Selling Sex: Nevada Brothels

Steve Sebelius, editor of CityLife, seems especially happy in his post on July 12, reporting that U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan made a ruling for summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs in Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller. He should be: CityLife has some new potential advertisers.

What is Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller? It is a lawsuit filed by Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada on behalf of several newspapers, that sought to void two state statutes that prohibited brothel advertising in counties where prostitution is illegal.

Right. Although some people do not know it, while the majority of the state allows legal prostitution, the two largest populated areas, Clark County (including Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, and Laughlin), and Washoe County (including Reno and Lake Tahoe), do not have any form of legalized prostitution.

I co-wrote, with our former employee Ellen Levine, a feature on this subject for a First Amendment magazine back in 1994, when the Clark County Commission attempted to hinder legal and licensed escort services from passing out handouts because they were “a pedestrian hazard.”

Some of the arguments were sound, like those of Jim McDonald, a vice squad detective for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, who said once non-prostitution escort services were licensed, they had a tendency to add services until it was often difficult to distinguish whether they crossed the line or not. Other arguments were not so sound, those made by the Clark County Commission at the time, claiming “handicapped people in wheelchairs might not be able to get by someone handing out fliers.”

To be honest, it was hard not to sympathize (a little) with police officers despite the fact that escort handouts were protected by the First Amendment. Why? Well, a lot has changed since then; but in 1994, a modest $1 million per year paid five officers to make approximately 20 arrests per night. At the time, there were only about 200 illegally working girls in Downtown Las Vegas (considered the lowest) and up to five times that amount on the Las Vegas Strip (where the girls worked casino bars), depending on what events were in town.

But for the department, they also had a daunting task because many tourists have heard that prostitution is legal in Nevada, but do not know it is illegal in Clark and Washoe counties. Risqué escort advertising only reinforced the confusion. In fact, Thalia Dondero, then a Clark County commissioner, told me that the confusion would be even worse if it wasn’t for the restrictions of brothel advertising. (Brothels in other areas of the state could not even buy a tombstone advertisement in the Yellow Pages.)

Of course, the new federal ruling changes all this, allowing brothels that are legal in neighboring counties to advertise their services in counties where prostitution is illegal. I can only imagine the confusion will increase tenfold.

Despite leaning toward being a First Amendment purest, I wonder what this ruling might mean for the rest of the nation, given there are many legal products restricted and/or barred from advertising, tobacco and alcohol included. I can’t help but wonder if Judge James Mahan’s logic means it might even be okay for Amsterdam businesses to advertise hash in the United States.

I appreciate this might sound strange coming from someone who assisted a few gaming properties in their case to loosen or remove casino advertising restrictions, but my reasoning was pretty clear then: legal casinos have a right to advertise anywhere gaming is legal. But this new ruling, which I have yet to form an opinion about, seems to suggest legal businesses have a right to advertise even where their products or services are illegal.

“But for our part, the motive wasn't financial. (We're not going to get a raise, or avoid a cut in pay, because of this lawsuit.),” says Sebelius. “The motive was philosophical: We honestly believe that telling a newspaper it cannot accept truthful advertising from a legal, licensed business is wrong. It's prior restraint, and it does violence to the First Amendment's guarantees.”

You know, I’ve always liked Sebelius. For the most part, he’s a straight shooter. But this time around, even I have to wonder when he suggests that Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller won’t be a boon for media outlets, billboard companies, and publications like CityLife.

“Speaking of money, some will argue that the corporate masters of CityLife pursued this litigation only to make money from brothel ads. Personally, we don't think there's a gold mine there, but certainly, making money is what corporations do,” he said.

No gold mine? In Storey County, money made from licensing brothels generates the county’s entire operational funds. In Lyon County, the licensing supports most if not all of the county’s hospital. In fact, Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch and Bunny Ranch Two in Lyon County, has already said he will be tripling his advertising budget to go big in Reno.

Hmmm … I’m starting to think, no matter what anybody thinks of prostitution, that this First Amendment “victory” will eventually backfire, thereby allowing government to find new ways to limit free speech. Nowadays, you never know.

