Considering Civility: Does It Matter?

Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate, in partnership with KRC Research, recently released the results of their second annual "Civility in America" poll, which asked 1,000 American adults to assess attitudes towards civility online, in the workforce, in the classroom, and in politics.

According to the survey, Americans are trending away from uncivil behavior and rude treatment, especially among companies and politicians. Even more compelling, consumers are increasingly likely to share uncivil behavior with an expressed intent to sway others away from the offender.

How Civility Affects Buying, Behavior, And Other Choices.

• 69 percent decided not to purchase from a company after an uncivil experience (up from 56 percent).

• 69 percent re-evaluated their opinion of a company because the tone was uncivil (up from 55 percent).

• 67 percent said that they would not vote for a candidate who they believe is uncivil (new question).

• 58 percent advised friends, etc. not to buy products after a rep was rude or uncivil (up from 49 percent).

• 49 percent have defriended someone on Facebook because their behavior was uncivil (up from 45 percent).

• 38 percent have stopped going to a site after they concluded that the tone was uncivil (no change).

• 27 percent have dropped a community or forum after the tone became less civil (up from 25 percent).

• 20 percent have quit a job because the workplace was uncivil (new question).

• 11 percent have transferred their children to a new school because of uncivility (new question).

The survey also found that more than one-half of Americans believe that civility in America is getting worse (up from 39 percent last year). Workplace leadership is blamed for a decline in civility (65 percent) in the workplace, with most respondents believing their bosses set the wrong tone during the recession. Fellow coworkers aren't far behind, with 59 percent of respondents blaming coworkers for the increase in bad behavior.

Workplace competitiveness and the economy were significantly lower, perhaps signaling that people recognize that uncivil behavior is a personal choice. As a consequence, respondents said that there is a greater need for civility training in the workplace.

"Asked about the civility of social networks, nearly one in two (49 percent) say that they are uncivil, an increase from 2010 (43 percent)," the report states. "However, Americans are much more inclined to name other sources besides social media and the Internet as uncivil — political campaigns, pop culture, media, government, the music industry, and the American public [for example]."

Chris Perry, president of Weber Shandwick Digital Communications, suggested that digital conversations are meant to engage and foster multi-dimensional dialogue rather than demean others or be hurtful. However, the survey indicated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe that cyber bullying is getting worse, especially among teens.

Along with growing uncivility in schools, online, and workplaces, a previous study conducted by the firm indicates that politics has become significantly less civil, increasing from 59 percent to 74 percent since 2008.

Discourse over diatribe.

I've always maintained that there is a healthy difference between criticism and cynicism, discourse and diatribe. With either word combination, the difference is that one tends to try to make things better while sticking to the topic; the other tries to tear things down, including the topic, subject, and anything nearby.

Over the last few years, the public (at least in this survey) seems to be recognizing that the difference between the two has all but evaporated. Nowadays, it's not only about winning but also making the other side lose and lose badly. Where some people might improve is taking a more objective view in that both sides (not just the other side) are driving the uncivil attacks.

Personally, I sometimes theorize that politics tends to set the tone of the country. Beyond politics, these same people also set the tone for government, which spills into business leadership and the greater workforce with un-customer-centic leaders creating hostility between employees and the consumers they need to keep the doors open.

But that's only a theory. It's equally true that each of us has a choice of what we engage in, criticism or cynicism, regardless of tone. Communicators are best advised to find the middle ground, listening carefully and thoughtfully to criticism (as opposed to ignoring disagreement as some social media experts have recently adopted) while not falling prey to cynics that will never be satisfied.

Sometimes it's best to let those people vent publicly, because they say more about themselves than your company as long as you remain civil. Because more than any other issue, civility obviously matters.

Playing Well: General Mills Pulls Yoplait Ad

If anyone is wondering (and some people are) why there won't be the same level of ridicule lobbed at General Mills over a Yoplait yogurt commercial as there was lobbed at Motrin over a back pain medicine commercial three years ago, it is because of precisely why the Motrin ad failed.

The Motrin ad made poked snarky fun at "baby-wearing" customers. General Mills simply understood dieters, maybe too well.

General Mills promptly pulled the commercial after some women and the National Eating Disorders Association said the spot promotes disordered thinking about food. So General Mills, with no defense (other than mentioning most people didn't see it that way) thought it best to take it down. The event was handled near perfectly, making it a non-event.

