MBC Director

There’s a policy adage that proclaims the world is run by those who show up.  In a social media influenced world, it is becoming more about those who “write it up,” regardless of the truth. 

Recently an “admirer” of Joel Olsteen from Minneapolis admitted to creating an elaborate Internet persona of the evangelist only to make false claims on his behalf, some of which were published in legitimate media before being debunked.  One wonders if the editors at the duped media bothered to apply even a gut test of the claims before running the stories.

The ease with which some social media platforms allow anyone to develop content under assumed identity leads to the potential for great abuse – whether in the name of admiration or something more sinister. 

On a less grand scale, the potential for an individual online profile to be formally or informally “hacked” can lead to problems as well.  Every few days I see posts on the Facebook newsfeed from one of my son’s status posts depicting some patently false depiction of his thoughts and actions in that moment.  I know full well he has left his laptop or phone unattended for a mischievous sibling to exact some payback for leaving a mess in their apartment or some other infraction.  There may be those in their lists of “friends” who are merely acquaintances that may take the sudden announcements of drastic lifestyle change as truth. 

This may all be in good fun now, but what about years from now if these “truths” are long forgotten?  Plenty of evidence suggests that the electronic footprint of semi-public messages is more likely to fossilize somewhere in the Ethernet to potentially resurface when someone runs for office than to disappear under the advance of the next wave of digital communities.

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, we owe it to ourselves and the organizations we serve to be a bit more prudent in how we: conduct ourselves in the social media space; decide what content represents truth; and how we make choices about the voices and information to be taken credibly.

I assure you that this post was written by me.  Really.  Would I lie to you?

During the last month, people in my household were treated as property by service providers a couple of times, based on the assumption by corporations managing service businesses that all current customers “belong” to the business.

Case in point, the hair stylist my wife has followed from salon to salon since 1998, Sheila.  Just before my wife’s last scheduled appointment at a major department store salon, a receptionist called to confirm her appointment with another stylist.  Upon inquiry, the salon contact refused to explain how to find Sheila.  Upon finding Sheila through other means, we learned that the salon also refused to provide any list of the customers that had followed her to the salon, as “those customers belong to us.”  Really?  My wife would beg to differ.

The following week, I went to the dentist for a check-up.  The office had confirmed my cleaning a few days before.  The receptionist informed me that the doctor I would be seeing was NOT my long-time friend.  I was concerned that Chris was ill, but found out he was no longer with the clinic as of the prior week.  Personally, I’m not a fan of strangers looking in my mouth, but at least the hygienist was familiar.  In gathering information after the fact, I learned Chris had faced challenges wresting his personal contacts out of the corporation that had taken over his practice a few years ago.  They allowed him to “keep” a short list of friends and family.  Seriously?

Both Chris and Sheila also face toothy non-competes that suggest their new stations must be at least 10 miles away.  We will drive the 10 miles.  Because, like you perhaps, we have used these particular providers not just because of service quality, but because of trust and relationships built over time, and outside the confines of either of the firms who cut them checks most recently. 

Right now, if this blog post were disseminated from a personal blog, it would be naming corporate names, but because it would be unseemly to leverage the university’s status to grind my personal axe, I will stick to the generalized concern.

Customers a corporation earns are not likely to jump ship when an individual customer service person moves on to different turf.  Further, if people are coming in specifically for a service provider, it is short-sighted brand management for the corporation to force those stars out because they earn a little more than the inexperienced replacements (as appears to have happened in these two cases). 

Treating customers as a commodity – with or without their knowledge or consent – makes for poor customer relationships, and in service businesses, what else do you have, other than hair or spit on the floor.  (Okay – grease too.  My auto shop just tried the same game!)

On February 14, I was taken aback while watching the press conference announcing the new president of the University of St. Thomas, Dr. Julie Sullivan.  Not by anything she or the other participants said or did, but by a question from a reporter.  He asked: “How will your role as wife and mother influence, if at all, your presidency?  Will it flavor that at all or change it?”  I immediately wondered if he would have asked a question about fatherhood of a male layperson 

A number of people watching the event via simulcast in Minneapolis expressed similar concerns, as we had no idea at the time who asked the question because the person was off camera.

