the sad news is that we are actually a big part of the problem. I think I can speak for most of my colleagues who do a good job in saying we have all seen less qualified workers act like 5 year old and be treated like the spoiled children they are. I have a line that I have used many times to these children and will continue to use it. "Drama belongs on the stage, not in the workplace so either grow up or get out."

This is one area that concerns me when it comes to the long term viability of PR and marketing. We are currently fighting the battle of not being valued as true strategic partners. The lack of maturity and undeserved sense of entitlement of a number of PR and marketing people is directly causing harm to our industry. It is up to all of us to act professionally and to realize our profession needs us to act intelligently and maturely in order to achieve something beyond our own little niche.

Why aren't we using social media better than this?

There were a few instances during the past few weeks that had me shaking my head. Now some of you who know me think that I am a completely opposed to social media in any and all formats. That is a total and complete falsehood. I don't fall in love with items because they happen to be new, I become interested in items because I perceive they offer a distinct competitive advantage.

Having said that, I am surprised at the limited or perhaps the miss directed scope we see when it comes to social media. We see people who offer updates on every little element that is going on in their lives with no filter regarding how appropriate or interesting it may be. We see organizations stumbling over each other to be the latest on Twitter or Facebook with no idea regarding why they wish to do so. One thing we do not see, is organizations forming a quick strategy about how to deal with social media for those times when computing will fail them,

Case in point was last week's Facebook outage. While I am sure we would all find it somewhat funny to think of this happening, one of the most sensible things for Facebook to do would be to go on some other outlet, or via e-mail, notify their base that the site was down and would stay down for some time. What they did end up doing is reverting back to the good old days and send out e-mail updates to the news media. While I somewhat chuckle at the idea of Facebook using Twitter to announce they couldn't bring their web site up, it would have been a most most effective way of reaching their target audience and, in my opinion, a means that would not have caused a great deal of long term harm or embarrassment to Facebook.

Social Media is a great tool. The great weakness of social media is that most agencies and communications practitioners are offering poor advice on how to use it. The advice I am hearing is similar to saying, "paint each house purple." When it comes to social media, the need should match the organization and not the other way around. Also some of the great potential for social media is being ignored. Why isn't it being better developed as a crisis communication tool? Given that Crisis Comm is about getting the right message to the right people as soon as possible, the big question we need to answer as corporate communications professionals today is why are we looking at social media as an entertainment tool and not a strategic communications one?

The Perfect information storm

As a TV news junkie, I find it interesting that there seem to be two main subjects dominating the talking heads. The first is what ever celebrity has had a break down, been arrested, etc. The second is the messages regarding the economy. While we can always argue from a political perspective how good or bad it is, the way the message is being delivered is fascinating from a messaging and marketing perspective.

For one thing, the message is being disseminated by various talking heads, each representing not just their own point of view, but also the respective investment house or research institute they work for. This leads to a massive amount of confusing and often contradictory information being passed out. It is not uncommon on CNBC to see person A claim that things are great and the economy is finally on firm footing only have person B claim the exact polar opposite.

While I find this maddening to watch one person tell me that the sun out is a good sign and another tell me that the sun out will lead to more skin cancer it is an interesting view to communications theory. This is the perfect information storm. A lot of it confusing and often completely contradictory. This is where the Corporate Communications plate come into play.

Sadly, while many would like to live in a black and white world, the world is really built into shades of grey. But it is our job as communications professionals to offer the best counsel they possibly can. Yes that can offer mean offering unconventional advice.

Take for example the current year that the Boston Red Sox are having. They are out of running this year but as a true fan I can't say the season was a failure. Yes if you set the bar high (winning the pennant) then they aren't going to have a successful family. But if you look at over all performance, overcoming difficulties and adversity, I would argue they have had a very successful season.

The is much information circling the airwaves these days. In some respects the best talking head is combination of facts and information, but also preparation and skill by their own PR or corp comm people. The fact that a certain person's message is being repeated is a combination of both the right message, but also let's not forget the hard work and skill of the PR person behind the scenes doing the message development and pitching the speaker.

Driving down the highway that is marketing and branding

I am sure we all have stories about seeing crazy things on the highway. Be it people talking on their cell phones, shaving or even reading while driving at break neck speeds. This past weekend, while driving to a cook out, I was forced to pass a woman who was driving 45mph in the left lane because she was busy texting and apparently fixing her hair. Of course I thought two things. First, this woman is an accident waiting to happen but secondly and more importantly it represents a good analogy of what is going on in marketing, communications and branding today.

For one thing marketing is be driven at breakneck speed and is often to expected to arrive at locations in an unreasonable amount of time while not getting a speeding ticket. In words that will ring true to all marketing people, do it fast, do it right, do it under budget and make no mistakes. What is also true for all marketing people is that, much like cars, the universe they operated in is changing. For a long time the automobile was a sanctuary. For better or for worse it was an area where a person could not be reached.

Marketing used to be a relatively easy to understand format. It used to be archaic and very traditional, with a long established means of doing things. It's scope was very limited and it was seen as highly tactical. There was very little change in its scope for a great many years.

Both areas have seen tremendous changes during the pasts several years. For cars there is now cell phones, GPS, satellite radio and so much more which change how we operate in the car. For marketing, the changes are even greater. Marketing people have evolved from being the helmsman who steers the large slow moving vessels to the captain of the craft running viscous white water.