The commercial, which featured a woman attempting to justify her decision to have a piece of cheesecake, does almost flawlessly capture how some dieters consider food decisions (with one or two lines becoming a bit more playful). And then offers a solution — cheesecake flavored yogurt.


Overall, the advertisement is pretty harmless. And some people have questioned whether General Mills needed to pull the ad.

Technically, General Mills probably didn't need to pull it (unless we now fault commercials for capturing truisms), but it was smart that they did. The complaints were originally raised by people within a target audience. And that's the point, even if the complaint seems somewhat contrived.

What General Mills did right.

• It thoughtfully listened to the complaints, in particular the National Eating Disorders Association.

• It didn't elevate the issue by arguing the point, becoming overtly apologetic, or downplaying any concerns.

• It removed the commercial, being careful to note that it may take longer to pull the ad in some markets.

Unlike the Motrin ad three years ago, it seems much more plausible that General Mills would have never seen this one coming. It is patently clear they are not attempting to make fun of the woman who ultimately chooses yogurt as a solution. They also handled the potential crisis with a clear head, and the National Eating Disorders Association is now asking its members to write letters of appreciation. (They even have a sample letter.)

Since the ad was pulled, there has been some sliver of push back because some consumers feel it is ludicrous for companies to pull ads targeted by special interest groups. Specifically, some have said people need to take responsibility for their weight issues. While it's good these people appreciate that marketing is not to blame for eating problems, it's equally good that General Mills appreciates its customers. And that's what it is all about.

Nobody really wants to run a commercial that makes some of its customers uncomfortable, especially with a longstanding customer-conscious reputation like the one established by General Mills. It's an especially smart move by the company, given it just recently acquired a 51 percent controlling interest in Yoplait S.A.S. Original Yoplait, by the way, has two times the calcium of the leading yogurt and 50 percent of the daily value in every cup. Its cheesecake flavor has 170 calories, with 15 from fat.

Related reactions from around the Web.

• Does this commercial encourage eating disorders? by Lylah M. Alphonse.
• Concerns over ED triggers cause Yoplait to pull their latest ad by Bree.
•  Yoplait Pulls Ad Accused Of Promoting Eating Disorders by Margaret Hartmann.

Clicking For Leadership: Illusionary Democracies

As influence ranks and scoring systems continue to creep into social networks, there is an interesting shift in how people are defining online leadership. In some cases, the same people who sought to tear down authoritarian styles are erecting a similar model based on varied sets of algorithms.

While I've often considered the definition more complex than the organizational leadership model developed by psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1930s, his model works well enough to illustrate the shift. In order to better explain management, Lewin broke out leadership styles into three primary categories: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.

What early social media entrants aimed to do with blogs and social networks.

Initially, the early adopters who wanted to create a more social net, frequently pointed to and even took aim at what they considered an authoritarian role of various fields. Specifically, many saw big companies, widely-read journalists, and educators as disconnected from the masses they served (or lorded over, as some suggested).

In the Lewin models, he saw autocratic leaders set clear expectations for what needed to be done. These leaders would make decisions with very little input and expected their sphere of influence to follow their lead. From the perspective of early social media entrants, they were controlling and even abusive.

Since the authoritative types were among the last to enter social media (and some still have no desire to do so), it was relatively easy for entrants to call for a revolution. Specifically, they wanted to develop a social model more accustomed to how they viewed government (at least in the United States) — participative like a democratic society.

In a democratic model, new leaders could offer guidance to their group members with each individual member deciding how much they wanted to support their "thought leadership." Ideally, this allowed for new voices to be elevated for their perceived contributions to other early entrants. It worked too, for awhile.

Many even advise adopting this model for businesses today. The general concept is to create environments where customers feel engaged in the process and are more motived, sometimes even promoting the group or organization for the relationship.

What early social media entrants aimed to do with blogs and social networks.

A few years ago, as social networks helped move social media into the mainstream, scalability forced the early social media entrants toward a delegation style of leadership, which Lewin called laissez-faire leadership. The new entrants en masse didn't know what to do.

So they tended to latch onto perceived leaders and were satisfied promoting them without making other contributions (much like a tribe) or perhaps building networks of their own. This was an immediate boon for some of the early entrants because as teachers, they were able to position one-person consultancies as the leaders of online environments.

