Politicizing Business: John Mackey And Everyone

There is an interesting little side bar story written by Darryl Ohrt at AdvertisingAge that suggests rethinking the traditional work day at advertising agencies. He says that since the work day for many is all day that maybe office hours ought to change to fit personal preferences.

There is some truth to that. When someone had to chat with fans of an independent movie release at 11 p.m. on Twitter a few weeks back, I decided it might as well be me. It made for more than a few sleepy mornings, mostly because I start early every day. Unlike most creatives, I like to start work before the sun comes up, which also makes it easier for East Coast clients to reach me.

So why not employees? And why not other businesses?

The comments reveal the reality, with some being for it, some against it, and a few who would outright abuse it to the point of violating labor laws as they turn employees into indentured servants (and thus why labor laws exist).

And then there is health care. I caught a few interesting comments being bandied about last night on Twitter by several communication colleagues, suggesting that John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc. had lost his marbles.

"Where were his PR advisors?" some asked, despite being the same people who encourage CEOs to write their own blogs, unvetted.

Sure, Mackey is an odd duck. He has been one for a long time. But he's not your typical run-of-the-mill odd duck, which means that his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on heath care might not be dismissed so readily. The title alone, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," will make a few people cringe, but Mackey has already explained that he didn't write the headline.

The fallout of his op-ed, which simply suggested eight alternatives to government-run health care that ought to be kicked around the Hill, has resulted in all sorts of craziness, including dozens of activist groups calling for a boycott of Whole Foods. There is even a wacky Facebook group that promises to do the same.

Some of the members don't even know why they are boycotting Whole Foods, other than the maligned representations of what Mackey wrote. Some say Mackey said only the rich deserve health care. He never said that. So overall, those members seem mostly concerned about getting media attention so they can say they belong to a group covered by CNN or whatever. Whatever.

There are at least three points to consider in framing up what will become a living case study, with coverage from time to time.

1. Will it become common for everyday people, who generally support the idea of expressing their own opinions online, resort to diatribe every time someone else's opinions differ from their own? And would a reverse boycott include unfriending everyone who joins this group on Facebook?

What happened to open discussion, which seems more productive? Nowadays, people tend to turn off dissent.

2. Are public relations professionals so naive to think that politics and business don't mix? They have always been mixed, and they are increasingly mixed as the federal government has encroached on the private sector.

I may not be a fan of mixing the two in communication, but I do recognize times have changed and the voracity in which executives might talk about politics has changed with it. Ergo, the same people who cheered on executives like Warren Buffet's endorsement of a presidential campaign are the same who now chastise a less politically motivated column on health care reform, written in plain language with some points that ought to be part of the discussion.

3. Are government health care proponents so desperate that they would attempt to hang their hats on an individual who represents no one other than himself? It seems to me, for lack of a better patsy, that some organized political groups are hoping to frame up a debate as health care reform vs. Mackey as a poster child for big business.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Mackey has always marched to his own beat. Sometimes disastrously so. He hardly represents the status quo of business and neither does Whole Foods. As a matter of fact, Whole Foods employees have health benefits.

Whole Foods is not alone. Most businesses are not against health care reform. On the contrary, most businesses want their employees healthy and working. The best of them also want to keep their employees happy or at least motivated, and do so by providing more incentives than unions or government can muster.

The bottom line nowadays is that employer-employee contracts are increasingly regulated by the government, which dictates the hourly wage, benefits, and hours of operation. And, since most of the government's newest regulatory design seems to plan against the exception and not the rule, executives like Mackey will be increasingly forced to speak up, and rightly so. If they do not now, they may not be able to later.

Confusing Companies: Social Media

Perhaps it's because social media "feels" so old that it's easy to forget it is in a state of infancy. It's new enough that even the people who are still attempting to shape it accidently drive it in two different directions at the same time.

The conversations creep into play often enough, and sometimes lead to some healthy debates and disagreements. They are almost always the result of someone asking the wrong question.

Five Favorite Social Media Contradictions

1. Who Should Own Social Media: PR or Advertising?

This was one of my favorite debates. It's still fresh and a few social media proponents are trying to flush it out. What makes it amusing is that the question is loaded. It dares communicators to pick one or the other. And yet, I keep asking myself how anyone can make a case for ownership while telling companies to give up control.

Nobody can own it. It requires thinking beyond silos.

2. Should employees promote the company online?

While the concept is well intended, it creates a contradiction. Considering most employees join social networks for personal reasons, they don't want to promote their employers (unless they feel like it). I don't blame them. Not everyone signed on to work as a public relations specialist or, worse, a message broadcaster despite the fact that their individual online endeavors impact public relations (which is why Dominos fired two employees for a YouTube video).