As for the highway itself, we see that some people take to driving it different ways just like a true highway. For example, some people take to the driveway and drive really slow, others drive like lunatics. Others take it slow and steady. This is to be expected because just as drivers are unique and approach the highways different organizations approach marketing different.

What's ironic is that many organizations are like a lot of drivers in the good old days and approach marketing the way they approached driving. That is to say they don't plan and often get lost along the way. In these pre Garmin or Tom Tom days people had to look for gas stations or other locations to find their way. A great deal of organizations drive down that highway with no idea where they are going or how they are going to get there. Sometimes they drive down the highway very fast assuming speed is progress or sometimes they stay in the right lane assuming that slow and steady will win the race, yet fail to notice all the competitors blowing by them.

The moral to the story is that driving on the modern highway is a great analogy for doing marketing, communications and branding in the modern age. You need to have the right tools to get the job done (a well maintained car,good radio, etc.) you need to know where you want to go and how to get there. You need to stay focused on the road and not get distracted by small and inconsequential items. Lastly, you need to be aware of your surroundings and judge your progress by your own goals, not by what is going on around you.

Where are the corporate communications mentors and leaders?

Having been in PR, Marketing and Corporate Communications I have noticed a few things. Usually the best talent are soloist or individuals contributors. The reason for that it would seem is that agencies and in house organs tend to draw careerists who are better at navigating the corporate minefields than at developing a tight and on-target message. Now of course everyone who reads this will think they are the exception and I am sure I will hear how such and such a company is the exception. The sad case is that as a profession we are failing those who are coming up in the ranks in how to do what we do and, by extension, we are damaging both our clients, their brands and our profession.

OK let me throw some harsh reality out to people who seem to think otherwise, especially in the corporate and agency world. People just out of school have NO CLUE about how to work in an office. I don't care if they have done internships all through out school. They have done sprints, now they have to run a marathon, they have done the swimming portion of the triathlon and now have the last two legs to complete. We have an obligation as professionals to take these people under our wing and teach them how to do our profession right. Also, if we can impart in them the need to be forceful advocates for how our profession should be run then we will be taken seriously and seen as a profession.

A good example is what happens to lawyers at large firms. They are worked liked dogs that much is true. But they also have a senior lawyer, usually a partner, who is guiding them along and helping them learn the ropes so they will succeed. Unlike a lot of marketing and PR people, they are not waiting for a mistake to be made so they can destroy their self esteem and reap some petty sense of power and victory, they are working to guide this person through what is best for the firm and ultimately the profession. (Notice I did not mention the client!)

I had the good fortune to train my dog and found it very enjoyable. First, he is smarter than about 95% of the people in the world today. Now get ready everyone because I am about to liken training a dog to dealing with people. Training him worked very well because I taught him how to be a house pet, (no jumping on the furniture, housebreaking, waiting for dinner). In doing so I corrected him when he made a mistake but I also made sure he knew when he did well. Ultimately he did well because he knew it was the right thing to do.

Usually in Marketing or Corp Comm. we see no mentoring or leadership. We see someone assigned as a supervisor who basically sees it as extra work being assigned with no benefits for doing this. We should see this as a great opportunity to share knowledge and impart experience. A chance to offer constructive criticism and teach the person to grow and become not only a better Marketing, PR, Corp Comm person by improving their technical skills and also improving their confidence. Lastly, we can overcome our greatest professional weakness and treat people that by cooperation we secure a great deal more than by petty and needless competition.

If corporate communications, marketing and PR are ever going to be taken seriously we need to recognize talent and nurture it. We need to end the immaturity, the turf wars and the nonsense and present a united front as a mature and credible part of the business community. Once this process is completed, or at least well underway, we can start to be taken seriously as a profession.

The deadliest communications four letter word :PLAN

Last time I was talking about the need to speed things up and kick into high gear. Now is the time when I say, well we also need to slow down a bit. Are these contradictory? Now absolutely not and let me explain.

Execution is unquestionably essential to the development of a proper brand. It is often where the wheels come off the wagon and many well designed plans fall down, never to be heard from again. Execution is the time when we have to deliver. But let's step back a minute and look at what needs to be done before execution. By that, I am referring to that terrible word and something a lot of C-level's don't like to see and that is plan.

Especially in the area of communications senior executives seem to have the notion that it is simply a matter of throwing a switch and all will start running like clock work and that is all there is too it. As one CEO said to me once, "Communications should be as easy as order from a drive through." Needless to say he h ad no idea of how powerful communications was as a tool and how it could benefit his organization.

Now there is one big, enormous down side to planning and that is that it requires organizations to look three to six months out. It requires vision and it requires waiting. For a world class communications plan to work there is a need to plan out several months in advance just as there is in every category.

I laugh sometimes because my account and finance friends spend a long time working on various financial models and try to determine different scenarios which will show what cash flow will be in 3 months or 6 months or what ever time period. The same holds true for IT managers who have to plan several months in advance for upgrades and patches and security tests. As we can see planning is an essential and intelligent aspect of the organizational growth process.

Yet the communications department is expected to produce stuff on rapid turn around, more often than not to suit the temporary needs of senior management. Ironically, this is the most visible forum for the organization and unlike IT or, to a lesser degree finance, this will be seen by external audiences who will be making decisions based on what they see.