Perhaps ironically however, laissez-faire leadership isn't as productive and eventually the followers learn on their own. In some cases, longtime leaders in one space were either being left behind or continually threatened for two reasons. First, democratic models do not always ensure you will remain at the top. And second, laissez-faire leadership may be loved by novices but begins to look more authoritative over time.

How algorithms create the illusion of democracies, with a new authoritative construct.

Most algorithms that measure authority or perceived influence on the Web are based on a combination of three components: activity, popularity, and perceived authority (as a byproduct of the first two). In lieu of education, experience, or expertise, it's based on network size and mention frequency.

Some companies (and social network consultants) won't even respond to people who do not have a specific score, thereby creating a new authoritative anomaly that's largely invented. In one experiment, for example, I created a separate social network account and drove its "influence" score beyond my personal account in the matter of a week. High volume alone spiked the score, but once it hit a certain rank then people blindly followed the account.

While that can become an issue, it seems to me the greater challenge is two-fold. Publics, online or off, have a tendency to erect authoritative structures. And second, those who achieve such status are inclined to protect it, even if they were the ones who were outspoken about the last authoritative structure. It's a cycle of sorts, and frequently occurs even within the most valued democracies.

Marketing Integration: More Than A To Do List

Sometimes I read something and it makes my head hurt. (Not really, I only wrote that for effect.) Eric Brown nearly did that with his post on un-integrating marketing.

"As of late I have found myself trying to be closer to the center, saying such things as you need an integrated marketing approach," he wrote on Social Media Explorer. "I think that is a mistake."

And then he goes on to suggest that we ought to all be asking: “What marketing venue or platform are you going to stop doing, before you start doing social media marketing?" And there's the problem. Integrated communication or integrated marketing has absolutely nothing to do with how many things a marketing department (and other departments) does.

It has more to do with developing a fluid plan on how to best achieve the strategic intent of the organization, usually with a set of priorities and then making sure the messages fit within some sort of context. Does anyone appreciate the difference?

The Un-Integrated Approach To Marketing And Public Relations.

I've sat in countless marketing meetings. The traditional approach — non-integrated — is simple enough. Everyone gathers around the table and reports on what they are doing.

"We're running a contest to get more Facebook friends," says the social media expert.

"We've successfully placed a story on how our CEO likes horses," says the public relations representative.

"We put together our projections for the next quarter to boost share prices," says investor relations.

"We're asking employees to donate canned goods for the local shelter," says community relations.

"We just finished the latest creative campaign and are making media buys. It's cool, wait until you see the fish," says the ad guy.

"We just mailed out 100,000 letters with coupons and anticipate a 1.2 percent return," exclaims the direct response ninja.

"Okay, I get direct response. But what does any of the rest of it have to do with sales?" grumbles the marketing guy. "We need a bigger sales force and a big tent sale."

And the list goes on, without anybody considering what is really happening. Multiple departments, in house or not, are running multiple objectives, almost none of which line up with what the organization does or differentiates itself in the market.

Social media is gathering fans. Public relations is placing stories. Investor relations is keeping people happy. Community relations makes people feel good. The creative department is driving awareness. Direct response is playing the odds. And marketing is trying to increase conversation rates (or whatever). That's a lot of objectives. Too many. And all of them have to do with disciplines, not what the company actually does.

The Integrated Approach To Communication Is Different.

Instead of playing round robin, various departments come together to discuss their top ideas on how to best communicate the objectives of the organization. It could be a product launch or perhaps something more generalized like becoming the subject matter expert in the space (hint: possibly because that's part of the company's mission).

Whatever. Let's say it's a product launch (to keep things simple).

The advertising department creates a campaign to launch the product, one that reinforces the unique selling proposition developed by marketing out of customer focus groups and other research. Social media says they will share the campaign (and any media mentions) across various networks and offer a product sample to select fans and friends.

Public relations sends the product out to various reviewers, but also sees an opportunity to partner with related organizations as stakeholders. Community relations supports the idea, suggesting 1 percent of sales could even benefit a nonprofit with which the organization is strategically aligned.

Direct response, rather than sending coupons, suggests that they vet their database after the initial campaign launch, targeting customers who would be interested but don't take action on the campaign. Marketing suggests that all these ideas are solid enough; the marketing department will brief all the salespeople so they can answer any questions online and off.

