Smelling Fish: The White House

As an award-winning former campaign and political reporter with experience covering the Enron scandal in 2002 turned senior campaign advisor for the Obama campaign, Linda Douglas told Media Bistro that "my intention is that I won't spin … I absolutely vow that I will tell the truth.”

Unfortunately, it seems something happened on her way to the White House.

As communications director for the administration’s Health Reform Office, Douglas seems to be employing the White House's handicapped communication channel as a means for little more than pushing back against citizen dissent. In fact, her communication team suggests taking it one step further, asking everyday citizens to tattle on their friends, family, and neighbors to the government.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" — The White House

While the post was penned by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media who oversees Whitehouse.gov, which nowadays is closely coordinated with Internet operations at the Democratic National Committee instead of the American people, Douglas' late response to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn's appropriately scathing letter clearly places credit where credit is due.

"There is a lot of misinformation about health insurance reform circulating on the internet and elsewhere. Some of it is intentionally misleading,” Douglas responded in an e-mail. “We want to be sure people have the facts about health insurance reform that will lower costs, protect consumers from insurance regulations that deny them coverage and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans. We are not compiling lists or sources of information. We may post fact checks from time to time to be sure Americans know the truth about health insurance reform.”

By fact checks, Douglas seems to be referring to sound bites like those she used in her video appearance, placing what President Obama has said over what may or may not be included in any legislation. Specifically, she cites speeches where Obama has said that "if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them."

However, that bit of misinformation has already been vetted as inaccurate by media outlets like Investor's Business Daily because "Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Given how often employees change jobs, the likelihood you won't automatically be enrolled at some point seems painfully obvious. And, worse, once you are in the grips of it, leaving seems likely to be reminiscent of the lyrics to "Hotel California."

But all that aside, the real communication debacle that Douglas will forever regret is allowing any mention of asking citizens to collect and report "fishy" communication, which takes us all the way back to McCarthy-era politics except without the benefit of Edward R. Murrow. Someone needs to share with Douglas the lessons learned from the past, taught by journalists who didn't trade their hats for political hocus pocus.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. — Edward R. Murrow, See It Now

Murrow might have been talking about a time when external threats struck fear into the hearts of the people, but they apply equally well when peddling fear seems to be quickly becoming a pastime for White House politics, a place that ought to represent its owners (the American people) over political agendas.

That's right. Elected officials merely borrow the space. They do not own it outright.

And if that idea sounds fishy to you, feel free to submit this post to be scrutinized and "fact checked" by government staffers who are paid with your tax money to support the plan you may not even want. Maybe they'll learn something, even if it is something as simple as how one heavy-handed post in social media tends to erode credibility at a faster pace.

Americans have a right to express themselves publicly and ought to retain the right to express themselves privately, without fear that mere opinions may be reported to the government. Truly, if Douglas didn't want to know the sources, she ought to have suggested people ask questions about sections they might be confused about rather than submitting "sources" so they could be corrected.

What's the difference? The difference is communication intent. One request may seek to clarify (even if that clarification is spun up by professionals) while the other smacks of collusion.

What's the cost to White House credibility? When I mentioned the White House post during a presentation in a room full of people with mixed political leanings, they all raised their hands with the hope that the government might add their names too.

Exploring Social Media Semantics: Falls

Jason Falls, principal of Social Media Explorer LLC, presented a potential challenge with social media: not everyone who practices it is comfortable with the term. And while many carry similar definitions, few have embraced the same definition.

The good news is that it doesn't matter when people listen. The bad news is people don't always listen, which can confuse the professional arena (probably not the personal arena because, frankly, most people don't care) much like there is ample confusion over public relations, with its varied definitions and even more practices.

The reason it doesn't matter is because as long as Falls defines it before speaking about it, we all know what he means.

Social Media can be best described as mediums, mostly on the Internet, that allow users to add or generate content to published works, creating conversations and sharing around the content and conversations. — Jason Falls

It's similar to the definition I use prior to presentations. Yet, as similar as they are, the two meanings eventually diverge.

Social media describes online technologies that people use to share content, opinions, insights, experiences perspectives, and media. — Richard Becker

The good news is that it doesn't matter because I listen (and so does Falls). So when Falls says that "A blog doesn’t qualify as social media unless the ability to comment is enabled," I understand where he is coming from even though my construct absolutely allows for blogs to disallow comments and still qualify as social media because any conversations about the content can still happen anywhere — on forums, message services, and whatnot.

