Confusing Crisis: Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech provides an interesting, somewhat disturbing look at American voyeurism, media sensationalism, and fear-peddling communication spin. When tragedies occur in America, people from all sides find ways to further agendas, gain ratings, and deliver questionable content.

In the wake of Cho Seung-Hui killing 33 innocent people at Virginia Tech, dozens of organizations, groups, and individuals have attempted to capitalize on the tragedy, some of them under the guise of good intentions. The net outcome is the same: polarization.

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last week's unspeakable tragedy," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said to CNSNews.com. "But we know that someone like Cho Seung-Hui should never have been allowed to buy a gun. Our legislation will take one step toward preventing more people from falling through the cracks, and will try to make sure that such a horrible thing doesn't happen in New York, or Virginia, or anywhere else ever again."

“Anybody who’s going to go on a murder spree and then kill himself is not going to be deterred by a law or regulation," said
Virginia state Del. Todd Gilbert (R), in an unrelated story that mirrors one run by The Washington Times. "He’s only going to be deterred by the end of another gun.”

Personal views aside, gun control is neither the problem nor the solution. Truth be told: no law or lack of law killed anyone at Virginia Tech. Cho Seung-Hui did. So we might all be better off giving the media a break from having to report on new debates that detract from the facts and focus on the Second Amendment.

Sure I suppose the Second Amendment has some thread of a connection between the issue and the incident. It's better, though not much better, than the Westboro Baptist Church's original threats to picket the funerals of the victims. Sure, Westboro Baptist Church removed the call to picket from its Web site after public outcry, but one wonders if they really thought "all publicity is good publicity."

To be fair, the church is not the only one trying to hitch a ride on tragedy. Even atheists have something to argue about, spurred on by Dinesh D'Souza's story. Huh?

People sometimes ask me what constitutes spin. The spin in this case comes in the form of linking unrelated topics to the tragedy. There is no relation between the shootings and economics. There is no relation between the shootings and gun control. There is no relation between the shootings and ... pick any other topic under the sun.

Yet, knee-jerk legislation, reactionary arguments, and unrelated sub-stories continue to erode common sense, keeping the pain of the tragedy alive in all of our hearts and minds for months and months, years and years. It needs to stop, but it will not any time soon. This story's next step will be a movie of the week, needless legislation, and more divisiveness between groups that were never divided before. So what is the communication lesson to be learned from all this?

Reactionary communication almost always includes erroneous thinking, especially during and after a crisis. All we can hope for is that the public becomes wary of those too quick to attach some cause, any cause, to this tragedy.

Surfing TV: Revver, Joost, And Everybody

Revver was one of the very first video-sharing platforms to track and monetize videos as they spread virally across the web. As such, we've noticed some interesting concept ideas that are already popping up there, including viewer-driven content like this video from itsallinyourhands.com. The audience votes on the outcome.



At the the same time, Viacom Inc., a leading global entertainment company, and Joost, the world's first broadcast-quality Internet television service, are gearing up for a professional distribution channel with Viacom being a key content partner. MTV Networks, BET Networks, and Paramount Pictures are all part of the partnership to provide television and theatrical programming on demand. (The latest buzz is all about beta invites, by the way.)

Wow. It seems like only yesterday that we were talking about Beth Comstock, president of Integrated Media, NBC Universal, and her company's partnerships with Fox/Newscorp, MSN Video, and SoapBox. Well, not yesterday. More like ten days ago. (And we haven't even had time to talk about Apple TV.)

Look, nobody really knows what the future broadcast-Internet industry (the term digital media has stuck) will really look like in the months ahead. But one one thing is certain. Shorter segments, greater diversity, and an initial shortage of quality content providers will all play a major factor in the foundation of digital entertainment.

Meanwhile, most companies are still thinking of all these trends in terms of "advertising reach" as opposed to "company-driven content development." Hmmm... I'll give them some more time. The writing already seems to be on the, er, wide screen … what, with The Coke Show just one step away, as they ask for visitor-generated characters, songs, skits, and more. Its first challenge ends in just 15 days.