Dr. Sullivan responded with grace and decorum, of course.

You may be wondering – “Is that really what the reporter said – exactly?” It most assuredly is, because I went to the UST website and found the video, replaying the question a number of times to make sure it appeared here precisely as stated.  After some inquiry, I was able to learn that Alex Friedrich of Minnesota Public Radio had asked the question, and immediately found the article he wrote about the announcement.  Upon reading it, even though there seemed to be some of the expected sexist undertone, the overarching theme seemed to be about the choice of a layperson in a role previously held only by priests.  I am left to wonder if what Friedrich carelessly left out of his question was the context in his mind… “Given that you will be the first layperson to serve as president of the university, how will that influence, if at all, your presidency?  Will it flavor that at all or change it?”

So, shall we assume the reporter is: blatantly sexist; professionally careless; lazy…  Can you tell I’m having trouble coming up with options to put a positive speculation on this?  Frankly, it doesn’t matter, because people were offended.  I was offended.  Regardless of how the question came to be presented, it diminished many people who heard it, particularly the reporter. 

Enough said.

A number of years ago I participated in a conversation facilitated by researchers at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., regarding the complicity of municipal police officers during Nazi rule and occupation of Europe.  The parties involved were law enforcement officers studying in a police leadership master’s program and doctoral candidates in leadership and policy.   Based on review of detailed information from the museum research staff, the group frankly considered the behavior of ordinary citizens who found themselves swept away from their ordinary behavior by a tide of unspeakable actions.  Everyone in the room acknowledged that a range of action represented “complicity,” from actively supporting the fascist agenda to merely turning a blind eye.  In between, a great deal of discussion hovered around the ethics of “doing the job” as directed: following orders, or the status quo, as justification of the actions.  The group of leadership-oriented students did not find satisfaction in these excuses, yet acknowledged limited ability to completely contextualize the actions of individuals immersed in a culture so far beyond our own experience. 

In the present day, there are those associated with the media who rationalize overtly questionable activities with justifications similar to those of the police we discussed.  Paparazzi engage in stalking behavior made legal only by the public nature of the individuals they hound.  While for some, the compliment of a throng of photographers may be welcome, in exercising their “right” to report and photograph the off-stage life of famous people, the more rabid of these “reporters” have led directly or indirectly to damage beyond exposure to public scrutiny – even to the death of their prey. 

An underlying affirmation among such reporters stems from an assumption the public not only wants to know and see glimpses of the private lives of public figures, but also that there exists some “right” for them to know.  So, on these packs of scavengers proceed, desperately attempting to beat others to a titillating story.

Ironically, perhaps inexplicably, there appear to be some stories that go unaddressed.  A form of Hollywood code seems to keep even the most unscrupulous trash mongers from revealing certain stories.  For instance, during the recent Golden Globe awards, a celebrity tap-danced around formally coming out of the closet, even though it appears clear that most industry insiders have known for decades of the individual’s same-sex partnership.  Yet, this story has not been emblazoned on tabloids.  Whether the paparazzi make this decision out of self-preservation (because of the status of the star) or out of some unspoken code that allows humiliation of some but not others, it proves that even among the least principled reporters, some things are beyond the “rights” of the public to know.

Every public relations practitioner worth a consulting fee knows the driving force behind news headlines has less to do with news than it does attracting eyeballs, all too often at any cost.  Within that cost, it may be posited that the general media, in pursuing both audience and the “rights” of the world to know, may be complicit in the fostering of terrorism.  Hard news journalists perform no differently than celebrity stalkers in the sense that they go to where the most compelling images and stories reside.  For one, that may be a house in Bel Air; for another, a recently bombed hotel in Bahrain.  The reporter does not care who detonated the bomb or why, only that the story be told in a manner that attracts audience attention to the outlet that deposits in his or her bank account.  Certainly, accruals in social capital also contribute to the reasoning of a reporter to cover stories, but in either case, tragedy makes compelling news.