The bad news is that most people, clients and even some colleagues, don't listen, which is why so many companies hire public relations firms to do nothing more than media relations. And, it's also why a design studio in my market recently adopted the term "integrated communication" when in fact all they mean is that they can make their various designs all look the same. (Integrated communication means something much different to me, and I hope to you too.)

While the challenge might be semantics, the real blame belongs to whatever point at which bad marketing intersects a living language.

For example, once upon a time, "blogs" were really "web logs" until the population employing them abbreviated the name as they will and do. Corporate marketers and executives, which loathe the name for no other reason than it sounds bad, came too late to change it (even though several have tried unsuccessfully to do so since).

They did, however, find some wiggle room as blogs failed to define other channels of communication online, which the online population described as "new media." Corporate marketers and many company executives didn't really like the term new media either, and successfully repositioned it as "social media" on the basis that "new media" wouldn't have a name when it became old. Since, we've seen social media called anything and everything from social computing to collaborative marketing (eek), with reasons that range from trying to create a better definition to less admirable attempts to highjack the coining credit.

All of this has been going for a very long time. It will continue to do so, which is why I generally stay out of the name game. Let whomever call it whatever they want. As long as people who listen take the time to discuss definitions, it will all work out.

The reality is over the long haul, I don't expect the term social media to survive as it will eventually be absorbed into integrated communication (which is okay, even though I prefer the strategic communication umbrella better. Not that it is up to me). But for now, social media works because most people understand it, especially when it is defined as simply as possible.

As for my presentation definition, that is the intent. After I define social media, I break it down a bit further. The media part means online technologies. The social part means people. Because at the end of the day, that is all there is.

Weaving Messages: Real Advertising Works

"The consumer isn't a moron; she is your wife." — David Ogilvy

In 1951, David Ogilvy, a principal in the firm that was then called Ogilvy, Benson, and Mather, met Ellerton Jette, president of C.F. Hathaway. Hathaway agreed to pay $3,000 for an advertising campaign provided Jette would not change a single word of copy.

The "Man in the Hathaway Shirt" campaign became one of the top 100 advertising campaigns of all time. It was so successful, in fact, that Ogilvy claimed that he didn't even know why. Yet, this single campaign, which used real men and told their stories, put Hathaway on the map after 116 years of relative obscurity.

Advertising has not failed, but some agencies are failing.

Since the golden era of advertising, agencies sometimes seem to have placed the consumer connections behind creative tool kits with attention-grabbing design followed up with meaningless messages. What happened?

Maybe it's the competitive nature of the field, but agency designers and some copywriters tend to play to one of three audiences: if not their own ego, then to their current and future employers or (worse) any number of advertising panels made up of their peers. While not all competitions are equal, I have had the displeasure of seeing ad competition "judges" rave over creativity that would be easily dismissed by the audience.

“When copywriters argue with me about some esoteric word they want to use," Ogilvy explained. "I say to them ‘Get on a bus. Go to Iowa. Stay on a farm for a week and talk to the farmer. Come back to New York by train and talk to your fellow passengers in the day-coach. If you still want to use the word, go ahead."

If Ogilvy were alive today, he would have shuffled anyone with Photoshop along for the ride. And, he might have sent some clients along too, reminding them that it's more important for consumers to connect with the advertisement than for the owners to "like it."

Where social media sometimes helps companies and writers reconnect with consumers.

Throughout the 1990s with the advent of Photoshop, advertising agencies began to convince themselves that consumers were only interested in pretty pictures. Consumers didn't read copy, they claimed, not even one sentence beyond a witty headline.

Social media, blogs in particular, has been helping to reshape opinion. Consumers do read copy, but they only read good copy. Or, more specifically, they read real copy. Sometimes they read conversational copy. Sometimes, via Twitter, they read dialogue (with distress tweets and spam being shrugged away as fast as they are created).

Sure, some people like Mark Cameron still like to write leads that begin "Not so long ago, the relationship that brands had with their customers was a one-way street" or Andy Sernovitz who says "It’s not genuine" or the classic Eric Clemons claim that the "Internet is not replacing advertising but shattering it."

But the reality is that the advertising they don't appreciate was never meant to be appreciated as much as the model that preceded it. Writers like Ogilvy wove in audience appreciation, cultural understanding, and conversation into most of their advertisements. The results were a connection that many advertisements, even clever ones, seldom seem to reach.