One thing we need to do as communications professionals in order to strengthen our position within the organization is to develop strong planning methods and then to stick with them. We need to do this so that we can develop a cohesive and far-reaching planning strategy but most importantly we need to do this so we can develop a system to measure and evaluate our progress. The use of planning and strategy and more importantly our resolute defense of the need to do this will ultimately benefit the organization and its brand and ultimately refocus senior leadership on the role of communications as a strategic tool and asset and one that needs to be nurtured and grown.

Sprinting to the finish line.

Now that Labor Day is behind us we start heading into the time of year when the days grow shorter and the leaves change color and the thermometer drops. In many respects this is my favorite time of year because the air is so fresh and refined that it makes the work process so much more enjoyable. It also is the time of year when we can focus on what is coming up and begin our sprint to the finish line.

Ideally, the summer was spent planning for this sprint. That was of course, in between fantasies of vacations. The fall sprint should be focused on bringing target audiences back into focus and get yourself onto the radar of major stakeholders. This is really the time of year when marketing budgets are being established and major purchasing decisions are generally being reached. This is the time of year when planning turns into execution.

Given that a lot of plans are being made for 2011 we need to make the most of this time of year. This is a great time of year to engage social media and bring your customers and potential customers in at a new level so they can see you as a more concrete partner in their business. It is also a time to use the more traditional methods and try to engage media partners in a business relationship that will result in the previously mentioned complete market penetration. Lastly, it is the time to stop being the wallflower and become the player in the industry you thought you should be all along.

The final third of the year is when you should really shift into high gear. It is the time of year when marketing and communications need to demonstrate what we can really do for the organization and how our skill and success means the organization can and will be successful. It is when our planning and drive will lead to success in the market. Of course if it is not done with the right balance of strategy, execution and team work than we will fall short and the blemish to marketing will be impossible to erase.

How too many chefs ruin the brand

I have seen my fair share of cooking shows during my life time. Now the hot chef is Gordon Ramsey but my personal favorite is Julia Child. The reason I always liked Julia is that you were able to see the art, and science, of creation. I always found it amusing that she seemed to find her own cooking did not taste terrible.

One thing I find interesting about Julia Child and chefs in general is that there is a direct analogy between cooking and building a brand. In each case there are unique elements which need to be created, proportioned correctly and then executed in order for the right blend to produce a wonderful bounty. Also, not everyone can do it right and few have the patience to take it to a level of excellence.

Let's stay on the cooking analogy for a minute. While we make like our lemon sole or maybe just a cheeseburger and fries , the final product represents a long journey involving many hands. We seldom think of the farmer who grew the lettuce or the grapes for the wine. Nor do we think of the truck driver who drove the produce to market. But what we do know is that once the products get to the restaurant, the chef and his or her kitchen staff know what to do with them and how to turn them into the incredible edibles we all love to eat.

Ideally this would be true with marketing and branding. Ideally the marketing department would develop copy, work on PR strategy, coordinate design components and be allowed to build a brand. Sadly, as we all know this is rarely the case. More often than not, CEO's and other senior executives like to stick their noses in and order direct changes to the product with little or no input regarding how the marketing team feels regarding the decision. The inverse is just as sad, they don't care enough about marketing to properly fund it and as such instead of buying the fresh lettuce for the salad or the top choice meat, we have to pick through what is left and try and make do.

Let me continue with my chef analogy, could anyone imagine the owner of a restaurant coming in and say, you know we need to keep costs down so from now on everyone gets their meat one style so we need not run extra ovens or in the bar advocate putting apple juice in some of the mixed drink containers arguing that the customers aren't going to notice. Surprisingly that happens to some degree in business. Not that there is active attempts at deception but rather micro-management by people who do not understand the field and think that they know the brand best or even worse don't think in terms of the brand but rather in short term, quarter-to quarter periods.

Of course one problem with being a chef is that someone will always criticize the cooking. That is true with marketing and branding and needs to be taken as part of the job. However the only type of criticism that works is to offer constructive criticism. Saying this is wrong, or not what I had in mind is totally wasteful and useless in development. Rather saying something like, "I would prefer we focus more on the technology as opposed to the design," is a concrete and workable brand criticism. Sadly, this is very rarely heard.

So what is the conclusion to take away from this? Well, I hope it is that marketing and communications people, just like chefs, need to be allowed to work. By doing this we can create a brand which will be stronger and ideally assume market leadership. All good chefs, like good marketing people, value constructive criticism and see it as a means of improvement. What we need from external audiences is the freedom to do our jobs with some feedback both good and bad but most importantly the opportunity to do our jobs!

The Crisis in Crisis Communications Part 2/Crisis Management

While I don't like to revisit old topics, I do find that crisis communications is one that deserves a review due to upcoming events. As I write this from the east coast of the US we sit waiting to see if Hurricane Earl is going to be a major event, a major pain in the butt or fizzle out all together. Sadly, events like this often do far more damage to emergency plans than helping.

First off, when a major natural event, assuming it can be forecast, is announced, we are treated to the 24 hour media cycle in full wrath of God type mode. This will be a disaster of biblical proportions etc. etc. Of course 9 out of 10 times the event can not live up to the hype and people feel almost cheated. Public officials of course will meet in a comfortable locations with lots of bottled water and ample fresh food and calmly go through their preparedness forms as if all events will simply roll out slowly and smoothly.

