Accounting For Recovery: Chief Financial Officers

According to a fourth quarter survey conducted by Financial Executives International (FEI) and Baruch College's Zicklin School of Business, optimism in the economy is coming from what many would consider the least likely source: chief financial officers.

"CFOs overall closed 2009 with a much improved sense of optimism than when it began, but they are realistic about the challenges that still lay ahead," said John Elliott, dean of the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College. "CFOs are indicating that they have learned lessons from the downturn and can face the coming year looking forward to the opportunities at hand."

Highlights From The FEI/Baruch Survey.

• Net earnings expected to rise by 22 percent by the third quarter.
• Gross revenue anticipated to grow by 10 percent this year.
• Technology spending anticipated to increase by 6.1 percent.
• Inventory anticipated to increase by 2.5 percent, reversing reductions.
• Prices are expected to increase by 1.13 percent this year.

Where CFOs are more reserved is on employment. Nearly nine out of ten CFOs reported they are looking for efficiencies over new employees. Two-thirds said they would invest in technology; one-third said they planned additional restructuring.

Companies seem hesitant to hire new employes for several reasons, including cost containment (uncertainty of future costs associated with new employees); an increased emphasis on public perception (slower, more manageable growth); a shift from growth-orientation toward leadership-orientation (restructuring to serve a smaller, affluent base); and concerns over the current government administration. Sixty-four percent said the U.S. economic outlook has weakened since Obama took office.

What It Might Mean For Communication.

Another study, conducted by integrated marketing services provider Alterian, found more than 66 percent of marketing professionals would be shifting more than 20 percent of their direct marketing budgets toward social media. However, the same survey reveals most companies are still unsure of how to implement a social media program, with only 7 percent of companies making a significant effort toward multichannel customer engagement.

“2010 marks the start of the digital decade for marketing," said Alterian CEO David Eldridge. "Untargeted and irrelevant marketing techniques are now redundant and the results of this survey show many in the industry recognize this."

There are two takeaways from this post today. First, communication professionals at larger companies might invest more time expanding a dialogue with their CFOs to develop communication points that may boost employee morale. Second, while most marketing trends point to social media, it produces fewer results unless those efforts are integrated in traditional marketing and executed with customer engagement.

Absorbing Attitudes: Environmental Influences

At the end of World War II and again in the 1960s, environmental psychology became an increasingly popular field of study as shifts in society seemed to suggest that "nearby nature" affects people's mental and physical health. There are several reoccurring themes in the research (De Young, R., 1999, Encyclopedia of Environmental Science).

Common areas of interest within environmental psychology.

• Attention. How voluntary (things we want to notice) and involuntary (things that distract us) stimuli affect people.
• Perception. How cognitive maps recall past experiences associated with present events, ideas, and emotions.
• Environments. How people seek out and interact with places where they feel comfortable and confident.
• Environmental stress. How prolonged uncertainty, lack of predictability, and stimulus overload impact people.
• Participation. How involving people in design processes can contribute to feeling comfortable and confident.
• Conservation. How attitudes, perceptions, and values influence people toward an ecologically sustainable society.

My interest in the area of psychology was a result of working with my son on his science project. He placed two white carnations in each of three vases, and then added food coloring to two of them (leaving the third untouched as a control). The experiment was to test his hypothesis that the white carnations would adopt the color of the dyed water. They did, which opened an analogy that some people are familiar with (even when they are called by other names).

Tony Robbins includes it as his first of five keys to thrive in 2010, saying how important it is to feed your mind with positive messages and influences.

Harvard Business Review promoted the concept today by reintroducing emotional intelligence, a topic field I enjoy writing about under social intelligence.

There are countless studies that suggest children are prone to adopt parental behaviors, e.g., children of fit parents tend to exercise; children of parents who read tend to read; children who are abused have a greater tendency to become abusive; and so on and so forth. (However, the impact of nurturing depends greatly upon how individual children develop cognitive maps).

Unless we are vigilant in preserving self-awareness, we tend to adopt what we're exposed to.