Giving For ROI: Wall Street Journal

As part of National Volunteer Week, I wanted to remind everyone that The Wall Street Journal picked up on a study from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) back in January. It deserves more attention. The study revealed corporate giving can increase company profits at a rate of return of 200 to 300 percent.

The study, examined 251 corporate donors and their giving contributions from 1989 to 2000. Led by Prof. Baruch Lev at New York University’s Stern School of Business, the researchers found that corporate giving is associated with subsequent sales growth, particularly when consumer perception is important.

(Side note: This information has been around for some time. As far back as 1999, one report, from Cone/Roper Cause Trends Report, noted that 76 percent of consumers said they would switch brands/retailers to one associated with a good cause if price and quality are equal.)

Keep in mind, most of the firms in the SSRN study spent 50 times more on marketing than philanthropy, and their average giving was only 0.1 percent of average sales revenue. Still, the rate of return on giving exceeds the investment and, depending on what a company considers measurable results, business giving and volunteer programs deliver substantial benefits inside as well as outside a company, especially for small businesses with limited resources.

Business Giving Benefits
• Improves customer loyalty; impacts profitability
• Increases employee morale, loyalty, and productivity
• Establishes new internal and external relationships
• Improves internal communication and teamwork
• Enhances employee recruitment and retention
• Encourages new approaches to strategic business objectives
• Positions a company as a leader in the community
• Increases brand recognition and community awareness

Employee Volunteer Benefits
• Strengthens employee leadership and decision-making skills
• Encourages teamwork to develop positive communication
• Enables unrelated departments to interact and network
• Reduces work-related stress and increases morale
• Creates a better quality of life where employees live and work
• Increases employee awareness and interest in community issues
• Generates increased sense of patriotism, citizenship and civic pride
• Develops a community-minded culture, improving customer service

You see, most programs don't have to be large, cumbersome, costly, or time-consuming to develop win-win-win solutions. The best starts can be as simple as thinking about what your company can do.

For example, just today, we reported on TXU Electric Delivery's partnership with the Rogers Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. The company relies on the center to rescue and remove birds, including blue herons, that have nested in electrical equipment.

To support the center, TXU Electric Delivery is raising funds by recycling printer ink cartridges and used cell phones; some employees have also volunteered to work on a number of special projects at the center this summer. It's simple, effective, and everyone wins: the company, the employees, the center, and the community.

While I'm not sure if TXU Electric Delivery has a formal giving program, I do see they've taken the first steps. Mostly, however, I just like their case study because it demonstrates how relatively easy it is for a company to develop some type of program, formal or informal.

Here are a few other tips we've picked up along the way from working with nonprofit organizations and dozens of companies:

Create A Statement: Some people might call it a mission for a strategic philanthropy program, but I suggest smaller companies or independent professionals keep it simple. The real goal is to define when and how your company can best give back.

Choose A Niche: Focus on a specific need or a few needs within your community, which will give your company a better chance to measure results within the community. You can choose something that is important to your employees or closely aligned with what your company provides.

Develop A Road Map: Many companies will call it a strategy, but what we're really talking about is a road map to help you get where you want to go. For example, one company we know has an advocacy campaign aimed at increasing its role as a specialty provider in elementary school curriculum.

You can learn more about business philanthropy on this blog. In 2005, I republished a three-year-old article I wrote on the topic for the publication we were managing at the time. Don't let the date fool you; or that the entire article is tucked in the comments section. (I posted it back when I was led to believe all blog posts had to be short ... darn those useless rules other people promote!)

The article, Business Philanthropy | The Impact of Giving, included interviews with Microsoft, Salesforce.com, and the Business Community Investment Council.

I'll be happy to post more on business giving and community relations in the future, assuming there is an interest in the subject. Right now, we simply post best case studies on our other blog.

Next week, I'll be back to offering up some biting commentary on some communication disasters we missed this week, including a few sad thoughts on a few groups hoping to capitalize on the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Publicity, ho hum, indeed.

Addressing Perception: American Idol

American Idol judge Simon Cowell demonstrated he understands something about negative publicity, even when such publicity stems from perception, speculation, and rumor. You address it.