I purposely left the copy off the man in the Hathaway shirt. On its own, despite looking like so many fashion ads today, it's a meaningless display ad. Paired with the right message, considering the era and audience, the conversation starter adds value. Here is the opening paragraph from one of the campaign's classic ads ...

American men are beginning to realize that it is ridiculous to buy good suits and then spoil the effect by wearing an ordinary, mass-produced shirt. Hence the growing popularity of HATHAWAY shirts, which are in a class by themselves.

Evolving Businesses: Copywrite, Ink. Turns 18

Reading the comments filed after Umair Haque's post The Value Every Business Needs to Create (hat tip: Valeria Maltoni) is a real treat.

Some people get it as a new definition of corporate responsibility and societal sustainability. Some people do not out of a cross between practicality and complacency. The answer, as always, is somewhere in between.

Haque is director of the Havas Media Lab and his work appears at Harvard Business Publishing. I read his stuff from time to time because he tends to ask "why not" more often than "why." But I have to admit I don't read his work faithfully because sometimes it reads as the continuous gauntlet being thrown down at private sector business. There is nothing wrong with that; someone needs to do it. Wingnuts often provide solutions even if you don't agree with the more uncompromising solutions.

He's right in that, as a whole, "health care industry profits, but Americans get poor health care. Automakers fought tooth and nail against making sustainably powered cars. Manufacturers of all stripes stay mum about environmental costs. Clothing companies can't break up with sweatshop labour." Etc. Add to that public relations firms, as a whole, have become complacent, weaving in the same old tired buzz words into poorly targeted, mass distributed news releases. (TechCrunch ought to add "leading company" to the list.)

His uncompromising position is still a bitter pill for many to entertain on a regular basis because businesses would give these things to Americans if Americans would be prepared to pay for the early adoption portion prior to mass distribution, much like they were willing to pay for flat screen televisions. Mostly, we aren't. Often, it takes an atrocity, tragedy, or visionary investment to shock the existing system enough to elevate something better. Otherwise, change happens in tiny drips.

Copywrite, Ink. Turns 18

Understanding this is the primary reason our company is turning 18 years old this month whereas so many others (including firms that used to be among the top agencies in the state) closed their doors. Most played systems that worked until they played out. Others tried to force innovations that no one wanted. A few adopted the language (integrated communication, for example) but not the meaning behind the words, cheapening the entire concept.

We're a bit different in that while we have all the skill sets available to transform floundering communication plans (and sometimes the aging operations to go with them) into winners, we don't begrudge those who want their point of entry to be the same old. In other words, we know a start-up company would be better off developing a core message before a logo, but there is no need to talk ourselves out of the relationship. (Not every date is ready to talk about kids before the first kiss.)

Politics is very much like that. As unfortunate as it is, politics requires politicians to sacrifice some tenets in order to get in the door. It used to be a path of compromise; nowadays, for many of them, it's better described as submission. As the first campaign manager we ever worked with once said, "change is great and necessary, but you cannot enact change until you get elected."

Business communication is very much like that too. You cannot prove your performance until you're working on the account. Change is much easier to enact from the inside out, which is how our company evolved to provide five services with agencies or companies able to customize the services they needed from us.

Ideally, we'd often do it differently, but there are just too many people who will say something requires too much heavy lifting. Usually, it doesn't. It only seems like it does because, for the person making that claim, it might be very heavy indeed.

As much as we'll enter where our client would like us to, Copywrite, Ink. continues to find new ways to evolve from its early entry as a writing services firm in 1991 (at a time when there was no such business). From there, we've added services such as creative direction (1996), strategic direction (1999), social media (2003), and opposition and market research (2006). In sum, we provide any number of single services or deeper than traditional full service, depending on client need.

What's next? There is always something in the works. But for now, we just decided it was time to provide our clients, colleagues, and friends a high-touch thank you and an invitation for a cup of tea. It makes sense to me. For all the talk of technology and employees being told of takeovers via tweet links, nothing beats the occasional face to face.

And what about your company? Is it running thin on value or thinking thick to keep pace with a world that promises to look very different? While we're always happy to chat with anyone to fill niche needs, we're especially interested in sitting down to discuss the real definition of integrated communication.

Avoiding Business Traps: Harvard Business Publishing

The author of one cool site: blogging tips recently re-asked a question that many people have been asking: is mainstream media losing significance?