In general, much like the carnations, we tend to be influenced by the information we absorb. In some cases, much like the carnations, we might not even notice those subtle veins of green or red. We're influenced (unless purposely uninfluenced) nonetheless.

In fact, it probably underpins another new study released a few weeks ago. Right now, only 45 percent of Americans are satisfied with their jobs. Fewer workers say they like their co-workers. And fewer workers like their bosses.

The lesson might be three-fold for anyone who wants to pursue it.

As individuals, we might pay attention to media we consume or groups we associate with as it can make a difference (which might be why the iPad speech seemed more palatable than the President's). As leaders, we might be especially cognitive as influencers over the teams we manage. And as organizational communicators, we might consider whether those messages help people become more confident as it could have a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of the communication.

Setting Agendas: Apple iPad Trumps Presidential Address

A few days ago, Slate published what might have happened yesterday on if Steve Jobs would have delivered the State of the Union address as opposed to President Obama. Dubbed "The iState of the Union Speech" and penned by Christopher Beam and Josh Levin, the transcript provides a fun read.

Hmmm. Maybe it's more than a fun read. Internet trending last night suggests people seemed more attuned to Jobs's launch of the wildly anticipated iPad, despite criticisms, than President Obama delivering the State of the Union address. My friend Geoff Livingston had this on his mind last night.

"Only in America can the iPad and Lost trump the State of the Union. Think about that," he wrote on Facebook. Okay...

It's not America. It's communication.

Jobs opened with an emphasis on words like "better," "going," and "enjoying" as he delivered what could be summed up as a window into the future. And, if the iPad does everything Apple says it can do, the future looks to be a mere one step away from what we suggested it might be last week. Except, maybe it won't be docks that connect everything as much as WiFi.

“iPad is our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price,” said Jobs. “iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices that will connect users with their apps and content in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before.”

President Obama opened with an emphasis on words like "disagreements," "recession," and "fears" as he delivered what could be summed up as a glimpse of what he would like to do, which is what most Americans thought he ought to have been doing all along. Those were the same kind of words that he associated with the previous administration, which allowed him to call for change. But nowadays, those words only reinforce the feeling associated with his administration.

"Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow," said President Obama. "From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."

The choice seemed clear enough. One speech focuses on the next step. The other focuses on what might be three steps ahead. One speech focuses on what Apple is doing. The other focuses on what America should be doing. One accepts responsibility for moving forward. The other asks for other people to move forward.

Sure, equating a hardware launch to the State of the Union is comparing apples to oranges. And yet, when both compete for the attention of Americans, people didn't tune in to one and tune out another because one is fun and seems serious. They tuned in to talk about one because it represents everything the other didn't deliver — innovation as opposed to limitation.

It might be worthwhile to make other comparisons. Jeffrey Hill created word clouds between last night's State Of The Union and previous presidencies. At a glance, one notable difference between last night's speech and other presidents: President Obama seems to place the emphasis on the American people to do something to move forward whereas others placed an emphasis on what they were going to do to help the American people move forward.

Maybe Christopher Beam and Josh Levin's piece in Slate wasn't such a bad idea after all. Jobs might have made us feel better about the direction of things because Jobs would have been the priority 12 months ago.

Changing Paradigms: At What Point Does PR Become Marketing?

Do modern public relations professionals need to become quasi-celebrity spokespeople?

Karthik S, head of digital strategy, Edelman India, seems to think so. Last year, he wrote a post to convey the point, suggesting that public relations professionals that manage social media outlets on behalf of clients have an opportunity to "be the client."

The discussion evolved from a post that shared one possible model to integrate social media and public relations into a PR-driven communication plan.

I understand Karthik's point. Eighty percent of public relations professionals see social media as a key focus in 2010. And the concept, for public relations to move beyond providing mutually beneficial communication between the organization and various publics and toward providing mutually beneficial communication for themselves and the organizations they serve, has ample popularity and several living examples to propel it forward.

Right or wrong, a significant percentage of public relations professionals believe the field is moving in a direction where public relations professionals take center stage to communicate direct to hundreds or thousands of "fans" on behalf of select clients (preferably those who attract more fans), and that sheer temporary loyalty and enthusiasm from those fans will influence the mainstream media. Is that modern public relations or old school propaganda?