That is precisely what Cowell did Wednesday night after social and mainstream media criticized him for an annoyed look he appeared to give contestant Chris Richardson, who is from Chesapeake, Va. The look came after Richardson followed his performance with a comment about the 32 innocent people killed at Virginia Tech.

Richardson had said: "My heart and prayers go out to Virginia Tech. I have a lot of friends over there. ... Be strong."

As the cameras cut to Cowell, he looked annoyed, rolled his eyes, and raised his eyebrows. But he wasn't rolling his eyes at the Virginia Tech comment. He was rolling his eyes at Richardson's earlier comment that nasally singing was somehow an accepted singing technique. More precisely, Cowell was still addressing the comment with Paula Abdul in a side conversation unrelated to what was happening on stage.

"I was saying to Paula, 'What does he mean, he sang nasally on purpose? I didn't understand what he was saying.' So I hadn't even heard what he did. Then my eyes rolled, given what I was saying to Paula," said Cowell.

American Idol producers went one step further by playing the video footage of Cowell's side conversation, which clearly and quickly proved the point. For some, it also demonstrated the power of perception over reality. Often, on video, what we see is dictated by camera angle and, in this case, which camera.

"I did want to clear this one up because, you know, this is a very very sensitive subject. The irony is that we did want to try and set the right tone on the show. And then something like this happens, and it just starts fanning the flames," Cowell said. "And people need to understand, there are families involved. It's not right."

Cowell went on to say that he might not be the nicest person in the world, but he sympathizes and appreciates what the contestants and affected families were going through. Well spoken, considering most celebrities and executives forget to keep their cool in order to keep the focus on corrections and clarifications. He did not apologize, because there was nothing to apologize for in a presentation that exemplified credibility and transparency.

"I would like to say, on a more serious note, just to pick up on what Ryan said, on behalf of the three of us, that we would also like to offer our best wishes and support to the families of this tragedy, as well," Cowell said, adding that it had been a tricky weekend for the contestants, some of whom were close to the families there.

In many ways, the show outperformed its critics who have taken to giving Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman, a forum for his perceived grievances against rich people. Perhaps some networks might remember that while it is appropriate to report the news, the reporting of the news does not necessarily have to provide forums for killers. Sometimes there are not two sides to a story. And sometimes the best displays of empathy would be not to air a video that gives into one confused person's perception, at least not over and over again.

To make a point on communication, Cowell demonstrated how best to address misinterpretation. To address the misconception that "seeing is believing," it isn't (especially when what we see is spliced together with multiple camera angles). And to the tragedy, myself and everyone we work with echo the original words of Richardson…

"My hearts and prayers go out to Virginia Tech. I have a lot of friends over there. ... Be strong."

Business Blogging: Eric Mattson

Eric Mattson is a Seattle-based marketing consultant, podcaster, and expert in social media. His joint research with the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth has appeared in BusinessWeek, Inc., and Foxnews.com. What did it say?

Social media is here to stay.

Message boards, social networks, online video, blogging, wikis, and podcasting are all utilized by more than 10 percent of Inc. 500 businesses. Sixty-six percent said social media is important (which indicates a large gap between business and public relations).

Blogging, specifically, is utilized by almost 20 percent of these businesses. To me, this seems significant because business blogs are only a step away from becoming a tangible mainstream business tool. They are a 5-in-1 tool, if you ask me.

Are professionals in communication-related fields ready? I'm not sure. It seems most are still wondering whether blogs are valid.

I'm not surprised because some people are still confused how blogs might impact communication. I submit it does not matter whether 10 percent of people read blogs. It's the "pass-on" message that counts.

Right. Readers generally pass on insights they read on the Web to co-workers, industry peers, friends, and family. Some content spills into mainstream media.

Did you hear? Did you see? Did you know? And from these leads, the messages perpetrated online become the stuff of rumor, gossip, and infamy, making it difficult to track, difficult to identify sources, and difficult to manage.

It's easy to see some consistent patterns on this blog and others we manage. One blog entry might be read by one or two people (or 100), who pass it on to their co-workers, shareholders, friends, etc. Some pass links. Some pass e-mails. Some cut and paste content.