If there is one lesson that can be learned from Hurricane Katrina and the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is that there is no crisis plan that can simply be opened and followed. I find it humorous that people think that by sitting in a conference room and thumbing through a 3-ring binder they are prepared for an emergency situation. In fact the best thing to do is gather all of those binders, put them in a nice pile, strap on some explosives and blow them up. I use this metaphor because that is essentially what will happen in a true crisis.

All too often management believes that crisis are about containment and "staying on top of the situation." Trying to stay on top of a crisis is much like trying to stay on top of a bucking bronco without benefit of a bridle. The worst thing and, quite possible, the most dangerous, is that managers believe that by conducting drills or having a plan means they are ready for a crisis. This would be laughable were it not so tragic.

One year before Hurricane Katrina, city, state and Federal leaders in the Gulf region did an emergency drill of a fictional Hurricane Pam. The fictional hurricane followed Katrina's path almost to within 25 miles and its wind speeds were only 10 miles per hour stronger. The levee breeches and the failure to evacuate New Orleans were all anticipated and predicted. Yet when the storm became more than an exercise the following year, all agencies were completely unprepared. They froze, panicked and when one element of their plan fell apart they tossed the entire plan out the window and became totally reactive.

The other great example is NASA. The space agency had a great legacy of running disaster scenarios that tried to anticipate everything from a rocket disaster to men being stranded on the moon. Amazingly they predicted both the Challenger and Columbia disasters. But at some point senior management decided that it was bad for morale at NASA to think bad things and killed the project. So rather than have a check list of things to look for and avoid, NASA went blindly into each project and had multiple failures, each of which could have been avoided had some crisis review been conducted.

So then what do we do? How do we prevent the next crisis from becoming a disaster? Well the first step still works so stick with it. That is to plan, as best that we can, for an upcoming event. Granted we can not see it all, nor can we anticipate every possible outcome. But we shouldn't try too. We should also plan on how will we manage the event. In this case we need to practice keeping our cool, keeping open the channels of communication. We need to think both long term, AND short term. Ideally they will not oppose each other but we must be prepared for the eventuality they do. Lastly, we need to take action. This can be anything from a prepared statement stating an intention to investigate, (always a sensible and reasonable action item) to a full blown media offensive designed to get our message to key stakeholders and audiences.

Crisis are almost always survivable and in some cases may work out for the best. But the require planning, calm and most importantly leadership for everything to work.

Putting the cart before the horse, tech wise!

I have mentioned previously how fascinating I find organizations who wish to jump on the social media bandwagon and want to hire "experts" in the field. Given that we're talking about a technology that is probably 3 years old at best, that would be similar to finding a preschool age child who can type or do math. What we are dealing with now is people who have some theories as to what will work best and really it is the person who can sell the best dream that will win the race, not necessarily the person who has the best qualifications.

I was speaking to a senior communications person recently who asked me for my ideas on how to use social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Wikipedia to enhance their communications programs. I gave my own thoughts on the matter and we had a discussion regarding these thoughts on the issue. When it came time for me to ask questions, I asked this person, "How do you see social media working with your marketing programs and how will you quantify success regarding social media?" Well, going by the flow of blood and skin tone out of this person's face you would have thought I asked them to calculate Pi to the 800th number.

The sad fact is that there is a mad scramble to jump on the social media band wagon but there is very little thought given as to why or what advantage might be reaped for the least investment. Now lets be clear, I am NOT advocating that social media has no place in a business environment. Quite the opposite, done properly I believe social media can greatly enhance the brand, but we need to pick the technology innovation because it enhances the brand, not because we think it is cool and fun. World of Warcraft is still the biggest online community last time I checked, yet I don't see businesses rushing to set up avatars on WOW.

So the goal here is that before we all decide to jump onto the social media bandwagon, we need to decide how we can use it to grow brand recognition and ultimately sales. We shouldn't jump in out of fear that we are missing the boat. A measured and concentrated advance into social media, like we would approach any new media, would seem the obvious outcome. But it falls to all of us communications professionals to not only provide the necessary guidance as we head into this new communications arena, but also to provide a braking mechanism if necessary. Proceed with both caution and purpose and you will most likely succeed.

Most times the greatest threat to a brand comes from within!

Keeping a brand going is no easy task. Well that will win the award for the most obvious statement of the year! But the scary part of the task is that there are so many ways that companies injure themselves when they communicate their brands that sometimes external factors are only a part of the problem. Sometimes, what goes in within the organization is as great a threat to the brand as any external threat.

The recent BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is seen, among other things, as a PR fiasco. I for one don't agree with that sentiment. Certainly the public relations team didn't tell BP management to cut corners on the well, nor did they encourage the CEO and other senior management to make sure foolish and uncaring statements. Of course they do share the blame for allowing these statements to go out as well as for so much incorrect and unclear information to be released.

This is an egregious example of how internal elements pose threats to the brand but there are many more. One of the worst, and BP can be seen as an example of it, is the desire of senior managers to see quarter-to-quarter and lose all focus on the larger picture. The worst example of this is the formula we see with larger companies who wish to manage to earnings and in doing so do fail to nurture the brand and we see no organic growth. The focus is on pleasing shareholders and not driving brand development so we are choosing a diet of candy and soda pop over good healthy food.