Underthinking Mackey: Steven Silvers

Is it possible to be right and wrong at the same time? Steven Silvers is the principal at Denver-based GBMS, Inc., a group of professionals who “understand the complex nexus of business, government, media and community in which organizations operate today.” And, as focused as he is on complex issues, his well-written post says the Whole Foods Market, Inc. crisis might not qualify. On one hand, he is very, very right.

There was little need for the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) to send out a news release about "reputation impact of undisclosed-identity executive internet postings."

"Corporate executives in all areas of a company must be acutely aware of the ethical implications of communications they initiate, including those under the auspices of being a ‘private citizen,’" said Rhoda Weiss, national chair and CEO of PRSA, in the release (highlighted by Silvers) that aims to capitalize on the case with reactive comment.

Most people get that, I think, which is why Silvers proposes that the most simplified version of the Mackey study is “smart people sometimes do stupid things.” Then he goes on to write a better version of the release: “Don’t post comments on the Internet promoting your company’s stock and slamming your competitors while pretending to be someone else. This is wrong. You could cause a huge PR problem for your company. You’ll probably get sued, and you might be breaking the law. …”

It made me smile, before departing from his assessment a bit. It would be simple, but nowadays things have consequences that are not confined to where they belong. This will not be confined to Mackey. This will not be confined to Whole Foods Market. And this will not be confined to, well, anything.

The consequences, as expected, are likely to be tossed about by folks like Andrew Keen in his admittedly biased war against anonymity and amateurs on the Web. And perhaps, they will even reinforce the call for a code of conduct. And perhaps, there will be some new legislation. And perhaps, we’ll polarize it all.

“We have the most protected, covered, cautious and public relations-barricaded generation of leaders in history. Today’s tightly controlled, artfully packaged executives want to release and spout off, and they somehow think this is a forum where they’ll be held less accountable,” says Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a professor of corporate governance at Yale. Indeed, and executives are not alone in feeling this way.

"It doesn't seem likely that investors who may have read these chat rooms would have had reason to act, thereby materially affecting the stock price, because the CEO's identity seemed to be concealed and the materiality of the comments made looks low," Stephen C. Chick, JPMorgan, wrote in a client note, adding that while Mackey's actions "lack judgment," they are unlikely to affect Whole Foods' stock price.

And there it is. Why is this case study complex? Under the surface of simplicity resides the very foundation of an increasingly challenging issue caused, in part, by public relations’ attempt to mold people into something they are not; the media’s shift to be less concerned with finding the truth and more concerned with gathering up polarized viewpoints; and the public’s desire to create labels for everyone but themselves, good or bad.

The concept that “perception is everything” has permeated every facet of our society to such a degree that most people are increasingly judgmental about the actions of others. And perhaps, it is from this very place where the desire to be anonymous in today’s society seems to have very little to do with people wanting to behave badly and much more to do about their fear of being judged.

Adding rules and increasingly strict guidelines on the Web will only make it worse. I propose our time and energy is much better placed in educating people that it doesn’t make much sense to lend anonymous sources credibility beyond a single comment. While some have better intentions, others have agendas.

"They [the FTC] are quoting rahodeb in some of their legal documents and no doubt seek to embarrass both me and Whole Foods through these disclosures," Mackey has said. In fact, Mackey reports he had fun doing it, implies that he has no regret or remorse, and doesn’t seem to know the difference between making casual anonymous comments about his competitor and manipulating stock.

Is it because he is eccentric or ignorant? Don’t be silly. Mackey isn’t typical, but he isn’t stupid either. He knows that the day he admits that what he did was wrong and apologizes for it will be the same day that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will no longer need to prove that Mackey knowingly violated securities law, intentionally using his anonymous postings to manipulate price.

To be clear, of course what Mackey did was wrong. But virtually every outcome in this case will have little to do with reality and much to do with perception.

The Federal Trade Commission’s ability to prevent the merger will be based on perception. The outcome of the SEC investigation will be based on the determination of motivation, which will be based on perception. Shareholders will decide to buy or sell Whole Foods Market stock based on their perception. And the argument whether anonymity might be protected or abolished will be based on perception. It’s all based on perception because we live in a world that is increasingly focused on, well, perception.

