Talking Transparency: Fox News

On Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party backed out of a FOX News-sponsored presidential debate after Roger Ailes, president of FOX, made some remarks, jokingly comparing Democratic Senator Barack Obama to al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

As written up by the The Huffington Post the remarks prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Tom Collins, the head of the Nevada Democratic Party, to cancel the debate. The letter read:

"A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August,'' Reid and Collins said in the letter. "This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people. To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by.''

"However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far,'' the letter went on. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.''

Politics aside, this living case study brushes up against the concept of transparency in business. Just how much is too much? For Ailes, his political leanings obviously have real life consequences, if nothing else, giving Democratic leaders the excuse they needed to cancel under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling Fox "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel." At the same dinner where Ailes made the controversial remarks, he also offered a warning about a growing trend.

"Pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage...This pressure must be resisted, as it has been in the past," Ailes said. "Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake."

While Ailes is right, it seems he was equally wrong by being, perhaps, too transparent in his remarks, reinforcing a growing belief that today's media, particularly broadcast media, is biased toward one party or another. Clearly, it seems over the last ten years, traditional media has shifted from reporting the news to setting an agenda to having an agenda.

In part, it is for this reason businesses are looking (or will be looking) for new ways to create more open and direct dialogue with their consumers by employing, among other vehicles, social media. The question that remains unanswered, however, is whether traditional company presidents and CEOs have the skill sets required to get the job done. In many cases, there is growing evidence that suggests they do not.

In their quest to be more transparent, presidents and CEOs tend to be either too tight or too loose with their lips. A few days ago (thanks for the tip Amitai Givertz ... your new "blog-enabled" Web site is looking up!), The Melcrum Blog highlighted an article in the Financial Times UK edition that reminds us of some recent CEO gaffes...

"I don't borrow on credit cards because it's too expensive." — Matt Barrett, CEO of Barclays.

"People say how can you sell this for such a low price. I say because it is total crap." — Gerard Ratner, CEO of Ratners

"Assets like [Sainsbury] don't come on the market very often. Your shareholders would think you were an idiot if you didn't consider it. Watch this space." — Stuart Rose from Marks & Spencer, uttered over a "glass of wine," which was followed by an 'official announcement' declaring that the board of Marks & Spencer had decided it did not intend to make an offer.

For the best CEO practitioners of transparency, the rewards of mastering this double-edged sword are pretty great. According to the International Association of Business Communicators, 72 percent of consumers say reputation influences their buying decisions, 80 percent of employees will accept less money to work with a company that has an excellent reputation, and 82 percent of consumers say reputation is the tie-breaker between equal choices.

Case in point, recently I entertained a relatively gruff recruiter who wanted to establish a "relationship" in case my career goals might change in a few years (probably not, but whatever). It didn't take long to deduce that she only wanted to fill one job (that wouldn't have been challenging for me) and rob my contacts to do it. Even more perplexing was her insistence that strategic communication had something to do with how big your media contact Rolodex is (what's a Rolodex nowadays, anyway?) I've decided against publicly chastising her ignorance out of respect to my friend who referred her, but it fits within the context of mastering transparency basics to remember:

• You are never off the record (you're being interviewed even when conducting an interview).
• You cannot buy it (creating a flog, making false promises, or shifting agendas midstream).
• You cannot fake transparency and hope to retain your reputation over time.
• How you react to a mistakes will have greater weight than the original blunder.

The bottom line is that corporate transparency is not all that different from recognizing that you are in the public all the time (even when you don't think you are). Some people are good at it. Some are not. For starters, however, you have to have a message that is aligned with your business objectives, sensitive to the audience you are communicating to, and not insensitive to other publics who are likely to hear what you said anyway.

For Ailes, whom I generally like, unless his objective was to have the debate canceled, he only considered one of these three elements. Sure, what he said might convey how he really feels, but it always helps to remember that being honest and overly opinionated are two different things.

Targeting Boomers: CNCS

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) recently released a revealing study that tracked volunteering among a large sample of Baby Boomers from year to year. We published the entire release at Nevada Business Community Blog, but highlight several communication points here.