There are so many great brands who have died by the side of the road because of the right combination of lack of lack of foresight, complacency, arrogance and downright laziness. Let's keep in mind that brands are not restricted to what you may buy at the local grocery or department store. If you're a small agency or startup, you need to have a brand that sets you apart from the competition. Reputation matters tremendously and the worst part is that while it may take years for a good brand to be built, it can be destroyed in seconds!

Another enemy of brands is senior management. The worst challenge they represent is that they often think in the immediate term and as such do not have the patience to wait for the seeds of a well built marketing plan to fully take root. More often then not, they are pushing the panic button and are worried because they are not seeing immediate changes which they believe should be happening. It often does not matter that we marketing and communications professionals counseled patience, they do not see what they wanted to now they are panicking and want change for changes sake.

So what can be done? Well for one thing, we as marketing and communications people can continue to offer the best counsel that can be done. We can be the firm advocates of protecting the brand and ensuring its natural and organic growth. We can recommend that the brakes be applied when necessary or that we change into another lane when that is called for. Basically our continued expertise and ability to be persuasive will result in a stronger brand. The success or failure of this effort will result from the determination of the marketing and communications people to pursue the course of action that will strengthen the brand.

Sadly, too many of our professional colleagues are willing to do what is popular and what they think the bosses want as opposed to what's right. If we do what's right both for the brand and organization, we will emerge stronger, more successful and ultimately more respect both within and outside the organization.

The failure or communications to think and act long term

I was having drinks with a friend the other night and she mentioned something at work that made her both angry as heck and sick to her stomach. "The names have been changed to protect the wishy washy." She was faced with a looming problem where a product was due to be issued and no one on the product team would commit to having the product ready but still insisted that the product be ready to go public by a certain date to meet quarterly goals. Well the date came closer and closer and it still wasn't ready.

At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.

Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.

The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.

The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.

So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.

Why do crisis always happen when you don't want them too?

Well back from vacation one whole day officially and WHAM, hit with a crisis! Of course no crisis ever comes at a good time and let's be honest, how much of a crisis would it be if it happened when we wanted it to happen and when it was most convenient. But like any crisis, there is also an opportunity. There was an old legend that in Chinese or Japanese the characters which represent crisis can also spell opportunity. I don't know if linguistically that is true but from the standpoint of sentiment it is very true.

The first rule of thumb in a crisis is to maintain a level head. A crisis is obviously a serious matter and can lead to serious if not fatal damage to the brand if not handled properly. Some short term damage may be unavoidable, but the short term damage may result in longer term prosperity like the floods which provide for rich farm land. After calm has been restored, the next step is to get as realistic measurement of the scope of the matter. What happened, who was responsible, how far down the path have we gone? These are some of the questions that should be asked immediately.

At the crisis table should sit the CEO. Sorry folks, the CEO needs to be in front of this. A good CEO will see this as part of his or her job. If you're there for the good, you must be there for the bad. Second to the CEO should be the senior corp comm person. This person should be responsible for handling the day-to-day issues regarding the crisis. The formulation of the strategy, developing the message, ensuring that key stakeholders are all informed should fall to the head of corporate communications. Also at the table for informative purposes should be people like a corporate counsel, perhaps the CFO or maybe a brand manager, or the person who has day-to-day management regarding the issue.

Generally while I am loath to give the lawyers any say in standard corporate communications operations, this is the exception to the rule since there will most likely be identifiable legal ramifications, not only to the event which triggered the original crisis but also to subsequent events. Crisis management is the time when corporate communications assumes control of the ship and drives the organization clear of any harm.

One of the first and most important issues for the Corporate Communications team to do is to ensure that all communications to stakeholders are clear and in line with overall corporate objectives. The potential for distraction and confusion is high. There will be a great number of parties who will need to be communicated too and the more end points there are, the greater the potential for mixed messages and mixed messages can lead to the appearance of a cover up or cloud the facts.

A crisis will never happen when you are ready for it, when it is a good time for you or for what ever reason, when you want it too. The beauty of the crisis is that it is the one, singular opportunity for Corporate Communications to demonstrate its role in the organization and why it should be at the leadership table. Lets also not forget that a crisis often serves to bolster the role of communications by demonstrating that it should be a strategic program, planned in advance and consulted by senior management on an ongoing basis, and not just an afterthought. In this regard, a crisis can be a mixed blessing.

Any organization who values Corporate Communications, values its stakeholders and customers and brand should not only survive, but also emerge stronger than before. A company which sees communications as a task and chore, something to drive stock prices or as an ego platform for senior management will most likely receive a sharp rebuke from the market and learn a painful lesson a la BP.

Protecting the Brand: Communications Number One Role

Brand Management is something which a great deal of ink has been spilled over. Most of these pieces are easily forgettable academic tomes, never to see the outside of a classroom. What is interesting though is that while nearly everyone can agree that a brand is important and that marketing should have some control over it, very few can agree on how to best manage and protect a brand.