Investor relations agrees that it all sounds great, and is already working on a separate announcement that ties the campaign to beating analyst projections in the next quarter. That makes everyone happy, especially because they all have shares in the company.

You don't even have to ask what this approach might do for sales. Assuming the product isn't a flop, it would drive sales.

That's integrated communication. That's integrated marketing. And if the communication teams are doing anything but that, then they are wasting the marketing budget.

If more organizations did this, then fewer would ever have to consider the Stop Doing List that excited Brown. You don't need a "stop doing list" because the most expedient way to prevent useless tasks from getting on the to do list is to always make sure they line up with the strategic goals of the organization in the first place. That requires integration.

Even more importantly, integrated communication (or integrated marketing if you prefer) keeps everyone moving in the same direction with specific (but flexible) messages. Given that people are already exposed to enough messages every day to fill one or two novels, the chance they will remember more than one or two messages about your organization is miniscule. And for many organizations, if they even remember one it is an accomplishment.

None of this is designed to take away from Brown's considerable insights; it's only meant to elevate the discussion. And perhaps that discussion needs to be that there is only one consistency in communication. Most people define terms so differently that they don't always mean what they are saying in social media even when they think they do.

Branding Reversals: Just Call It Something Else?

According to a University of South Carolina study in the Journal of Consumer Research, marketers have an easier time misleading dieters with product names. Dieters, the study concludes, rate food items with healthy names such as "salad" as being healthier than those with less healthy names such as "pasta" even when the foods are identical.

"The fact that people's perceptions of healthfulness vary with the name of the food item isn't surprising," Dr. Caglar Irmak, an assistant professor of marketing at the Darla Moore School of Business, said. "What is interesting is that dieters, who try to eat healthy and care about what they eat, fell into these 'naming traps' more than non-dieters who really don't care about healthy eating."

For example, when study participants were given a choice between the same candy labeled "fruit chew" and "candy chew," dieters perceived the candy named fruit chew as more healthful than the one named candy chew. They also ate more candies when the items were called fruit chews (versus candy chews).

Dieters avoid forbidden foods based on product names.

Where marketers take advantage of dieters is in the naming of foods. Specifically, researchers said a salad may include items that dieters typically would avoid (meat, cheese, bread or pasta); milkshakes listed as "smoothies;" potato chips called "veggie chips;" and sugary drinks labeled "flavored water."

"These results should give dieters pause. The study shows that dieters base their food decisions on the name of the food item instead of the ingredients of the item," Irmak said. "As a result, they may eat more than what their dieting goals prescribe."

He said non-dieters are equally prone to make bad choices. They tend to miss cues that imply healthfulness, including names, because of their lack of focus on healthy eating.

Heightened awareness opens the doors for double-sided branding.

While not included in the study, the article that will be published in the August issue of the Journal of Consumer Research hits a home run in better understanding the nature of branding and why consumers are sometimes duped into choosing the exact opposite of what they are seeking.

For example, prior to the Gulf Coast oil spill, consumers considered BP one of the top energy providers in renewable energy. Johnson & Johnson secured a position as placing medical safety first until recent actions eroded the brand. Susan G. Komen for the Cure was a frontrunner in reputation until bad decisions undermined its credibility.

However, prior to brand erosion, the brands benefited from word associations whether or not they were delivering on the brand promise. Consumers with a heightened sense of need (clean energy, safe medicine, breast cancer) seldom vet their purchasing decisions, referrals, or recommendations. Instead, they rely on prevailing word associations — much like dieters assume salads are healthy — in order to make purchasing decisions.

Conversely, consumers without a heightened area of interest are less likely to be swayed by such word associations attached to brands and brand names. In fact, it's very likely the increased information overload could be forcing people to rely less on evidence and more on simple and sometimes erroneous word associations that are conditioned by friends and self-selected information streams. Ant that is some real food for thought.

Failing At Mitigation: Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson is embroiled in what may be the crisis communication dilemma of the year. You would never know it from their Website. Instead, you'll see a huge section that details how much they care about people.

At the same time, Johnson & Johnson has made a dramatic shift in its communication strategy since the days it delivered a best practice in crisis management for Tylenol in 1982. Instead of being at the forefront of product safety, it is patently less aggressive about product safety related to its other assets.