After years of watching us trend toward creating pristine perceptions while nurturing the fear of being judged by others (who might discover the "truth"), maybe it’s time we remember that it is much more dangerous to allow the perception of a personal brand to drift dangerously away from reality and toward some idealized label than it is to manage a brand that represents who we really are; good, bad, or indifferent. (As even Albert Einstein once confessed, he only combed his hair that way for the benefit of the media.)

Or, in other words, Mackey might have considered it would have been equally “fun” to post his comments as himself. People would have the perception he was wacky (they do anyway) and there would be no crisis. But that's the simple part. The harder part is recognizing this issue is complex because we have made the environment complex.

Once we hung horse thieves, now we try to understand and justify them. Once we sought truth, now we celebrate opinion. Once people said what was on their minds, now they hide their thoughts unless protected under the veil of anonymity. Once we shopped because eating dinner with our family was fun; now we ask Whole Foods Market to make it fun for us. Simple indeed.

Questioning Perception: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston, who pens The Buzz Bin, says the concept of "burying bad news and negative posts with a flurry of good news keeps coming up" again and again. He says it does on New Media Nouveaux and again online via an internal friend’s post at Pownce, which is a presence applicaton that allows you to send messages, links, files, and events to a defined network of friends.

Sure, I've seen this "bury bad news" tactic bantered about plenty: those who promote it (with qualified justifications) and those who do not (see rule 17). Some have even been suggesting that the Online Identity Calculator I employed on Thursday demonstrates why burying bad news and negative posts might work. It does not.

The argument for it is not new. It predates social media and is grounded in the argument that perception is reality. And there really is only one answer to whether that is true, um, sort of: yes and no.

In the world of communication (advertising, marketing, public relations, political consultation, etc.), people, products, and companies live and die by perception every day and all the time. But, to actively live with the mistaken belief that perception is reality is fraught with peril, delusion, and consequence.

For the past 25 years, I've nurtured what once was a .49 cent store-bought spider plant that has followed me from Las Vegas to Los Angeles to Las Vegas to Reno and back again. As you might imagine, after two-and-a-half decades, the plant has grown quite large — around 7 feet in diameter.

Anyone who visits my home is compelled to comment on the spider plant, usually something like "that is the largest spider plant I have ever seen" or "my goodness, your wife must really have a green thumb" (my wife always corrects them) or "you do a beautiful job at taking care of your plants, they are all so healthy."

Although several of these statement grace truths, all of them are really perceptions. Sure, I smile, nod, thank them, but never am I silly enough to believe that their perceptions, as welcome as they are, are grounded in reality. The truth is that my spider plant was in desperate need of a transplant; a pretty big job given the amount of soil and pot size. So despite its rich green color and vibrant leaves, I had been ignoring my plant much like some people ignore their personal brands.

The worst of it occurred while I was on holiday. One missed watering and record aridness (we are now the most arid city in the nation), prompted me to dig a little deeper past all the lush, beautiful green outer leaves to find, um, a crisis. While perception seemed to dictate everything was okay (except some minor bruises), the plant had three major problems: it had created a root layer that was preventing water from reaching the lower layers of the soil; the lower layers of the soil were bone dry as a result; and the plant had literally uprooted itself, with a good 3 inches exposed.

Fortunately, I am good with plants so I managed to save it. Of course, now it only measures 5 feet in diameter and will take a couple of days, if not weeks, to fully recover. I even potted all the babies to produce what will be another beautiful plant. So what does my plant have to do with personal brand?

You can bury bad news and negative posts all you want to create the illusion of a huge and beautiful online image, but sooner or later something will need to be done beyond burying damaged roots with big leafy stories.

Now I cannot go as far as Livingston does and say that all "bad news or negative posts" need to be addressed very publicly (every situation is dependent on too many factors to apply a formula), but I do agree that burying anything is an erroneous idea. As I mentioned when I shared the first sliver of my Fragile Brand Theory, brand damage is generally proportiate to the discrepancy between perception and reality.

Rating Jericho Reruns: E! Online & Buddy TV

Despite having the disadvantage of returning for a summer rerun schedule during a long holiday weekend when many people were traveling, Jericho won its July 6 time slot. This leaves everyone, including E! Online and Buddy TV wondering whether Jericho succeeded in capturing new viewers or those responsible for the cancellation protest.