I think it best to try and figure out first of all, who should not be responsible for managing the brand on a regular basis. I would start off by saying keep the CEO away from the day-to-day management of the brand. Yes, it is true that the CEO has organizational responsibilities that span the entire company and as a result there is the necessity for him or her to have a degree of involvement in brand management. What I would advocate is keep the CEO from micro-managing the brand and thus causing it to ebb and flow with their whims. Let's ignore the fact that micro-managing has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to organizational growth, the fact is that the CEO will be focused on too many things to give the brand the time it needs and, in many cases, the chief will lack the exact expertise to manage the brand and may, in fact, do more harm than good.

The other group who should be kept miles away from brand management is the group who are indecisive or who wish to make decisions they believe will please higher ups and please management. There will be times when hard decisions will be required about the brand and this group tends to either descend into anarchy or flee like rats from a sinking ship. One most also think of the mind set of this group. They tend to think in terms of what is best for them in the near term and have no concept of anything happening five years down the road. A good brand should be built to last for generations not just a few years.

The third group who should be kept away from the brand is people who do not have a background in one of the marketing disciplines. I say this because they first and foremost don't understand the evolutionary process that is both marketing and communications. What happens today was preceded by a historical event. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what happens tomorrow or next week will be the result of things planned and/or executed this week. Sorry to apply the broad brush here but sales people, accountants, engineers what have you just do not think in these terms. Marketing people are best equipped to deal with this type of thought process.

So we come to who should be responsible for protecting the brand. By now I am sure it is no surprise that I say it is the marketing team and specifically it is the communications group within marketing who should manage it. Why do I say this? Basically because communications people are the one group in most organizations who have to be both strategic geniuses and tactical wizards. We have to be both creative and analytical. We have to be able to deal with a CEO one minute, a vendor the next and then someone who maybe just out of school the third.

In addition, communications people are equipped with the necessary tools to think ahead several quarters and are the few groups in the organization who are truly planning for what will transpire. We are the best trained and best equipped members of the organization to deal with crisis situations and we know not only how to react to them but also to prevent them from taking place. Lastly, we are the best equipped members of the organization to work with different groups as we need to be able to speak the languages of finance, tech, health care or what ever group you might have so we are able to offer a concise and accurate statement regarding the brand in virtually any situation.

Protecting the brand is no small feat. It is the organization's most valuable asset but sadly many executives fail to see just how valuable it is, until it is damaged by a crisis they could have prevented. If protection of the brand is left to competent marketing and communications professionals and they are allowed to develop a coherent and far reaching strategy then the organization will thrive. The greatest brands on the market now have one thing in common, strong and exceptional marketing departments. As the old saying goes if your neighbor is digging holes in the ground and finding gold each time he digs then its time you start to dig in your yard.

Are Communications People Tough Enough?

There was a very interesting scene in the season premier of MadMen. Be prepared for a spoiler you haven't seen it yet! During a meeting with a client who was trying to market a two-piece bathing suit for modest people, Don Draper had enough and threw the potential clients out of the office. A lot of my fellow PR and Corp Com friends admitted to enjoying what Don did and wishing they could have done it themselves.

I bring this up because it focuses on the concept of toughness and doing what's right in Corporate Communications. I will also stick my neck out and say hurray for Don Draper. He went to his clients with an intelligent and well-thought marketing campaign. He obviously knew the market better than they did and when they balked at his proposals and he saw they were being stubborn for no reason than to be stubborn and closed minded, so he ended the relationship. Granted, it was for the sake of television he threw them out of the office, but ultimately, he did these people a favor by pointing out how deeply flawed their brand premise was. We can only wonder if they got the message or just went to another agency who was happy to smile, cash their checks and do what they want regardless of how wrong it is.

Now of course standing up to a client, be it internal or external is always worrisome and dangerous. Many people think that by giving us a check we surrender all intelligence and basically become some type of puppet for them to manipulate. Others, think that since they have hired a communications professional or a team of pros, they need not worry anymore about the issue of communications.

Sadly, there are a great number of communications professionals who tend towards being more reptilian than mammal. They will also do what is solely in their best interests and will tell the client what they want to hear and will focus on personal advancement to the exclusion of all else that makes for an effective and dynamic team. For some reason, the communications community focuses on people who make us feel good and tell us what we want to hear than the ones who tell us what we need to know.

Put it into a different perspective, if you're 30 pounds overweight, smoke and eat the wrong things, do you want a doctor who will keep telling you all is well and that you look great. Of course not. Now doctors HAVE to tell you the truth but communications people SHOULD do so. It is interesting when communications are direct and honest because there are two initial reactions generally speaking. The first is that the executive or client jumps back like they have received an electric shock and the look on their face is like they've been given a dose of some terrible medicine. The second reaction is that usually within 24 hours one of the snakes in the grass will offer reassuring words that all is well and try to endear themselves to the client.

We all need to understand and agree that pleasing a client is not the same as servicing their needs. Just as we need to say no to a child to help their growth we sometimes need to say no to a client to help them grow. The stock answer by the appeasers is that clients can always find someone else to do the job if you're too harsh, mean etc. That is true, but if they can find a communications pro who is willing to be bold enough and offer them the honest opinion which will make the brand stronger than the organization will be the better for it.