Occasionally, mainstream media might use it as a story source, either cited or used as a backgrounder for another, seemingly unrelated, story. And sometimes, the story or viewpoint might be used to spark additional observations and posts on the Web, creating a tsunami-like effect — rolling out over to New York or London or Primorsko-goranska. And then, the wave comes back, and out, again.

The bottom line: ignorance is not bliss when it comes to blogs or social media. No, I am not saying every blog entry someone writes will have an impact on your business, but eventually one just might.

Censoring Farce: WorkFarce

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the heroes and villains of social media. It is the person or persons who moves to censor supposed blog bullies? Or is it the anonymous blogger penning satirical prose? Or maybe, there never were any heroes or villains to begin with. Maybe there is only a whole bunch of people who could accidentally send us into the dark ages.

Sure, most people outside of the recruiting industry have never heard of WorkFarce, which was an anonymous satirical blogger who some might say crossed the line of professional decency while others might say made pointed observations of the absurdness of the industry, the world, and human nature in general. But for people who did know him, the surprise success of his blog seems well-grounded in its objective: give people a good laugh without revealing himself, his employer, or making apologies.

Most people will never hear of WorkFarce because one or several people tracked him down and contacted his employer, demanding that, he says, "I publicly reveal my identity, (who I am, what I do and who I work for) and then issue a public apology." Hoping to circumvent harm to himself, his family, and his employer, he elected self-censorship in the face of threat and ultimatum.

I'm all for calling a duck and duck, and in this case, the duck was blackmail. WorkFarce's only crime was naivete.

Yes, it is extremely naive to believe for one second, that as an anonymous blogger, you will remain anonymous forever, especially if you have taken to criticism, whether or not such criticisms are labeled satire. It is as naive as sending a critical e-mail without the assumption that someone might turn it in to the person you are criticizing. It is equally naive not to recognize that the closer your satire or criticisms touch the truth, the more likely someone will attempt to embarrass, malign, or censor you.

I see censorship as, once again, a growing trend in America and this trend is something that needs to be much more than watched. Censorship, misrepresentation of statements made within a context, and blackmail are beginning to win over "truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding."

All around us, singular comments are taken out of context or turned into something they were never intended to be. Bryan Ferry, Don Imus, and a host of others are all being targeted by censors, blackmailers, and people who prey on the fears of others.

To be clear, while I do not endorse or condemn (though I may question their style, logic, and word choice) what any of the above public figures have said, we must be more careful not to confuse the cries of censorship as more valid than the speech they attempt to censor. The remedy for the abuse of free speech is always more free speech.

In an effort to keep this confined to a manageable topic, I was not a fan of WorkFarce and rarely read his material. Many people, however, did. We had an engagement once or twice, but nothing beyond that. On occasion, I freely admit there was something relevant in the writing and the wit could sometimes, er, once in a great while, be appreciated. No, I am not a fan of anonymous blogs, but far be it from me to judge what others feel they must do for the preservation of their jobs and livelihood. Being anonymous is their burden to bear, not mine or anyone else's.

I am also not a fan of blackmail. And in this case, the move to supposedly unmask, embarrass, and censor WorkFarce was pathetic at best, an exercise in malice at worst. Given WorkFarce has gone to great lengths to protect his employer (and hopefully did not attack others in the industry simply for the potential benefit of his employer), the only harm that could have been done to anyone was only what they chose to infer from his posts.

In fact, by most accounts, WorkFarce was not a potential shill, backed by people with political or business agendas. So given that the apparent unmaskers are hoping to conceal their own identities in doing so suggests to me the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Let me say it again: the remedy for the abuse of free speech is always more free speech, lest we forget the immortal words attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I did not speak out;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Ergo, be careful with cries for censorship. For when the worst comments go largely unanswered except for censors, even the worst ideas are more likely to take root within the fabric of the people for all time. Yes, though I am disgusted by the notion, moving to censor hate speech will only lead to more hate speech.

Sure, some might say it seems I am contradicting my own advice on message management within the context of strategic communication. But for me, the difference is exceedingly clear: message management is about trust, honesty, and consensus not fear, force, and censorship. Good night and good luck.