• Boomers in their late 40s to mid-50s are volunteering at higher rates than previous generations. (Boomers volunteered at lower rates than predecessors while in their 30s.) According to the study, the more Boomers are engaged, the more likely they will be retained from year to year.
• Boomers who engage in professional activities — such as managing people or projects — will continue to volunteer the following year (75 percent).
• Boomers also exhibited higher retention rates when they were engaged in music or some other type of performance (70.9 percent) and tutoring, mentoring and coaching (70.3 percent).
• Boomers who volunteer for general labor or supply transportation regularly drop out at a higher rate (55.6 percent).

"The Boomer wave signals one of the largest opportunities the nonprofit sector has ever had to expand its pool of resources," said David Eisner, CEO of the CNCS. "Only the nonprofits that retool their ability to engage citizens will reap that reward."

For a broad view of American Demographics, vist Wikipedia or visit the U.S. Census Bureau for its latest release.

Paying For Infamy: Antonella Barba

On Wednesday night, Simon Cowell made note that Antonella Barba had "taken a lot of stick in the media. I think you’ve handled yourself well throughout and I don’t think anyone should be put in that situation.”

But when pressed that perhaps she was not on the same footing with the other female contestants, Barba claimed she was different and unique. Her comment prompted Cowell to be clear, saying she had "gone as far as you can go ... I don't think your voice is going to get any better."

On Thursday night, she was voted off. Unlike Sabrina Sloan, Jared Cotter, and Sundance Head, the judges had no comments for Barba after her "farewell song." American Idol host Ryan Seacrest simply asked her to step to one side, ending what was one of the odder runs in American Idol history.

Without question, Barba got a lot of stick in the media for borderline racy photos, the worst of which were not her. (For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone can claim the two girls are the same. There were many differences beyond the ears.) But the rest was all her, lackluster singing and sometimes smug comments. And that is the price of being infamous.

One poll before the Thursday show even placed her in first, supposedly capturing 26.8 percent of the poll vote, demonstrating, once again, that polls can be very unreliable. For the show, it's probably for the best the poll didn't stand up given Rosie O'Donnell's erroneous attack that Idol is racist and "weightest" in order to drive up her show's ratings. (Nowadays, O'Donnell will say anything to get attention.)

Given Barba still holds the top spot on search engines, even after being voted off, it is a clear indication that the public is mostly interested in what she'll do next. She has some options, but most, SugarDVD or Girls Gone Wild would likely lead to instant cash without any real entertainment career. According to Hollyscoop, the choice is hers to make, given she is staying in Los Angeles to sort through offers.

"It was hard to deal with it. It was an unnecessary distraction ... trying to stay off the Internet," said Barba, according to the blog. "I tried to get through it. My family has been so supportive, they told me to stay focused and we will worry about all that later."

She might rethink that decision and worry. As a semi-public figure hoping to eek out another five minutes of fame, her next decision will be her last decision for the rest of her life. Instant fame has always been a double-edged sword and not everyone can handle it. The price: loss of privacy and even some personal choice, once the public brands you.

For Barba, she obviously wasn't ready. A little more humility might have given her a leg up to something else. Instead, she insists she's good enough. Now the only question that remains is "good enough for what?" Case closed.

Influencing Industry: Recruiting Animal

If you can get past the moniker, odd assortment of pop culture images, and colorful — sometimes snarky — commentary, you'll find an influential early pioneer in recruiter blogging based in Toronto. Of course, he'd prefer to deny the influential part as the "lack of blog influence" in the recruiting industry was the topic for his first BlogTalkRadio.

Despite denial, however, he continues to attract and influence recruitment bloggers at Recruiting Animal and Recruiting Bloggers, compelling them to take playful beatings on his blogs, and, more recently, compelling several industry blog leaders to participate in an hour-long radio show that asked if recruiter blogging was influential or if they are (recruiter bloggers) just blowing smoke. You can find a somewhat skewed recap of the show Recruiting Radio Shatters Myths or listen to it at the link above (warning: the first 15 minutes of the show includes on-the-job tech training).