Fundamentally, and unfortunately, terrorists practice public relations.  In order to proactively manage stakeholder perceptions of their cause, the leaders must conduct some sort of public and newsworthy event.  If you represent a small organization, it tends to be very hard to get the press to pay attention to your emailed diatribes or sketchy video monologues, let alone press conferences.  But in creating a dramatic public spectacle, the group immediately commands media attention.  By the same token, the same holds true of lone gunmen who attack in public places.  While their long-term goals are dramatically different, the short- term need for attention remains precisely the same.  Further, each time the media covers these events in minute detail, the prospects and attractiveness of someone emulating the event increases.

So… back to complicity.  While I know it would be impossible to convince media in our infinitely connected world to forgo covering monumental acts of terror, imagine what things would be like today if the media had engaged in wartime communication policies similar to those during World War II.  Rather than communicating a message to the entire world with a suicide bomb, an extremist group would have only disrupted a single city.  Rather than rewarding the group with coverage, this tactic would garner far more localized value.  Arguably, a globally organized effort might have escalated attacks to the point of heightened security at our airports, but would we all be taking off our shoes because of a single fanatic with a failed pair of explosive sneakers?  Or would the group have managed international recognition necessary to recruit worldwide?

In an effort to be clear, the public should have expectations that the media provides reporting uncensored by government whim, but if paparazzi can make decisions to spare some “news” from headlines for the common good, it might be prudent for mainstream media to minimize the splash value when covering the work of violent extremists.  Otherwise, it seems they are complicit to some degree.

Social media gets maligned for infringements on privacy, but for all its transparency there are still mirrors among the glass walled maze that offer reflections that are not genuine.  If so inclined, with just a few minutes and fewer dollars, I could cloak myself with a new email address on a privately owned domain (say: lindseed@4evrjunge.com) and begin sending email to brand managers claiming to be Lindsay Lohan offering “endorsements” for free product.  After getting a Coach purse, a set of fascia Skull Candy headphones and a 12-pound bag of grapefruit Jelly Belly candies, my digital masquerade could dissolve long before anyone files a report with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov), a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National White Collar Crime Center.

So, if a firm gets a cryptic email from a pseudo-celebrity, what should be done?  In most cases, nothing.  However, let’s just say, the person claims to be someone with a Twitter following of a couple hundred thousand people who just might look at your product if a tweet mentioned it. 

This happened to some associates of mine recently.  The team is working on an accessory for mobile phones and a recent email came in from someone claiming to be a celebrity, of sorts (None of the team recognized the name, as they aren’t big fans of the “sport” with which he is associated.).  Fortunately, one of the partners is well-versed in social media.  He suggested the president write a simple note responding to the inquiry.  Basically, they asked the celeb to send a private tweet from the Twitter account that has an established provenance associating it with the actual person.  Within minutes, the tweet arrived and the team agreed to send beta versions of the product.  Now they hope the celeb likes the product and tweets nice things very publicly.

Obviously, a little logical forethought and simple processes can make it easy to avoid being duped, yet still take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the evolving social media environment.

The other option might be to send stuff to anyone claiming to be someone, but isn’t everybody somebody?

Recently while teaching a class, technical difficulties developed with the audio in the room after I launched a YouTube video of the VW commercial with the kid dressed as Darth Vader ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NvSgrxp8Yg).  While fiddling with wires, I realized the class was still engaged in the video.  The story in the images works even without the synchronous Star Wars music because of the many symbolic elements:  the costume, the context, the expressions of the actors and the mannerisms… especially the mannerisms.

This week, in passing, my wife mentioned that a number of political yard signs in our neighborhood had been defaced overnight.  The issue was the marriage amendment, and no matter the side with which you align or which version of the signs were marred, it tells a story.  The story is that some individuals believe so much in the rightness of their own position that it becomes fair for them to supersede the right to free speech of others. This lone perpetrator with a can of spray paint does significantly minor damage by comparison to similar extremist pundits on both sides who attempt to succeed by obliterating the voices of others by force. 

Such contemptuous behaviors should have no place in public discourse, yet they dominate because discourse has become uncivil and unfortunately, because the strategies must work sufficiently for the practices to perpetuate.

I’m tired of the angst ridden, accusatory rhetoric… the ads that push the limits of defamation because they can abuse a public figure in ways that would be illegal in characterizing an average citizen. 