This debate was settled before social media. Let employees speak for themselves; spokespeople for the company.

3. Dive In or Develop A Plan?

You may as well ask "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" On one hand, less experienced public relations firms are advising their clients to dive in and try it. On the other, those clients are damaging their brands by adopting some very bad habits that tend to push people away. In one extreme case, we've been tracking a public relations firm that is creating accounts for its clients, connecting them all together, and then having their clients push market to each other. (No, I'm not making this up.)

Individual participation does not equal a community development experience. Find a guide.

4. Be Yourself or Be Edited?

In all honesty, this discussion is nothing more than the repackaged "Should a CEO blog? question" In sum, the question is whether or not executives need editing and vetting before someone pushes "post." And, if that answer is "yes, they do," then how much is too much before someone might classify it as ghostwriting?

Like so much of social media, most answers without specifics can be summed up in two words: "It depends."

5. Outsource or In-house?

All too often, companies are placing inexperienced communicators in charge of their social media programs. Considering social media requires more engagement and leaves a longer lasting imprint on the consumers they touch, it might not be a very good idea. So the bottom line becomes more the same — there are too many variables to hazard a guess. Not every company will come up with the same conclusion. And most companies don't even know how to arrive at an answer.

Case in point: I know several companies that are attempting to go the in-house route. Some are doing an excellent job. Some are doing okay, but could use some out-of-house boosts. And some are damaging their reputations. The difference between the degrees is not always apparent, except for the analogy I'm leaving with clients after any social media presentation.

You can buy a violin almost anywhere. It doesn't mean people will want to hear you, even if you practice every day.

"I really did play the violin when I was 13," Antony Berkman, president of BlogCatalog, told me recently. "You're right. Nobody wanted to hear me."

Five Fun Posts About Social Media Experts

8 Questions to Ask Your "Social Media Expert" by Dave Fleet

What I Want a Social Media Expert to Know by Chris Brogan

10 Questions to Evaluate a Social Media 'Expert' by Ian Lurie

Is Your Social Media Really An Expert? by Peter Shankman

You're Not A Social Media Expert, You Idiot by Joel Mackey

Measuring Impact: Nielsen

In May 2008, fans of a cancelled television program, Jericho, dumped more than 4,000 pounds of peanuts on the doorstep of Nielsen Media Research. Shipping peanuts had become the statement of choice for the fans, who had secured a truncated second season after sending more than 20 tons to CBS.

But the nuts sent to Nielsen were different. The statement wasn't a call to action as much as it was a measure of their displeasure with the people who control what people watch based exclusively on the viewing habits of a shrinking few. They blame a flawed and antiquated rating system for the demise of the series. And they are not the only ones to feel that way.

This week, there was more talk about dumping. And this time, fans of television shows weren't talking. According to the New York Times, it is the owners of the four major broadcast networks; cable channel operators, including Viacom and Discovery; three of the country’s biggest-spending advertisers, Procter & Gamble, AT&T and Unilever; and two of the biggest advertising agency holding companies, GroupM and the Starcom MediaVest Group unit of the Publicis Groupe. And the conversation did not include dumping peanuts as much as it included dumping Nielsen.

Nielsen, which possesses a monopoly on the rating system for television, would not comment. It has been trying to prove its ability to catch up on the measurement curve for years, with plans that it once said would take five years or even a decade to execute.

But times have changed. It only took Facebook nine months to add 100 million members and Apple to celebrate 1 billion application downloads for the iPhone. In terms of communication, especially social media, we frequently talk in terms of what can be accomplished in 90 or 180 days. So it's no surprise that words from the CEO of Nielsen say old world to many of them.

"Innovation is a process," says Dave Calhoun. "And it has to be a well-defined process."

Translation: It will take a long time. And it may take long enough that the opening of his story in Fortune last year might not read as funny as it did then. Not much has changed. If anything, it has gotten worse outside and inside as indicated from this internal memo sent to employees after the Financial Times had broke the story (hat tip: James Hibberd's The Live Feed)...

"As you know, our Company is committed to measuring across all screens – known in the industry as “three screens”: television, computer and mobile – as part of our long-term strategy. Over the last three years, we’ve invested more than a billion dollars in research and development as part of this effort. As with all of our measurement science, we’re working closely with our clients, whose input and engagement has been consistent and constructive.