The question we need to ask as communications professionals is are we willing to do what is right or what is expedient? Are we going to be a profession bound by some type of ethics and guidelines or are we simply going to collect a check and do a job that requires the minimum amount of both risk and morals. These are tough questions we need to think about in our profession because the past ten years have been so brutal that survival skills have trumped good management skills. The next ten years should either be really interesting or quite scary.

How to better use communications as a strategic tool

One of the great weakness of communications is that it is often seen as a tactical tool with very little value. As a result, excesses of quantity often result and quality greatly suffers as a result. The root cause of this is often not hard to find, we try to please the higher ups in the organization and wish to be popular, rather than sticking to what we consider to be best and recommending those tools.

Now of course I have heard the universal cop-out to this claim many times before. If we do not do it, then the CEO, VP whomever will simply go out and find someone who will. Well the easy answer to that threat is go ahead. There are lots of bad communications people out there and there are lots of organizations practicing communications badly. This isn't a treat or a desire to see some group fail, rather it is calling the bluff of someone who presumes to know your job better than you do. If you were undergoing heart surgery would you question the cardiologist on how they will operate or the anesthesiologist on what medicines will be used? Of course not.

The first, and I would argue most effective way of ensuring management seeings communications as a strategic tool is to act like it is. Fulfill your roll with authority and decisiveness and get stuff done that helps the organization! I know that all sounds easy but trust me, it's about expertise and accomplishment and not about smoke and mirrors. The phonies and charlatans who live and die by smoke and mirror only get so far and are exposed for what they are. Still their lack of professionalism causes harm to the rest of us who know what we are doing.

Second, the subject of metrics is always a dodgy one in communications but turn the fear and anxiety about this to our advantage. Put firm goals in place and use them. For example when some VP or even the CEO wants to use communications for some irrelevant task like trumping the latest tiny business deal tell them no. In fact, go one better and put them on a strict regimen of so many announcements during a given period so that a strong strategic evaluation is given to the use of any communications tool and it is not done on a simple whim.

Lastly, keep score of what you have done and let the results speak for themselves. If there is an increase in traffic visiting the web site, sales leads, media hits most, if not all of that can be traced back to a well-run communications program. Remember that it is not about feeding massive egos or making an adult feel like a child by being offered a treat. The goal is to build, secure and communicate about a brand and to help secure more business for it. This beats any and all other reasons a communications program exists.

Being a communications person is not easy. There are a few who do the job very well surrounded by those who are not up to the task. It is for those who do the job well to be the leaders and to set the high standards that the rest of the profession can aspire too. By acting professionally and by letting all around us know that we are the best, and most importantly backing it up, we can ensure communications is rightly seen as a strategic tool. Lastly, and most importantly, don't be smug or dismissive. By doing that, you will ensure that are dismissed as someone who is all talk and can not deliver the good. Be confident but not over confident. Be a teacher but not a lecturer. Most important, do the right thing for the job and the brand first and foremost.

Why can't most communications people communicate?

Being a sole proprietor has one great advantage. Yes the commute is great and all that, but what I am referring too is that I am a review committee of one. There is nothing that destroys a great work worse than the review of dozens of people each of whom wants a change to the document. Often this results in a weak and diluted piece of work, much like a painting, hit with a fire hose.

There is a great story about how when Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel in Rome, one of Pope Julius's Cardinal's told him to paint as if God himself were painting the Chapel. Supposedly, Michelangelo told the cardinal that if the Pope wished for God to paint the Sistine Chapel he should have given him the commission. The point I see in that story is that many of us in communications are used to receiving the input of others, sometimes welcome, other times not. Often the worst type of input to receive comes from those who think they are helping and the worst type of advice to give is to those who we are trying to help.

In my experience working with and for communications people we often see advice presented as fact. For example a document we produced edited as if we didn't know what I/we didn't know what we were saying when in fact it said exactly what the edited copy did but in a different format. Of course this is indicative of another long standing fault with communications people and that is that we do not offer strategic alternatives to senior level executives but rather position communications to meet their expectations which is nearly always tactical. (The news release for example.)

I once had the opportunity to see an advertising team brainstorm and it was a very impressive feat. While it was as far from Mad Men as you can imagine, it was still a very impressive feat. For 30 minutes ideas were freely offered, discussed and debated. No one idea was dismissed out of hand and, in the end, the solution was really a group effort and quite impressive. Sadly, communications people seem to think that they are too busy or, too important, for such niceties. A document isn't considered perfect unless someone higher up has marked it up, changed yes to no and made 100 other unnecessary changes more to appear busy than to accomplish anything else.

Lastly, what's also missing in most communications environment is the idea that once a person has reached a certain level that he or she is now above the nitty gritty world of writing and editing. In certain branches of the military there is the concept that every service man or woman is a rifleman first (forgive the sexist terminology) and everything else second. Besides helping to project a certain esprit de corps, this also keeps people focused on what the job really is about and keeps people's eyes on what needs to get done and how to set proper priorities.

There is a woeful gap of internal communications within the world of communications. Most communications professionals see the profession as back and white and really believe that they know all and there is nothing they can learn. That is sad when you compare it to fields like medicine and engineering which believe the exact opposite. The best way to manage our profession and better guide what the executive levels think of us is by realizing we are a profession and not just a bunch of people fumbling around in dark. By working, sharing and collaborating more, we can actually turn communications, (PR and MarCom mostly) into a real profession.

Sometimes a deadline can really kill you!