So what about a quiet story – one the leverages the symbols of a political stance, and leverages the mannerisms of the humans involved?  A story that quietly conveys the point without forcefully gouging at the opposing view, but captivates and persuades without hatred, implied violence or anger… most of all without the supreme righteousness embodied so consistently among the extremists on both sides of a handful of issues (which often provide distraction from issues about which we might otherwise be most concerned).

I’m closing my eyes and concentrating, with my palms facing the television screen.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) designates September as Ethics Month for its members.  As the ethics officer for Minnesota PRSA, my responsibilities to the chapter include advising the board of directors and serving as a guide for any member with ethics-oriented questions. This month represents a time to highlight for the greater business community the standards of professional practice those of us in PRSA commit to maintain as members.

The foundations of the PRSA Member Code of Ethics begin with shared values. Those that may be perceived as most important to those outside our organization are commitments to: Advocacy – to serve the public interest as advocates for the multiple stakeholders impacted by the actions of the organizations we serve; and Honesty – to adhere to the highest standard of accuracy and truth in the messages we deliver, at all times.

While the details of the our code would not make entertaining reading for the general public, they may care to understand that in practice, we maintain a commitment to assure information flows as freely and completely as possible to those who have a right to know. We also believe in the importance of keeping the lines of communication as free of bias as possible. This means actively avoiding conflicts of interest and completely disclosing our relationships when presenting information to the media or public.

Note that free “flow of information” and “appropriate disclosures” do not mean an obligation to divulge everything we know, as there are also commitments to safeguarding the confidences of our clients and employers.  Even though the public may want to know some things, they may not have a right to the information (A public relations person at Apple may have known the date of the iPhone 5 launch, but that didn’t mean the public had the right to know until Apple was ready.)

Because we have chosen to comply with the PRSA ethical code, we find ourselves often faced with a particular challenge. Because we want to act in the best interest of the public and the organization we serve, on a daily basis we must prioritize because it is simply impossible to act in ways that satisfy all stakeholders in every situation (By advocating for the community and our employer, we may be neglecting our suppliers or even customers). 

As communicators inside organizations or as other consultants to senior management, the public relations practitioner consistently needs to provide a balancing voice to the decision makers, reminding leaders of the impact of corporate actions beyond the business, its customers, and “the bottom line.”  And we do.

p.s. – check out these pod casts on PR Ethics – http://www.mnprsa.com/ethics-month-podcasts/

Normally I’m a DIY guy, but Renewal by Andersen made it more cost effective to have our new French doors installed than to do it myself.  Plus, the deal includes free service calls for 10 years.  So, when we recently found the doors were binding, I made a call to the service number listed on the firm’s Web site.  A pleasant woman answered and happily forwarded me to “service scheduling.”  This is when the first domino started to lean…

The next voice on the line suggested I had called the wrong number, and gave me another. The domino made contact with its neighbor.

On calling this number, I immediately realized it was for Andersen directly, even though the firm keeps Renewal separate from an operational standpoint.  I could sense the lean of domino two.  As it fell, I was directed back to Renewal, at a third number.  The pleasant woman who took my call informed me that she was at a national call center and it would require my local service center to schedule an appointment.  After providing my zip code, she gave me a number to call.  While hanging up to prepare to dial for a fourth time, I realized she had given me the number dialed for call number one.  The only choice was to dial and tip the next domino.

As I explained this process to yet another pleasant receptionist, she stopped the inertia.  She asked for my first name.  In that instant she made the conversation personal.  Not my first and last name to look up my account, but my conversational identity.  Then she asked for my phone number to verify my account and address, and asked to put me on hold while she contacted service. 

I was on hold for a little bit.  About the time I was ready to set my stopwatch, a new voice greeted me.  This service scheduler acknowledged that the receptionist had explained my circular experience.  More importantly, she had already arranged to have someone come to my home the next morning – if that was convenient for me.  She told me his first name, Lee.  Lee was scheduled to visit Mike’s home and solve the problem.  No more unstable dominos. 