How media relations is sometimes misunderstood and undervalued.

I was reminded this morning of how media relations once worked, and still does in some cases. An objective reporter called a public relations professional after receiving an invitation to a groundbreaking of a public facility. The reporter had a preconceived hypothesis, wondering whether it was prudent for government to open a facility given the economy.

Many people can surmise where such a story was headed. It was meant to be a government waste piece.

But rather than develop a list of counterpoints and credible allies within the community, the public relations professional simply invited the reporter out to the facility. There, he spoke to patrons, employees, and later called various government officials. He asked tough questions.

The public relations professional laid out the facts bare, allowing the reporter to draw his own conclusions. And when the story ran, the reporter had shifted the direction of the story, more or less using the facility as an example of prudent government action that fulfilled the needs of the community as opposed to another example of misappropriation.

The public relations professional didn't need to spin the story, angle for more fans, or pitch another piece (for another client). She merely had to be authentic, engaging, and make it easier for the reporter to assess the facts. Likewise, the reporter, a seasoned professional, didn't need to validate the original hypothesis for himself, his readers, or any other party. Instead, he reported the truth.

For the public reading the piece, there is no other story. They won't suddenly feel compelled rush to the computer to friend or follow her, even if she was quoted. Her focus had clarity: serve both the reporter and the organization, no fanfare needed.

And at the same time, the community was treated to one of those rare examples when government was caught doing the right thing instead of trying to spin the story to appear right. (If only the federal government could learn such a lesson.)

Modern public relations infused with marketing changes the paradigm.

Imagine what might have happened with unnecessary layers of agenda.

The public relations professional would be charged with making themselves and the company look good, with the measure being how many more followers they might add at the end of the day. The journalist would be charged with making themselves and the publisher look good, validating whatever hypothesis their subscribers expect.

While that premise does not preclude the truth from being part of the equation, it certainly changes the objectives of those involved. It suggests that we never mind the facts, but focus on public opinion and build influence by pretending to follow the crowd. And, nothing builds the modern measure of "influence" faster than validating the opinions of others.

Even today, while listening to a webinar by Gaetan Giannini, assistant professor at Cedar Crest College, I noted that a shift in public relations at the university level seems to be driving public relations professionals to become marketers via social media. Giannini even suggested it be called Marketing Public Relations (MPR).

While MPR is still reliant on "connectors" (which adds bloggers to mainstream media), it also overemphasizes pushing specific messages to increase visibility and build the identity of the organization or product. And this begs a question. At what point is public relations no longer public relations, but rather spokesperson marketing?

And if spokesperson marketing becomes the definition of modern public relations, then the next question to ask is what happens to the truth?

In the more traditional media relations/objective reporter scenario, the truth seemed to be the priority for everyone. But in this new MPR model (especially if professionals act as quasi celebrity connectors/influencers), the truth seems secondary to the popularity and perceived credibility of the public relations professional. In fact, it might not even matter.

Being McNaughty: McDonalds v. McFest

Lauren McClusky, 19, raised more than $30,000 for the Chicago chapter of the Special Olympics by hosting a series of McFest concerts in 2007 and 2008. In 2009, she had to use those funds for attorney fees after McDonald's Corp. laid claim to all things "Mc."

It doesn't matter that McClusky's mark, which was filed in June 2008, and published for opposition in February 2009, bears no resemblance to the golden arches. McDonald's has taken the position that "McFest" is similar enough to the brand name McDonald's and its family of 'Mc' trademarks that it is likely to cause confusion under trademark standards and/or dilute its valuable trademark rights.

Based on the illustrations above, it seems to be a slow day for McDonald's attorneys. Primarily in the last ten years, McDonald's has indeed filed dozens of trademark applications for "Mc" names and various combinations with the letter "M." Many of those names (such as McPick, McMax, MCDTV, McMiracle Field) are all dead; cancelled or abandoned. So what makes this one different?