Given all the curiosity that non-viewers have, wondering what they missed before the controversial cancellation; the enthusiasm of existing fans; and several creative though inconsistent fan-generated campaigns; I'm more convinced than either entertainment media outlet: the bulk of the Nielsen families watching the show were primarily new viewers and the most diehard of Rangers (those fans who could watch a rerun front-to-back and back again).

However, I'm less convinced that the recap show did much to secure new viewers as this spliced together story line was just as jarring as it was when Jericho returned from that ill-fated mid-season hiatus last time. But, the only indication we will have whether the strategy to air the recap (and not another regular show) worked will be the number of viewers who stayed on for the full episode at 10 p.m.

It seems to me that recap shows appear to work better for reality TV than serial dramas, and even then those are painful to watch. That said, perhaps a better indication of Jericho's future success will be if items like the May 29 edition of Daily Variety that is up for auction on eBay will actually sell.

With a starting bid of $2.99 and s/h cost of $5.30, I can only imagine what that might one day mean for those who purchased fan-generated items prior to the return of the show (or the six people who won Copywrite, Ink. "Covering Nuts" T-shirts after I spoke at yesterday's IABC/Las Vegas luncheon).

Will Jericho memorabilia eventually match Veronica Mars or The Black Donnelley? I suspect we really won't know until more episodes are ordered for Season 2 or CBS commits to a Jericho Season 3.

In the interim, there are several interesting online consumer marketing approaches out there and today I'll mention two. First is Remote Access's weekly Jericho guest blogger feature. Second is the art for Jerichon 2007 produced by "rubberpoutry" for Guardians of Jericho as it appeared in the Jericho Times.

Jerichon is a convention being held by fans in the least likely convention hotspot of Oakley, Kansas. While some fans were concerned about the lack of accommodations in Oakley (despite Oakley having some Jericho-like characteristics), the Hays Daily News is all abuzz about the prospect of welcoming 300-500 attendees in a somewhat off the beaten path location. Then again, you never know. No one expected thousands of wayward rockers at Woodstock either.

In sum, although CBS, E! Online, and Buddy TV are sure to be watching the summer rerun ratings (that’s what they do), it might be everything but ratings that indicate the true temperature of this famous fan base. Hot or cold may ultimately be the indicator that attracts new viewers or not. It certainly won’t be CBS marketing efforts.

Telling Whole Truths: John Mackey

According to the Core Values of Whole Foods Market, there is only one way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders. And that is to satisfy customers first.

Oh, make that two ways. According to The Associated Press (AP), John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. (Whole Foods), found that posting under the anonymous name “rahodeb” was a pretty good way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders as well.

According to the story, Whole Foods announced it would buy Wild Oats for about $565 million, or $18.50 per share. But unfortunately, this comes after “rahodeb” posted the stock was overpriced; predicted the company would fall into bankruptcy; claimed it would be sold after its stock fell below $5 per share; declared Wild Oats' management "clearly doesn't know what it is doing;" and that the company "has no value and no future."

Obviously, “rahodeb” must have miswrote because Wild Oats does have value: $18.50 a share, which is sharply steeper the $5 per share that “rahodeb,” er, Mackey, um, "rahodeb" had hoped for as the masked Wild Oats stock vandal.

In fact, Wild Oats is so valued by Mackey, he has taken to misappropriating his company's public relations and social media communication to flame the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Apparently, he is not happy they made his anonymous comments public in an attempt to block the merger nor does he accept that the FTC is trying to prevent the elimination of another competitor.

"As previously announced, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this legal process, and this blog entry is my first detailed effort at transparency," said Mackey in a news release that neglects to reveal how posting anonymous comments on Internet financial forums for seven years might be transparent.

“I provide explanations of how I think the FTC, to date, has neglected to do its homework appropriately, especially given the statements made regarding prices, quality, and service levels in its complaint. I also provide a glimpse into the bullying tactics used against Whole Foods Market by this taxpayer-funded agency,” Mackey continues on his blog. “As stated in our initial press release about Whole Foods Market's challenge to the FTC's complaint, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this process. This is my first detailed effort at transparency.”

Hmmm ... I suspect if there is any "whole truth" that could potentially win a fruit basket then “this is my first effort at transparency” must be it. Unfortunately, had Mackey done his homework, the best time to be transparent is before one damages personal credibility. So, what this all means is the happiness factor of Whole Foods (where I shop sometimes) is about to be spoiled.

