Recognizing Market Change

Research and Markets, which is a leading source for international market research and market data, may finally dispel some outdated ideas about seniors and the Internet with its new report, Seniors Online: How Aging Boomers Will Shake Up the Market. In the report, they reiterate that there is a contrast in computer and online usage among those 50-64 and those 65+ as is evident in a study by Kaiser Family Foundation (2004) and another by Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004).

Unlike today's seniors, boomers (post-World War II children born between 1946 and 1964) are dedicated Internet users and broadband fans. As they approach the next phase of their lives, the report says that they will challenge companies to keep up with their ever-demanding ways, both online and off. There is little doubt. For one thing, Boomers have $1 trillion in spending power. For another, the Boomer demographic is a perfect target for online marketing.

According to the report, they are frequent, engaged online users approaching a stage in life with major issues: the decision to stop working, investment planning, health care, downsizing a home. Other key questions answered in the report: How fast is the boomer online population growing, how will usage patterns differ between today's and tomorrow's seniors, what sites are boomers more likely to visit, and what changes in Web design will be necessary as Internet users age?

It will be an interesting challenge for communicators to appeal to both boomers and the other fastest-growing segment of the population. Ages 13-24 made up 37% of the U.S. population in 2000 with ages 13-18 making up 22% of the population. But regardless of how this challenge is addressed, one thing is certain: some long-held beliefs that seniors don't 'log on' are about to be dismantled. IMO, it's about time.

Crafting A Core Message

While I often advise clients that consistency remains the rule rather than the exception for a business blog, there are times when I place blog posting on the back burner for a few weeks at a time. It's par for the course. Like almost every firm in our industry, client communication needs supersede our own.

The pace we've set in May is partly attributed to integrating several new accounts into our schedule, but the primary reason I had to place posting on hold for a few weeks is because we've been implementing core message strategies for two different companies. The first is an innovative manufacturing firm that is continuing to capture a significant market share in the outdoor living/garden market. The second is a new national cable network that will break from traditional programming trends and provide viewers, particularly families, a true choice on television.

While I cannot share specifics on what we are doing with either company because it's our policy to never reveal work in progress until it becomes past tense, I can share some details about our core message system. Simply put, this strategic product is a process that extracts internal and external research, stakeholder information, and market knowledge in order to identify, determine, and develop specific key messages that can be clearly, consistently, and convincingly communicated to a variety of audiences under very diverse circumstances.

Upon completion, the organization benefits from a consistent message that can be employed in communication materials and one-on-one communication at every level to demonstrate a true contrast between the company and the competition, defend against critical review, and encourage a consistent message regardless of the situation, scenario, or circumstance. It moves beyond the traditional model of identifying the sometimes introspective benefits of a unique selling point and more toward an external view that discovers the primary contrast between a company (its philosophies, products or services) and its competition (their philosophies, products or services). We did not invent the concept, but we did refine the original model to work even better for companies and non-profit organizations than it does in the political arena. That's where the original model comes from.

I learned about contrasting messages a few years ago when a now-retired political campaign manager and dear friend of mine, Benay Stout, invited me to attend a grassroots workshop hosted by the Leadership Institute, a training organization for public policy leaders founded in 1979 by Morton C. Blackwell. One of the session segments included how to develop contrast messages for candidates (especially useful when two candidates seem to share similar philosophies on the surface). Shortly after this introduction, it occurred to me that businesses could benefit from such a process with some adjustment. Later, I discovered this process works better than I ever imagined on the front end.

To date, of more than three dozen core message strategies developed for clients and client accounts, we have a 100 percent track record. If the company embraces and implements a core message strategy, they will succeed. It's that simple.

With it, we've helped a tech services firm increase its client base by 720 percent in record time, a commercial real estate company move up two positions to be ranked number one in the market, a business philanthropy organization secure a national grant and increase membership by 80 percent, preserve funding for a state commission at a time when the state legislature had targeted it to be cut ... and the list goes on. In each case, every company and organization that has worked through the process and implemented the core message strategy has succeeded.

The businesses we work with direct love it because of its implementation versatility, making an impact on not only external communication but also internal operations such as human resources and product/service development. The agencies we work with love it for their accounts because the process not only produces results but also solidifies their relationship with the business. For internal communication professionals, it is one process I know of that permanently puts them at the table with senior management.

We love it because there is nothing more rewarding for us than to see our clients and our clients' accounts win. So sure, it might mean that we have to put our own communication strategy on hold from time to time, but then again, I never really set out to write about my own company. For us and those people who work with us, we find fulfillment that is best summed by a quotable I wrote a few years ago to help launch one of the most successful advertising agency starts in Las Vegas: ''follow other people's dreams, my friend, and you may just find yours along the journey.''