This scenario exhibits a couple of management issues that significantly impact communication, marketing and branding issues. First, one poorly trained intermediary at the lowest level of the business can create poor customer relations.  The second issue stems from training also, but represents something cultural as well.  It’s empowerment.  When the lowly receptionist has been empowered to take action and intervene on behalf of the customer, the role becomes more significant.  When the first line of contact is not just trained to be a pleasant gatekeeper, but is prepared and encouraged to act, the customer feels valued, acknowledged, and potentially most important, justified that the purchase decision was wise.  In a world of automated call servers, the human who asks my name (even if I can’t recall hers) and solves my issue, sets the brand apart.  Plus, notice the number of humans to whom I spoke in the course of five minutes.

It is not how the first domino falls for the customer that solidifies the perception of the firm and product, but how the last domino ends up.

In a recent request from Kohnstamm Communications  for a response to the Star Tribune “Ask the Consultant” column, the inquiry came from someone with an online service attempting to “monetize” blogging with a “free” service.  While there may be a way to appropriately deliver such a service, the web site and offering of this company were amateurish, clunky and seemed a bit shady.  The question, however, was legitimate: How can I get the word out?

In this case, it needs to start with a legitimate product, service or mission (for you non-profit types).  That being established, define the audience.  For this recent request, the site appeared to be suggesting the service to a completely undifferentiated audience, and when you try to send a generic message to everyone, you get no one to listen.

So, once you’ve defined target audiences, before trying to “get the word out,” strategic planning would dictate that there must be something appropriate for the audience to visit once they hear about the “deal” and show up at your web site.  It’s not rocket science, but our questioner has a site that reminds me of the first ones we cobbled together by writing code line by line, using trial and error, back in 1994… seriously.  Depending on the audience and the offering, it may not take a sophisticated or complicated site to accommodate your persuasion and call to action, but it needs to at least look somewhat professional.

On the other end of the spectrum, Axl’s Closet put out an online coupon code in the middle of July good for $20 in free kid’s clothes – no additional purchase required, and free shipping.  Word got out!  However, the viral traffic nearly shut the site down, and made it very difficult to complete an order.  Do I know this from a news article?  No.  My wife was caught in the frenzy.  Still, even though many frustrated people now exist, how long can they stay mad at Axl for running out of free stuff.  Plus, the site has VERY cool products for kids.  Pricy, but cool.  Will we be back?  I bookmarked the site, which rarely happens anymore.

So, the key things about getting word of mouth happening for your online presence – have something worth talking about, and start the conversation with the right people.  That means people who represent active voices to your key audience, about things directly related to your offering.  Then, be prepared for prospects to arrive.  Unless you have the coolest stuff in the category, you may only get one chance.  Make it count.

Of course, explaining this in under 500 words over-simplifies things, a lot, but it highlights the core strategy.

In a debriefing conversation with Scott Rader about his teaching the UST MBC course “Communication Technology” via the Internet, an unforeseen development occurred.  Scott informed me that on a student peer-evaluation of final project presentations (which I attended), one student noted that I had been “nasty.”  We were both somewhat confused.  Having attended as an observer, and other than contributing some comments extending discussion during Q&A, I said very little.  Then it dawned on us that I had been made timekeeper for the presentations.  Each group was to have 20 minutes to deliver their prepared presentation, and then field questions for 10 minutes.  A few of the groups got pressed for time at the end.  I simply gave them a “time’s up” sign, and didn’t indicate they could spill over.  I was silent, but clearly firm that the presentation had to end at that point.

As made clear in these posts before, I’ve been in the communication business a long time.  In those years, ad sales reps never offered an extra few seconds in television time because I couldn’t make my point in a 30-second spot.  No potential client allowed me make him late for lunch.  No student thanked me for dragging on past the end of class, even though the “bell had rung.”  No one ever applauded and thanked me for going long on a luncheon presentation.

The reason people go long – often with the best intentions –  is that they believe you and I will get so much more if they say more.  In truth, we are lucky to recall any specific facts from a presentation within minutes of its end.  We may capture and hold a concept or two for a while, but mostly we walk away with general impressions, and possibly a motivation to learn a bit more.

Experience suggests that people always like a pitch or speech to finish before they check the time.  If you are among those gifted enough in communicating that people hang on every word, then pontificate at will.  The rest of us need to arrive well practiced, with fewer slides and notes; speak clearly; make few points; and hope people get one good thought for every 20 minutes. (And finish in 15).