Under the current business model most traditional publications operate under, you bet. But it doesn't mean they'll go away. Publishers will eventually evolve and develop different business models. Long term, it is anyone's guess what these business models will look like, and chances are many of them will be different.

Some might evolve in networks like Michael Milken recently invested in. Milken is banking on the idea that Bizmore might be the better business model. The potential success of the site will likely hinge on how good the advice is. For example, one executive asked "How often should we change advertising campaigns?" And another executive answered "I'd recommend testing new/alternative campaigns continuously, via smaller campaigns in different magazines, geographies, outlets or via paid search online."

In that case, it's the wrong advice, prompted by the wrong question. And, unfortunately, this is the wrong post to cover it. Bum advice aside, the concept might be sound. It seems fewer executives are satisfied with the research culled by traditional publications these days; they need to know what it means and what to do with it.

Another emerging model (that some research firms have already adopted), which I offered up to Jay Ehret for his open letter to the Waco Tribune Herald, is to keep the summary information free and charge for the deeper research. The only burden that remains is proving content that has value.

To illustrate, I purchased an article on Harvard Business Review this morning. It's an older article (circa 1998), but meets the criteria: it's purchased content and provides some answers that newspaper people, who do not always operate as businessmen, might consider. (I skew my summaries for newspapers, but the traps apply to all business.)

The Hidden Traps In Decision Making

• Anchoring Traps. Business leaders have been struggling with this all the time. The most common problem is placing too much emphasis on past performance without considering other factors.

Newspapers certainly fell into this trap. As subscriptions shrank, they increased their direct mail programs and trial discount offers. It worked before, but now all it did was reduce the non-existent profit margin on subscriptions even more.

• The Status Quo Trap. The article points to newspapers as an example, as the majority of the “electronic newspapers” that first appeared on the Internet were modeled after their print precursors. They didn't need to be, but nobody really considered that they could be anything else.

Status quo suggested they be the same, as if people who looked for content online would be looking for the same content they found offline. Unfortunately, the status quo thinking trapped papers into offering virtually the same product for free.

• The Sunk-Cost Trap. The article uses the example of being given a stock or having a stock that we refuse to sell, even if it is for a loss, and thereby miss out on more attractive investments.

Fundamentally, this where many newspapers are now. They are desperately trying to "save" their old business model despite the fact that the business model no longer works.

• The Confirming-Evidence Trap. While the authors could have never guessed it at the time, the confirming evidence trap is trending up in popularity. In February, I called it validating opinion, but it's much the same.

Not only are publishers demonstrating an increasing propensity to validate reader opinions, but many are attempting to build future business models based on finding examples that may support their vision. Nowadays, it's easy to do.

• The Framing Trap. The framing trap refers to one of the most common mistakes made in business. People ask the wrong questions. In fact, it's the very reason the Q&A advice on Bizmore was flawed. It was the wrong question. It's also one I've answered before.

Some newspapers are asking the wrong questions too. They keep asking how many journalists do we need to let go because online advertising revenue is only a fraction of our print revenue? It's the wrong question. Instead, they might ask which assets have a demonstrated value that people might actually pay for or advertisers might want to be associated with.

• Estimating and Forecasting Traps. The article explains this trap as problematic because most of our minds are not calibrated for making estimates in the face of uncertainty. There seems to be some truth to that given the number of companies that inexplicably opted to try and wait out the economic downturn (as if).

The article breaks it down further into terms I learned from philosophy rather than business. People who get into accidents the most tend to be overly cautious or overly confident. For business, it's the same. The article goes a step further by suggesting even people in the middle are at risk if they always assume the past can accurately help us forecast the future. It cannot.

Of the above mentioned traps, I'm not sure if this one applies to newspapers as much as some of the new models that are being tested by people like Milken. Case in point: Milken's past success combined with the past success of similar Q&A networks that have seemed successful on Linkedin would convince some to conclude Bizmore will be successful. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bizmore's success will be based on an entirely different equation that has little to do with Milken or similar formats.

Bizmore Q&A aside, they do seem to have some editorial content right for them. Shorter, punchier articles play well online, and today's daily download comes from Apple.

Currently, Bizmore's traffic appears to be about the same as a multi-author average blog, with significant distance to travel before catching up with Forbes or Businessweek. But, so far, it still represents a viable next step in how content providers might evolve.