"We have made several attempts to resolve this matter amicably, because we recognize this event is for charity fund-raising," said Ashlee Yingling, spokesperson for McDonalds, in a statement to NBC Chicago. "We have offered to help the event organizers cover costs in selecting a new name for their event; we have suggested other variations of this word that they could use."

Unrelated names don't dilute brands, but poorly thought out legal action might.

The majority of stories and posts centered on this trademark scuffle are largely negative, especially in Chicago. The Consumerist asks Are all things "Mc," automatically McDonald's? The Chicago Sun-Times points out that McDonald's has deep pockets for a legal fight. And Market Watch might have investors wondering why MCD would waste potential McDividends.

That is not to say all the stories are negative. The Legal Satyricion sides with the corporate claim, arguing that McDonald's has not filed to prevent the name from being used. It merely filed an opposition to McClusky’s attempt to secure a trademark registration for “McFest.” Boo hoo McClusky, they said.

While it is a good point (and I'm not an attorney), the opposition could become boo hoo for McDonald's. A ruling against the opposition, which could happen given McClusky's name also has an "Mc" and she is not entering a competing service (like a restaurant chain), potentially opens the doors for more "Mc" usage, not less.

At minimum, there is that public relations cost to consider. While companies have every right to protect their brands, it seems to me that the only one making the connection that McFest would have anything to do with McDonald's is McDonald's. And now, because of the publicity around the opposition, the company has created the implication that the two are somehow connected. They weren't.

So, legal questions aside, one has to wonder whether McDonald's is diluting its own brand at a time when it is much more prudent to keep focusing on those fourth quarter profits (up 23 percent). It could have been just as easy to allow "MC FEST," which was limited to a company organizing, arranging, conducting, and producing concerts and live events, to peacefully coexist. And, given the charity, McDonald's may have elevated the brand by eventually supporting the teen.

Shopping For Moms: Retail Turns To The Net

A recent analysis of moms in the marketplace, All About Moms: A RAMA/BIGresearch Initiative, solidifies the growing importance of social media among B2C businesses. In some ways, social networks and social media sites are evolving to become the content-connection-catalog-coupon books.

"Retailers who aren’t engaging customers through social media could be missing the boat,” said Mike Gatti, executive director for RAMA. “Twitter, Facebook and blogs are becoming increasingly popular with moms as they search for coupons or deals and keep in touch with loved ones. The web provides efficient, convenient ways for brands to stay in front of their most loyal shoppers and attract new ones.”

According to the survey, surfing the Internet and checking e-mail was was on par with watching television while other media consumption such as listening to the radio, reading a magazine, reading the newspaper ranked considerably lower among weekly media usage. In fact, moms tend to be more engaged online than 18+ adults, outpacing the general population on regularly and occasionally participating on social networks and blogs.

Moms Social Network Preference

• 60 percent of moms use Facebook; 50 percent 18+ adults
• 42 percent use MySpace; 35 percent 18+ adults
• 16.5 percent use Twitter; 15 percent 18+ adults

Moms Read, Post, And Maintain Blogs

• 51 percent read blogs; 46 percent 18+ adults
• 28 percent comment on blogs; 23 percent 18+ adults
• 15 percent maintain their own blogs; 13 percent 18+ adults

More significant than the raw numbers themselves, 97.2 percent of moms said they give advice to others about products or services and are very likely to seek it, with 93.6 percent saying they ask advice before making their final decision. Sharing advice tends to take place on social networks.

While moms tend to be more tech engaged than the general public, it does not mean they welcome intrusive marketing. A large majority (66.5%) consider text message marketing and voicemail marketing an invasion of privacy. They prefer product samples to be mailed, but in-store samples tend to have more influence.

The survey also ranked popular cable networks, magazines, and newspapers. The study was released by The Retail Advertising and Marketing Association, which is a trade association representing over 1,500 retail companies and their advertising and marketing executives. The full study is available from the National Retail Foundation.

Three Related Conversations About Moms And Marketing

• Marketing to Moms on Facebook Report by Holly Buchanan

• Is Your Marketing On Target For Young Moms by Karen Corrigan

• Marketing To Moms, Marketing With Moms by Kim Moldofsky