Specifically, although Johnson & Johnson lends its legal team to assist the court cases being lobbied at Motrin, its once stellar reputation for communication doesn't seem to cover McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which markets the Motrin brand. The Motrin brand is in a communication firestorm. Its Fort Washington plant was suspended in connection with the recall of infants’ and children’s liquid over-the-counter (OTC) products manufactured there. There are other problems with the Motrin brand.

Can a company wear a black and white hat in medicine?

Even more current, Johnson & Johnson is reveling in praise for new labeling on acetaminophen products while simultaneously poised to fight a settlement and labeling related to another tragic story mentioned last week.

The company's argument seems to be that the Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/Tens) experienced by several children in the last few years after taking Motrin doesn't warrant warnings let alone responsibility. They contend it is too isolated. Ironically, it also flies in the face of their 1982 best practice in crisis management.

Back then, Johnson & Johnson revised medication safety because of an isolated incident that affected nine people in Chicago. The company didn't even have any responsibility for that atrocity and it stepped up. But now, when it seems to be responsible, it is willing to invest considerable funds to fight.

Likewise, in the unrelated phantom recall of Motrin products two years ago, McNeil Consumer Healthcare apparently tried to cover up the recall by repurchasing product but not calling for a recall. The result could have led to dangerous products being left out in the marketplace. Johnson & Johnson is fighting that lawsuit too.

Crisis management in the world of multi-brands.

Johnson & Johnson is hardly alone in creating massive companies with multiple brands that most consumers miss on the surface. The question crisis management teams need to start asking themselves is, despite the various degrees of separation, can a corporate parent really afford to play two sides against the middle anymore?

Isn't this the same argument that BP attempted to make during the Gulf Coast oil spill with the incessant blame game? That the lead company was somehow exempt from responsibility if the contractors under its watch were about to make a historic environmental catastrophe.

Like it or not, consumers are connecting the dots with more and more frequency. Companies are held accountable for employee actions. Companies are held accountable for contractor actions. So doesn't it stand to reason that subsidiaries are also accountable?

Ergo, don't consumers deserve to hear better words from attorneys representing a Johnson & Johnson company that “McNeil complied with every federal regulation and that’s what the proof is.”

Mitigation is the single most important aspect of crisis communication.

Under normal circumstances, maybe not. But given Johnson & Johnson has invested billions of shareholder dollars to appear like it is the absolute leader in pharmaceutical customer safety, Johnson & Johnson is risking one of its greatest assets, a brand name that managed to escape increased scrutiny after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics two years ago.

In considering the four basic tenets of disaster planning, Johnson & Johnson is continuing to fall short in the area where it was always the strongest. Mitigation focuses on long-term measures to reduce or eliminate risk. It considers more than whether a company "can" win a case. It considers what is lost when a company does win a case.

In this situation, when you add up the court cases, future court cases, immediate public relations damage, and long-term brand damage versus a few settlements, relabeling costs (for a product not even on the market right now), and a physician education campaign, it seems to me Johnson & Johnson is reacting instead of taking the kind of proactive safety measures it used to be known for at great cost. Much more than $10 million. Much more than $1 billion. Much more than $10 billion.

The inherent weakness in the decisions being made at Johnson & Johnson regarding Motrin may even reinforce why a toothless public relations division is not necessarily the best division to handle crisis management. They all too often focus on minimizing publicity damage instead of considering the big picture of brand position. Likewise, lawyers aren't always the best crisis management leaders either. Some of them are too busy framing up crisis management cases in terms of whether it is winnable or not.

To make it work, companies need balanced crisis management teams that can objectivity assess the problems before them. And, if public relations is placed in charge of more than a crisis communication team, then they need to be (at least) empowered and given equal consideration as the legal team. Of course, this also assumes the PR team has enough crisis training. Most of them do not.

At Johnson & Johnson, the growing crisis ought be to handled much like an employee incident. Johnson & Johnson needs to scrub McNeil Consumer Healthcare of executives who allow the worst to happen. And, if they cannot manage themselves as a division, the company might consider folding the Motrin brand into its Johnson & Johnson brand. Of course, all this assumes Johnson & Johnson wants to maintain its reputation as a leader in consumer safety, an asset it once spent billions to create.

One wonders what Robert Wood Johnson might think. He was the former chairman (1932-1963) who crafted the company's credo before anybody ever heard the terms corporate social responsibility and a moral compass. What happened?