You may have read the Financial Times article published late last week, or the subsequent articles appearing in a number of publications over the weekend, about the potential formation of a new three-screen consortium. While our Company policy is not to respond to speculation or future announcements, we have been in direct contact with many of our clients, including some cited in the original article. Much of what was reported by the Financial Times remains unclear, and many of our clients are themselves looking for answers to questions raised by the story. What is clear, however, is that three-screen measurement is at the center of our strategy. Just as clear is the commitment of some of our largest clients who have recently renewed multi-year contracts with us for television, online, mobile and other measurement services.

We continue to move forward helping our clients understand and measure media consumption anytime, anywhere."

Of course, nobody would have understand media measurement if, you know, Nielsen could count everyone. You know, like Arbitron (no, not seriously).

Targeting Behavior: YuMe

Most advertisers are already familiar with YuMe for its video ad management platform. Basically, advertisers can purchase space — power rolls, click to videos, overlays, tickers, sponsorships, pre-roll, etc. — on video streams provided by more than 500+ publishers.

Earlier today, YuMe announced its new partnership with AutoTrader.com Access, which is another advertising network that targets automotive consumers specifically. But what we found interesting about the news isn't the partnership as much as the reasoning behind it — behavioral tracking.

Behavioral Tracking Places Qualitative Over Quantitative.

Forget all the buzz about who has the most friends and followers, online advertising is beginning its slow shift away from the number of impressions and toward qualitative measures that lead to qualified buyers. The shift in thinking could eventually hasten the decline in traditional media, which tends to focus on volume over value. In fact, according to YuMe, the partnership was forged because of the company's ability to leverage data about the viewers' browsing behaviors, search histories and video consumption habits.

For example, AutoTrader.com Access will now have the opportunity to target video ads to viewers who have recently searched and compared vehicle prices online or searched for a specific car make and model. The concept is simple enough: reaching people with a specific interest is more powerful than reaching someone within a specific demographic.

This comes at a time when online video viewing has reached a record high. According to comScore, Inc., more than 157 million U.S. Internet users watched an average of 124 online videos (each) totaling an average of 453 minutes during the month of June. This represents more than 81.2 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience. Additional data:

• 111.8 million viewers watched 7.6 billion videos on YouTube.com (67.9 videos per viewer).
• 53.6 million viewers watched 524 million videos on MySpace.com (9.8 videos per viewer).
• The average visitor to Hulu watched 10.1 videos, totaling more than an hour of videos per visitor.

There Is One Caution In Behavioral Tracking...

Much of it touches on demand fulfillment. Demand creation is something else, entirely.

Understanding Emotion: Branding Beats Banners

There are several studies related to neuroscience (not marketing) being conducted that marketing professionals and other communicators might consider following anyway. Both of these studies touch on long-standing advertising rules; Rule 3 and Rule 7, specifically.

Study 1: How Emotions Connect To Memory.

The first study is being conducted by researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. The intent is to develop treatments to prevent and treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, but the findings may also be important to understanding communication, emotions, and memories.

Specifically, the study is finding that Protein Kinase C (PKC) is activated through the release of norepinephrine. When norepinephrine and glutamate arrive together, PKC gives them permission to create stronger memories.

As Ashok Hegde, Ph.D., an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy and the lead investigator on the study, explains: when memory is stored in the brain, the connections between nerve cells, called synapses, change. Strong memories are formed when synapses become stronger through structural changes that occur at the synapse.

Where this may connect with communication is it helps demonstrate why some messages connect and others do not. A large amount of advertising, especially push marketing, never penetrates our natural filters because those messages never touch our emotional triggers (e.g., well-developed synapses), which represent some of our strongest memories.

Simply put, we tend to react to messages that are capable of piggybacking on established memories that help shape our emotions OR messages from a source (via a brand connection) that we already have an emotional attachment to. The latter exemplifies why social media works because our interaction with select people and companies creates emotional experiences (good, bad, or indifferent) and reinforces these synapses.

In the case of a banner ad, which generally doesn't have any emotional connection, for example, we mostly ignore it unless the person or company already has established a brand connection. Who knows? It might pinpoint why a company like McDonald's has such a powerful brand as it establishes and strengthens synapses throughout childhood.

Study 2: Why Interruption Advertising Is Losing Its Luster.

Meanwhile, neuroscientists at New York University are conducting some interesting studies on a group of monks and secular meditators to understand how our brains work. While the study is being conducted to better understand brain disorders such as stress, depression, Alzheimer’s, and autism, it may also unlock some practical applications for marketers and communicators.