The term deadline originated from the American Civil War. In the infamous POW camp at Andersonville, GA there were no real fences early on. Instead there was a line drawn in the red clay. Any prisoner who approached it would be shot dead without warning. So for those who find deadlines impossible remember that in times past, they were quite literally lethal.

I am thinking of deadlines and their nature today due to the recent flap over the Obama administration's handling of the Sherry Sherrod case. For those who don't recall her case or haven't heard of it, Ms. Sherrod is the U.S. Department of Agriculture employee forced to resign for supposedly acting in a biased fashion towards a department client some 25 years ago. There was a leaked video in which Ms. Sherrod claims she found this main to be racist and condescending towards her so she chose not to give him less than full service. Upon seeing this on Fox News the Obama administration forced her to resign.

Well the real story is coming together now and we are seeing that what was shown was actually a heavily edited video from a conservative blogger trying to not only push his own agenda but to demonstrate the Obama administration was racist. The unedited video shows Ms. Sherrod saying how she over came her feelings of anger towards this man and helped him out. In fact, she did such a good job that the man himself went to the media and called her an angel.

I find this a very interesting story for several reasons. First, it shows the absolute worst aspect of the rush-rush 24 hour news cycle. Run with the story, without first getting facts checked. Second, it serves as a warning to any and all communications people that news can not be spun or managed. The best spin is always and will always be the truth. Granted it takes longer to take the truth, but I am guessing that this mistake by the administration is not what they had planned to deal with this week.

This story also shows a break down by the communications people who failed to protect their product and in effect were made to look foolish. They acted out of fear and were in a purely defensive mode. No attempt seems to be made to check on the veracity of the story and prepare a rebuttal of it. In many respects, senior management has decided that communications people exist to answer the phones from reporters and book interviews. Sadly, this incident serves to reinforce that argument.

Lastly, we have yet another example of communication people rolling over and doing what ever management wants regardless of the implications. At some point, we need to gather together and say no that is not the right way to do things and let the CEO's or department heads or whomever know they need to trust our judgment in matters regarding communication. Sadly, too many of our brothers and sisters out there seem to think we are like that cute puppy dog who is always willing to please so I am not holding out hopes a united front will appear anytime soon.

We are the front line troops in brand protection and message development. We need to say what needs to be said, even if it is unpopular. We also need to make sure that any media opportunity is just that, an opportunity. It is better to let an artificial deadline slip and be accurate than rush to judgment and make a bonehead move. Tripping the deadline can get you killed.

Don't Blame the Weatherman Because it Rained on Your Parade

I remember the late great George Carlin had a great bit on corporate success and failure. I don't recall the exact words but it was along the lines of, "Do you ever notice that we succeed and you fail?" As we all know success is the child of many parents and failure is an orphan. I think this was on perfect display at the press conference held by Steve Jobs on Friday. I would call this part press conference, part explanation, part near child-like tantrum.

Steve Jobs is well known for having a large ego and a short fuse. In that respect he is like a number of CEO's. He, and Apple of course though it's getting harder to separate the two, have been on a tremendous hot streak. Between the iPod, iPhone and iPad he has been raised to a level few non-deities ever see. Unfortunately, like a lot of diva's, the start to believe their own press clippings and really do believe that they are just an amazing and completely important person.

He made an astonishing mistake in my opinion by laying blame for this not at his own feet, nor his engineers but at everyone outside of Apple especially the media. We heard that this problem was well known within the industry and other carriers had the same problems and no one commented on them. Then he ripped into the news media for what he determined was taking a minor flaw and blowing it out of proportion. As we clearly can see, Jobs is totally tone deaf to keep his customers happy and in the long run that can't be good for Apple the organization.

In a great many respects Steve Jobs is certainly a genius. In others he is a dinosaur whose extinction time may fast be approaching. We saw that he has no interest in working with the media and that he will settle for nothing less than fawning coverage of himself, his company and his products. We also saw his ugly side when, for once, he wasn't calling the shots and showing everyone how great his products were. This is not someone who likes criticism and thinks he can control what is being said about his company without the benefit of mutually beneficial media relations. I watched him on stage and said "thank God I am not in his PR department."

In some respects he is like a lot of CEO types I have met down the line. I always remember one CEO who was interviewing me to head his PR operation. He told me before asking any questions that reporters only want creative stories so how would I pitch his company. I told him, very politely of course, that I disagreed and that the media wants to write for their audiences. I further explained that a PR strategy should target outlets his customers were likely to be influenced. I had to hold back my eyes from rolling when he looked at me and said, "reporters and customers put together don't equal half an idiot."

Needless to say I decided then to not take the job but I did enjoy the chance to try and tell a CEO how wrong he was. Of course there was no changing his mind and I could tell how furious he was that anyone dared question him. So in typical imperious fashion he cut the interview short and they hired someone within the company who wouldn't make any waves.

The lessons learned from all of this is that no company is solely about the CEO no matter how brilliant he or she is. A strategy revolving around that will eventually lead to the organizations failure. Also, it is terrible communications practice to blame the media for your own short comings. Yes the media loves to kick someone when they are down but, often, most wounds are self inflicted. Lastly, as communications people, we are responsible for protecting the company's brand and reputation and that is much more valuable that any CEO and his or her ego.