Who should listen? Anyone interested in the advancement of social media into the mainstream, especially those public relations professionals who are among the 72.3 percent of public relations professionals who do not have a formal system for monitoring the blogosphere.

The show is one of the reasons I accepted the invitation to participate on Recruiting Bloggers in the first place (there are others). What the recruitment industry seems to lack in corporate communication (several on the show still think transparency is what got Jason Goldberg into trouble, when it is clearly faux transparency that got him into temporary trouble), they make up for in the fact that they've positioned the recruitment industry ahead of several other industries on the merits of social media, including my own.

Of three questions asked, the one that deserves the most attention is "How have blogs become an industry partner (in recruitment)?" You can read responses from Neil Bruce, vice president of alliances for Monster; Russell Glass, vice president of products and marketing for ZoomInfo; John Sumner, CEO of Interbiznet; Matt Martone, recruitment media sales executive at Yahoo!; CM Russel, author of Recrutingfly.com; Steve Levy, principal of Outside-the-Box Consulting; Dave Lefkow, CEO of TalentSpark Consulting; Glenn Gutmacher, senior researcher at Microsoft; and Harry Joiner, executive search recruiter at No Blog, No Sale. In the end, they all seemed to agree that blogs have the potential to have influence in their industry, but it has not happened yet despite the fact there are plenty of success stories where most can hang their hats.

In terms of the recruitment industry, they are almost right. The question is off the mark because it seems to me that blogs are about as influential as a news release, and new releases are not industry partners. More likely, as in any industry, there are influential industry professionals who have taken up blogs as a means of communication. Each, on their own merit, may be influential or not. Some might even gain influence through this medium, but only because they already had the potential to become influential in the industry.

The same can be said of any industry. It is not blogs that are influential, but the authors of those blogs in their respective industries (and some industries are ahead of others in terms of how many leaders are participating). Currently, it seems to me that entertainment gossip, technology, and politics are the leaders (but even political consultants claim blogs are mostly read by insiders and not voters). In fact, you might notice that traditional media is most often likely to turn to these social media niches for stories too.

It seems clear to me, as an outsider looking in, that recruiter blogging is also light years ahead of other industries, not because they are so great as much as it is because they have the semblance of foundation for a niche industry, whereas communication (advertising, marketing, public relations, etc.) seems stranded in debating what recruiting already resolved two years ago. (Besides, communicators keep getting hung up on this idea that applying social media is too much work. Ha!)

Sure, recruiting blogging may not be story sourced by traditional media yet, but that may change in the near future (unless other industries, like communication, manage to mount a rapid pace after they finally get out of the gate). All in all, it's a horse race and the recruiting industry seems to be among the early leaders.

So what is the question? The question is: who will be considered the social media experts of the future? Entertainment gossip aside, it seems to me the snapshot (today, maybe not tomorrow) is tech bloggers, political bloggers, and maybe recruiting bloggers will eventually begin converting their skill sets to focus on communication vehicles beyond their current industry niche. And, unless traditional corporate communication professionals and related communication fields wake up and sharpen their social media game, they will become second tier professionals, working for some of the guys I named above (much like some communication professionals ended up working for IT guys overseeing Web site design).

Taking Oaths: Kent State University

As even a part-time instructor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, I am required by the state of Nevada to take an oath (among other things). In fact, that is what I did today after mine could not be located. It is no big deal: I've signed similar state forms and oaths before (I'm also an appointed state commissioner, among other things) and I have yet to come across any document that would give me pause.

Today's oath read like this: "I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of [insert title] on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury."

And as I put my thumbprint in the notary's book to confirm my signature to this oath, it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, such an oath might prohibit me from contributing information (news) or opinions (specifically sympathies) to a terrorist blog (not that I would want to anyway), given most terrorists (at least the 100 plus named on Terrorist Exclusion List posted over at Kent State University) would fall under "all enemies, whether domestic or foreign."

From what I could find at a glance (I didn't look very hard), Kent State University (KSU) does not have a similar oath on file with its human resources department. However, it does have a document in accordance with section 2909.34 of the Ohio Revised Code, which asks: Have you committed an act that you know, or reasonably should have known, affords "material support or resources" to an organization on the U.S. Department of State Terrorist Exclusion List?