Of course, there is one last point to touch on today. Of all the sources mentioned in this post, only Harvard Business Publishing generated revenue from me. They can from you too. You can purchase this classic article by Ralph L. Keeney, Howard Raiffa, and John S. Hammond right here. Have a nice weekend.

Debating Social Media: Deloitte

Deloitte Consulting LLP has been entering the conversation about social media in some interesting ways for some time, including, most recently, adding a brand new moniker for its online activities. Christine Cutten, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP, places social media under the banner of collaborative marketing.

Cutten's and other content is available at Deloitte Debates under the banner of customer management (it's not under collaborative marketing as the release stated). It's presented in a point, counterpoint format and includes discussions from several members inside the Deloitte team. For purposes of this post, I'll stick with the release, which includes some of Deloitte's prevailing points and follow up with a few of our own.

• Proactively manage your collaboration strategy. Cutten suggests to be effective, you'll need dedicated resources responsible for managing your collaboration strategy, keeping up with the important trends, and making careful choices about where to engage. Sound advice.

Less sound is the suggestion to invest in building a presence wherever high-impact discussions are happening. The investment needs to be made where your customers are. The concept to consider customers first was reinforced to me the other day when I asked a colleague of mine why their organization chose MySpace over Facebook. The reason was simple enough. Despite national demographics and trends, their localized audience doesn't use Facebook; they use MySpace.

• Get serious about risk management. Cutten writes that there are some critical investments that companies cannot ignore. For employees, they suggest understandable policies, effective training, and continuous monitoring. Doing things on the fly without sufficient resources can do more harm than good. Sound advice.

The only caution in considering the above is in the definitions. Companies seem utterly confused about where monitoring employees might begin and where it might end. Companies and organizations need to be mindful in choosing internal or external spokespeople. Not everyone wants to use their social networks to market the company; and not everyone is well suited for it anyway.

• Be authentic -- but discreet -- in engagement. Establish clear engagement policies to drive consistency and mitigate your own risk. Always be honest about who you are, provide information that is helpful, and allowing insiders to share the occasional inside scoop can generate goodwill and credibility. Sound advice.

Companies needs to add a healthy dose of internal communication to the mix. In reviewing hundreds of companies with online engagement and in working with several dozen, successfully integrating employees into the communication plan seems to hinge not on external online communication but rather a corporate or organizational trust on the inside.

• Align internal processes. You can't provide fixes to problems if your marketing and engineering departments don't see eye to eye on what the problems are, or how to solve them. Sync up internal processes with virtual teams. Sound advice.

Whereas some people become concerned about controlling messages and corporate speak, we would consider the above point a clear example of message management. If you speak as a team or organization or company, it makes sense to ensure everyone is on the same page or the team will lose credibility over mixed messages.

• Build and evolve capabilities. Companies often mistake their current IT department as the answer for all things Internet: an approach that often comes up short. Roles such as Webmaster, forum monitor, bloggers, Web designers and widget developers may be necessary. Use third parties if you can't build them internally. Sound advice.

What is missing, however, are assets that companies already have on hand, internally or externally. Seasoned communicators with generalized and integrated skill sets that may include marketing, public relations, investor relations, etc. can often be the tie that binds communication functions together.

• Measure interactions. Someday, performance metrics will emerge that demonstrate the full value of collaboration marketing. But until then, it makes sense to start with basics such as site usage, page hits, and the overall tenor of the discussion. Hmmm...

Partly, but not exactly. Outcomes remain the best measure of all communication, not merely traffic or page hits. I was recently reminded of this once again when one of the blogs we administer saw visitation soar to 10,000 visitors. Did one of the posts suddenly resonate with the general public over the intended audience? No. A government worker committed suicide and someone with the same name was featured on the blog several years ago. Several bloggers had taken our interviewee's image and incorrectly assigned it to the deceased. We spent the better part of a day correcting the problem before our interviewee's family and friends heard the inaccurate news.

More to the point, however, is the simple fact that all communication can be measured. While the tenor of discussions can count, traffic and page hits are only an indication of reach. In many cases, like the mistaken identity story, it doesn't count. (Heck, host one chat session on Twitter and popular measures such as followers and re-tweets automatically inflate for no other reason.)

Overall, Deloitte's discussion is worth reading. While not all of the content and conversation demonstrates a deep understanding of the space, the fact that Deloitte considers social media, or what it calls "collaboration marketing," and has adopted it is good. The next step for many people is simply getting it right. And when it comes to social media, "right" is situational.