Understanding Media Interviews

The May-June edition of Communication World, published by the International Association of Business Communicators, recently ran an article written by Karen Friedman that does a great job at boiling down what spokespeople need to know before speaking with the media. Here are few highlights, along with a few additions* from our media training program.

Be real. People want to relate to you. No one wants to hear from a robot who is so ''on message'' that they never smile or show emotion. *Some of the best spokespeople in the world are not those who stay ''on message'' but rather are people who use their message as a guide to share personalized stories and information that accurately conveys the point.

Speak their language. They know you're smart - that's why they're interviewing you. So avoid big words or workplace jargon. Speak simply and conversationally. *Having worked for the media and corporations, it's easy to see that writers are often translators for industry experts. As a side note, customers are not all that big on jargon either.

Own your interview. Interviews are opportunities to inform and educate. It's not enough to simply answer the question. Try to address the question and look for opportunities to insert your message. *A seasoned spokesperson almost always finds opportunities to define their company. This, of course, assumes the company has taken the time to develop a message.

Don't ramble. Say what you have to say as clearly as possible, and then stop. It is not your responsibility to fill the silence and too much information can create confusion. *Not coincidentally, filling silence often results in taking interviews off subject, and sometimes shifts the focus of the story. Be mindful of what you talk about.

Attitude is everything. Cooperate without being offensive, argumentative, or confrontational. Don't tell reporters how to do their jobs. Provide information to guide them, but let them write their story. *Nothing frustrates reporters more than the spokesperson telling them what the story should be about or that someone knows better because ''they can't understand.''

Avoid either/or questions. You cannot win an either/or question, which can box you into a limited answer. Take the high road and present a big picture. *Very few subjects are black and white so limiting yourself to one side of an issue or topic is always a mistake. The same can be said about hypothetical questions. Don't guess at what you could not possibly know.

Be yourself. If you don't know, say so. Reporters will respect your honesty. *Even better, let them know if you can find out and when you intend to get back to them. There is nothing worse than guessing at answers only to find out you were wrong or attempting to mask that you don't know by talking around the question.

There are many more, but these are great basics not only when you speak to reporters, but also when you speak with anyone. After all, with the growing popularity of blogs, everyone is a potential reporter/publisher.

To illustrate the point: I read a blog entry that shared an entire conversation that the blogger had with a customer service representative of a car insurance company. The blog is well read, about 100 visitors a day.

After reading the post and about the blogger's decision to choose another company, I could not help but to wonder if the customer service representative might have handled the call differently had she known she was talking to an amateur reporter/publisher with 1,000 readers a month. It's something to keep in mind because it used to be that one negative impression/customer interaction is shared, on average, with eight other consumers or potential customers.

Nowadays, one negative impression can reach thousands, making everyone an important spokesperson for their companies.

Saying It Again - Innovate

Thanks to Rod Smith's April 24 column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, readers were treated to one of my favorite Steve Wynn stories.

In the column, Wynn recounts Wendell Atkins (a 1973 Waylon Jennings impersonator) meeting Jennings for the first time at the Golden Nugget. After Atkins offered up that he hoped Jennings did not mind being impersonated, Jennings said he considered it a compliment. Then he added ''... there's just one way to make it in this world in entertainment. The only chance you got is to be Wendell Atkins ... when you do Waylon Jennings, you're always going to be a song behind.''

The column ends with Wynn saying ''That's what Waylon Jennings told Wendell Atkins in 1973, and I'm saying it again now. What ... is the fun of being one song behind.''

His sentiments are similar to George Maloof Jr. in 2002. When I spoke with Maloof just days before the opening of The Palms, he did not want to say Las Vegas will continue to reinvent itself. Instead, it needs new ideas that lend to its diversity as a leader in gaming, dining, shopping, entertainment, and the arts. ''If anything, Las Vegas is a party place and will always be a party place. We (The Palms) will strive to be party central,'' Maloof said, referring to the hip, warm, and personalized service niche that was very unique to the city when he opened it.

His words were also echoed by Sheldon Adelson, who called me while on holiday to contribute his thoughts about the future of Las Vegas. After sharing why he thought The Venetian had recovered faster than other properties after 9/11, he added: ''our product is the best because I wanted to change the paradigm.''

Be yourself. New ideas. Change the paradigm. Different words that mean the same thing - if you want to succeed, innovate.

Sure, repackaging old ideas is as alive and well in Las Vegas as it is anywhere else in any industry. Every day we see some properties following the latest trends set by the few who are innovators.

I see it from time to time when prospective clients call and ask for us to create a brochure. Rather than asking them what size, I always ask why they need one. If the answer is because ''my competitors have one,'' then I know we may have our work cut out for us. There is a much higher learning curve for companies that attempt to follow their competition in communication. Yes, they may ultimately need a brochure or some other communication vehicle, but more often we discover they need something different first ... a message strategy that helps them innovate.

After all, as Steve Wynn says, ''What ... is the fun of being one song behind.''