How do I know? Well, some of the writing is already on the blog. Mackey, just days before this seven-year ethical breach came to light, published the graphic above for one of his more colorful, but long-winded posts, Conscious Capitalism: Creating a New Paradigm for Business. He says the image represents “a common view of the good, altruistic non-profit organizations versus the evil, selfish, greedy corporations.”

Overall, I don’t subscribe that the notion that this is really the "common view." It seems more likely to me that each company is charged with its own reputation management. And, with this responsibility, each is free to nurture positive public opinion in any it feels fit, starting with the behavior of its CEO.

But then again, if the "common view" is that corporations are “evil, selfish, and greedy,” it seems to me that any CEO who would attempt to drive down the stock prices of a competitor, under the veil of anonymity, certainly isn't helping this perception go away.

In sum, Mackey wants us to accept that there are truths, half-truths, and now “whole truths.” And while that might sound all fun and amusing (enough to start a living case study), the SEC isn’t laughing.

Calculating Identity: Career Distinction

After visiting Career Distinction and running its Online Identity Calculator on Tom Cruise yesterday (check the comments on the post), we started to wonder what would happen if we plugged in more people, ranging from notable bloggers to CEO bloggers to CEOs with no direct social media presence.

The mix is pretty eclectic, but it provides some interesting results. Keep in mind that our formula is less than scientific: we used the calculator (beta) to establish whether these individuals have an online identity that matches up with what seems to be their desired personal brand. Since the calculator only offers generalized definitions, we summed up the first three pages of a Google search.

Seth Godin — Digitally Distinct, 10
Desired: A bestselling author, entrepreneur, and agent of change.
Online: A leading marketing author and popular business blogger.

We picked Godin mostly because we had a hunch he would set the high water mark and, no surprise, he did. While there seems to be some slight variation between his desired and online brand, it’s only because the Godin brand overshadows the company he founded, Squiddo. In sum, his brand trends toward top online marketing expert/author (rather than entrepreneur and agent of change) and there is nothing wrong with that.

Johnathan Swartz — Digitally Distinct, 10
Desired: An approachable, likeable, creative, and unconventional CEO.
Actual: An approachable, likeable, creative, and unconventional CEO.

Swartz is the top CEO blogger for a reason. There is virtually no distinction between his online identity and his desired brand — he always presents compelling non-techno babble information to help businesses understand that technological advancements mean market opportunities as opposed to business threats. He does a near perfect job setting the cultural tone of Sun Microsystems and his views mirror what we’ve said for two years.

Jeffrey Immelt — Digitally Distinct, 9
Desired: A hardworking strategist who helped turn General Electric around.
Actual: A relentless workaholic whose biggest hope is everyone else can keep up.

Given Immelt devotes 12 weeks to foreign travel as one of our nation’s leading advocates for globalization, we’re not surprised he doesn’t have time to establish a direct social media presence. Still, as a Fortune 500 company CEO (top 10), others present who he is fairly well, with one small caveat — as much as he is admired, skeptics water down his ideas (despite results), leading us to believe he could score a 10 with a direct presence on the Internet.

Alan Meckler — Digitally Distinct, 9
Desired: A serious business executive and aggressive online CEO.
Actual: A straightforward executive who calls it like he sees it.

As one of the top 10 ten CEO bloggers, we’re not to surprised to see Meckler also scores near the top. There are some identity discrepancies, primarily because his writing and interview style come across as a tough-as-nails CEO when he’s much more approachable than that. Also, his view of Jupiterimages is obviously a bit biased when compared to his view of competitors, but we wouldn’t expect otherwise.

Scott Baradell — Digitally Distinct, 9
Desired: Accomplished brand strategist with corporate communications and journalism experience.
Actual: Journalist turned public relations strategist, which might explain why he never takes the industry too seriously.

With Baradell’s emphasis on public relations, media analysis, and blog entertainment, his online identity tends to shift away from brand strategist. But where his online personality works is that he is unquestionably adept at keeping things interesting. For evidence: check Media Orchard’s R Rating and his anagram post plug of Occam’s RazR among others.