Specifically, they are finding that average people are either conscious of the external world or their personal world (self-awareness), and alternate between the two. Scienceline describes the phenomenon by asking we "Imagine how concentrating on a situation in the present, like listening to a friend’s story or solving a math problem, can make you less self-aware — that is the pull of the external world. But then a lapse of focus creeps in, and you begin to wonder if you missed your doctor’s appointment this morning, or what you want to do on vacation next week — and you have felt the push into your inner world."

For marketers and communicators, the lesson to be learned is that if the goal is to reach the inner world then attempting to compete with an increasingly loud external world is much less effective. Using Scienceline's analogy, imagine several external world experiences competing for your attention. Some advertisers have come to believe that the only means to reach people is to create advertising that demands attention and some public relations professionals think that hyped news releases sell.

However, we know those tactics are not sustainable over the long term and, in general, do not reinforce a brand relationship. They cannot because they generally never reach people on an emotional level or break into the inner world. Specifically, the messages are being pushed at them.

This might also explain why social media tends to work well as a communication tool. People often search and find content because they begin with an inner world problem — they want to learn something, need to know something, etc. When they find the content, it tends to be more reflective and has a greater chance to establish an emotional bond. In a sense, that is the pull.

What do you think? Does communication that connects via the inner world have a much greater chance of creating an emotional experience that, in turn, stays in our memories much longer than interruption that commands our attention for a few moments of time? It seems to be.

Misspeaking Costs Credibility: Health Care

With more than $263 million already spent on lobbying for health care, surpassing spending on all other issues this year without including what AARP reports as $1 million per day on advertising (with the health care bill outspending opponents 2-to-1), there are plenty of problems that might already be solved in the United States. Add to this the untold costs of the President and other proponents traveling across the United States to push the plan, and sometimes with disastrous results.

"AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" — President Barack Obama

Except, AARP is not endorsing any bill. AARP is disgusted by all of it. And the misstatement of fact by the President, not once but several times, forced the silent observer to issue a correction to that statement.

"Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson said in a statement.

Polls also indicate that senior citizens largely disapprove of health care reform ideas so far. In fact, only 20 percent of seniors (and falling) believe any legislation currently proposed will improve their situation, and they represent the largest consumer of health care products in the United States with, in some cases, the most to lose. This is the worst news for the authors of the over-bloated legislation that touches areas that far exceed the intent of the sound bite almost all Americans agree on, especially the President who didn't misspeak once, but several times, in relation to health care.

"And that's one of the reasons that AARP is so supportive, because they see this as a way of potentially saving seniors a lot of money on prescription drugs. Okay? — President Barack Obama

No, not okay. Because AARP does not endorse any bill.

At the same time, that does not mean senior groups are thrilled with the overstatement of what part of one bill — "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.” — might mean. Again, sound bites are winning out over real solutions despite the fact that euthanasia and death panels are not specifically included in the bill.

But this blog isn't about health care. It's about communication. And the most recent example of miscommunication by the President, followed by the twisted remedy offered up by the White House press secretary.

"Well, the president said -- well, AARP has said they are certainly supportive and have been for years on comprehensive health reform. I don't think the president meant to imply anything untoward. I think he discussed the notion that AARP is supportive of -- or, I'm sorry, an agreement that would fund filling the doughnut hole for seniors as part of Medicare Part D, as well as additional savings for comprehensive health care reform." — Robert Gibbs

It's easy to see the spin in the sound bite as Gibbs reinforces the misstatement more than he offers up any clarification or correction such as either the President was unaware AARP isn't so supportive of a bill or he knowingly overreached. Gibbs then goes to add that "if you ask AARP this -- they have been supportive of comprehensive health care reform for a long time."

Not so right. The truth is most poll data reveals that 95 percent of Americans believe we need health care reform. What we don't agree on is how to do it. And what the majority of Americans are saying is that ANY existing bills being debated don't measure up. So while Gibbs can make that statement, it flies in the face of accuracy within the context.

Expect more of the same. As time wears on and these bills are bulldogged into some sort of misrepresentative statement such as "you're either for reform (and supporting this bill) or you are against it," we will see rhetoric become even thicker. Already, after the President, um, misspoke several times, the White House has decided to launch an e-mail campaign, supposedly to combat the increasingly "fishy" e-mails being pushed by people they describe as an angry mob.

Unfortunately, it seems, the so-called "angry mob" is also an overstatement in that it seems to consist of seniors, which leads many to believe that the political communication in this country is continuing its regression to a time when the rule of thumb: the message "must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Even, and/or especially, if it is not true.

The net result is not always the same as it used to be, however. Misspeak too many times, out of ignorance or intention, and erosion will set in sooner or later. And that seems to be the case with health care propaganda, er, public relations.