Seeking The Right Source

I received a newsletter in the mail today that focuses on effective nonprofit board management. Overall, the newsletter is always an interesting read, but one of its articles really missed the mark this time around from a communication perspective.

The well-meant article presented a scenario that addresses a common team-building challenge (non-profit or not): do you really want a person on your board (or team) who has reportedly clashed with the members of another team? The article went on to describe how a board president was mulling over whether to ask someone to join his board. Everyone on the nominating committee had met the prospective board member, liked him, and recognized him as a potential asset. However, one person from another team said that the prospective board member worked hard but clashed with some other folks on that team.

The scenario ended by asking: if you were the team leader, what would you do next? Then, the article offered responses from three executive directors across the United States. A cross sampling of the answers included: You might want to make sure that this isn't one person's opinion, but it's better to avoid bringing someone in with a track record of confrontation. People don't get new interpersonal skills just because they join a new board; I'd clarify expectations by encouraging him to join in governance, not micromanaging; Someone should talk to him and explain how this board works and that compromise is sometimes necessary.

Wow. It seems to me that all three respondents are inadvertently creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by accepting the notion that this prospect is likely to be confrontational and framing their communication with accusation. If they do this, the most likely outcome is exactly what they are anticipating: a confrontation. Except they will be the cause, not the prospect.

After all, at this point in the scenario, the assertion that the prospect is confrontational is nothing more than hearsay. Yet, no one offers that the first step should be to talk to the prospect before making any decision or attempting to pre-empt his "confrontational attitude."

The solution is easy enough. Start by following up with the prospect to let him know he is being considered and ask him about his experience with the other team (without the presumption that it was a confrontational experience or that he was the cause). His response might reveal any number of possibilities: maybe he was backed into a corner, not recognized for his efforts, hindered by someone on the team with a personal agenda, etc. Or maybe the supposed confrontation never existed except from the perception of one individual who originally floated the rumor. Or maybe there were some extraordinary cicumstances at his job or in his personal life. Or maybe, well, you get the picture.

In short, stop guessing, pre-empting, fretting, and go directly to the source (the prospect). Open, honest, and clear communication is always the best remedy to avoid inadvertently creating a problem that may not even be a problem with the prospect or on your board.

Employing Service Essentials

A few years ago, I published some paraphrased service philosophies from Holly Stiel's workshop article ''Duh! A No-brainer Guide to the Essence of Service'' for a hospitality trade publication that our company managed for five years.

If you are unfamiliar with the name, Holly Stiel is a renowned author, speaker and trainer who has assisted some of the world's best companies and organizations strive to provide their guests with the ultimate service. Duh! is one of her favorite acronyms: Deliver service with Understanding and Heart.* It includes 11 customer service points:

1. Caring. Care about others and you can provide a high level of service.
2. Empathy. Apathy never leads to empathy in difficult situations.
3. Willingness. Do whatever is possible to get the job done right.
4. Patience. Listen without taking it personally; respond with empathy.
5. Love. Reach the minds of your audience and operate from the heart.
6. Understanding. Know your products, services, and customers' needs.
7. Attentiveness. Pay attention to feelings; think before responding.
8. Follow through. Always do what you say you are going to do.
9. Organization. Have information readily available and updated.
10. Laughter. Find humor to serve the public with a positive attitude.
11. Appreciativeness. Always say 'thank you very much' and mean it.

These 11 points came to mind while I was mulling over some teaching evaluations last week. After reading the dozen or so positive evaluations, a few of which offered constructive criticism such as spending more time on possible employment (food for thought), I focused in on the one very critical evaluation. What struck me most about it was that it offered very little in terms of improving the class and much more in terms of character assassination.

Several years ago, the personal jabs may have struck a nerve, but nowadays I'm more concerned that one of the students walked away feeling like she didn't learn anything. Since I really do care, I sent her a quick e-mail to open up an empathetic dialogue. All I received back was more of the same: how she wanted to improve her writing in one paragraph while defending her writing in the next ''I know I can write--I worked for an esteemed CA State Senator (sic) for three years and wrote speeches, leslative (sic) and policy analysis, letters, and lobbying strategy.'' (Her typos, not mine.)

I thought about taking another stab at opening a dialogue, but then decided against it because somewhere between the conclusion of the class and the day she responded to my e-mail, our roles had changed. I was no longer the vendor as her instructor, but the customer as someone who could provide her a few job leads.

This brings me back to the opening. In an industry such as communication, communicators will often find themselves in a position where customer-vendor roles are reversed. As a result, it is always worthwhile to consider HOW we communicate as much as WHAT we communicate. There is nothing wrong with offering suggestions or sharing a difference of opinion (people have them all the time in this industry), but there may be consequences if you don't know the difference between a fair comment and a personal attack. After all, everyone is a potential customer.

* Holly's full article is available at Holly Speaks