Geoff Livingston — Digitally Distinct, 9
• Desired: A leading marketing expert and top-ranked marketing blogger/author.
• Actual: A seasoned marketing pro, social media analyst, and blogging guru.

For the most part, Livingston has achieved his desired online identity, especially since he has already been recognized as an area marketing blog guru by The Washington Post. Without question, he has some great posts that often cross over into legitimate trade journalism. With a book set for release and several post serials worth reading, he’s coming close to the tipping point. If there is one area to improve, it’s remembering that too much focus on others won’t brand you as a leader.

The Recruiting Animal — Digitally Distinct. 8 (7)
• Desired: The most outrageous and entertaining recruiting blogger and online radio host in history.
• Actual: The most outrageous and entertaining recruiting blogger and online radio host in history.

There is little doubt that The Recruiting Animal has achieved his online identity. He is a classic example of being positively infamous, with his stage name often appearing where you least expect it (even in places his peers might have missed). What’s equally interesting to me is that if we plug in The Recruiting Animal’s real name, his score drops to Digitally Dabbling, but all of the information about him remains on target (just slightly more serious).

Les Moonves — Digitally Disastrous, 8
Desired: A seasoned old school programmer who became CEO of a leading mass media company.
Actual: A CEO with a dated programming vision who calls the shots with little explanation.

Given our coverage of the Jericho cancellation protest (and reinstatement), we noticed that Moonves tends to leave people completely confused. On one hand, he wants CBS to lead the digital charge, but then doesn’t give new media much credit. He dumped Imus and dumbed down CBS News despite what ratings say, yet argued that the original cancellation of Jericho was based only on ratings. Given he has no direct social media presence, his brand is shaped almost entirely by mixed messages that paint him up as a CEO who likes to say “because I said so.”

David Neeleman — Digitally Disastrous, 8
Desired: A relentless innovator who challenged the airline industry to do better.
Actual: An ousted CEO trying to prove his relevance after a company crisis.

I read Neeleman’s blog because I admire what he has accomplished. Some people don’t get this in our coverage of the JetBlue crisis. They won’t get it here either as we’ve noticed a dramatic personal brand shift since his departure as CEO of JetBlue. He insists he is comfortable with the change despite several interviews that suggest otherwise. It doesn’t help that "Montgomery Burns" has taken over his flight log. It’s supposed to be funny, but only it reinforces questionable choices in the face of crisis.

Jason Goldberg — Digitally Disastrous, 7
• Desired: A successful entrepreneur who is leading innovator of the online recruiting community.
• Actual: A young, brash executive who gets caught up in online controversies and spins like there is no tomorrow.

There’s a boatload of information on the Web about Goldberg. Unfortunately, most of it doesn’t seem to have any relevance to what he wants to express about himself or his company. Most of it is about blog controversies, blatant spin, and a sometimes questionable management style. Other times, however, Goldberg even departs from this identity too, which makes people wonder how seriously they should take him. The odd attack-feint retreat-attack-retreat tactic doesn’t help.

Amanda Chapel — Digitally Disastrous, 7
• Desired: A mysterious and provocative foil for the online public relations community.
• Actual: A collective of anonymous writers who believe all publicity is good publicity.

There is a lot of information about the collective Chapel on the Web, but more and more of it has little relevance to what they want to express about themselves. As time goes on, it will be nearly impossible to remove all the irrelevant information. Some people have asked about my interest in Chapel, since they come up on my blog every now and again. Truth be told, I’m more interested in why Steve Rubel, Mark Ragan, and even Shel Holtz continue to feed the Chapel credibility. Is the public relations industry that boring or afraid to debate that it needs an anonymous ghost to do it for them?

Add it up and all of this seems to reinforce the most basic premise of my Fragile Brand Theory. You see, in almost every case listed above, without exception, the closer their personal and online brands are to the reality of who they are, the greater their measure of success in maintaining that brand. It also demonstrates, in a couple of instances, how one handles crisis or controversy can also enhance or erode brand credibility almost overnight.

In closing, just to be fair, we ran my identity too. While there is some discrepancy depending on how you type in my name, I came out with a Digitally Distinct 8 and Copywrite, Ink. with a Digitally Distinct 9. This stands to reason: establishing an online identity for the company ahead of me is by design.