Hmmmm... I'm not sure how I feel about this given by all accounts, despite some less desirable points of view, I have been told one of the professors there is a fine teacher. Not to mention, I also believe very strongly in our Constitution (if you're unfamiliar with it, you'll notice it comes before our government, even in the oath I presented above), including and especially the First Amendment (and the Second Amendment, which is about the only way you can ensure the First).

Anyway, it used to be, in this country, that taking an oath or signing a contract was pretty important stuff. It doesn't seem so as much today. Sure, I take them seriously, which is why I have passed on high paying accounts that violated my ethical standards (The Yucca Mountain Project and B.U.M. Fights among them). But the reality is that oaths, contracts, promises, and vows are just not important to some people. Or perhaps they are, at least while it serves them, to be broken at their leisure.

All of this brings me back to the accountability equation that revolves around Dr. Pino at Kent State University. At minimum, it seems to me, Dr. Pino may have surrendered some of his rights when he went to work for the government by signing the aforementioned contract (as we all do in one form or another), including: willfully supplying written material to purported terrorist blogs, I imagine. And at the very least, KSU might remind Dr. Pino of section 2909.34 of the Ohio Revised Code or perhaps ask him to re-sign it if he can. That might even be the remedy beyond simply asking that everyone forget it.

Crunching Numbers: Rare Method Interactive

Rare Method Interactive, an interactive marketing firm recognized as Alberta's second fastest-growing company by Alberta Venture magazine in 2007, knows something about the media. The media loves studies, especially those that seem compelling, if not a bit askew.

On March 1, Rare Method launched Kudos, which is billed as "a fast, fun, and easy way to harness employee recognition, improve communication, enhance productivity, and foster a positive corporate culture." Sounds amazing, and so does the study that graced the lead paragraph in the release...

"Studies show that 79% of employees leave their jobs in part due to a lack of recognition. Overall, 65% of employees felt that they were not recognized at all in the past year. Further studies say that 75% of employees are not fully engaged in their jobs. Steady economic growth and an aging work force are likely to result in further labor shortages and make the task of retaining skilled workers more difficult."

That's pretty big news, I thought, relevant in communication as well as recruiting. But just to be safe, I e-mailed the release's contact, a "PR Wizard" at Synergy Marketing & PR, inquiring what study the release references and where I might see the methodology. I received a prompt reply: "I am going to get the president to respond to your inquiry as they are his references."

Given that was Friday and today is Tuesday, and a growing number of media outlets including CNW Telbec, WDBJ7/CBS, Mediacaster, HULIQ, The Seattle Times, and others, along with several bloggers, already ran the Rare Method release in its entirety, I'm thinking that the the study may be as credible as the product tagline is original "Thank Different." Um, yeah. Right.

Still, I really don't know whether or not the numbers were pulled out of the sky so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm more miffed that the media continues to run studies without asking the simplest questions, including sampling size and methodology. Next thing you know, someone will start writing something like "According to a CBS television network affiliate, studies show that 79% of employees leave their jobs in part due to a lack of recognition."

Except, we don't really know that this is true. It's a hard lesson to learn when you're looking for numbers. I became sensitive to studies and methodology years ago, primarily because of debunking several studies that our local media had run to further "best intention" agendas. Amazingly low sample sizes, erroneous questions, and logic leaps bigger than the Grand Canyon are tossed into the mix every day and the media screams for more.

Sometimes, as illustrated by Rare Method Interactive, you don't even have to cite the study to get some play out of the information. Just make it up, that's enough. Toss in an oh-so-original tagline "Got Studies?" and you're in business.

Of course I don't think it is enough. In fact, if you spend enough time looking up the studies that we do highlight, you'll see the common denominator is that they often make sense (or we question them if they do not). Er, on second thought, someone just read my blog and e-mailed me for advice ... and based on this comprehensive analysis of data (of one), I'm sending out a release tomorrow to say that we're the most influential in our field. Ha!