Universal Broadband “While the US talks, other countries are acting. Both Finland and Spain have now decided to add ‘broadband’ to their universal [telephone] service requirements.
"By 2011, any Finn or Spaniard, no matter where they live, should be able to get a reliable 1Mbps connection at a reasonable price,” ars technical.com reports.
Social Media Series Posts "Social Media: Promise & Peril" is a continuing series intended to help business communicators find value in social media for their companies and their stakeholders.
Our social media insights appear in two parts.
1. Regular post pages on the edit30.com blog, where each article is identified by the series logo. You can collect all of these articles using the "Search edit30" feature above — simply search "social media."
2. Additionally, we provide other shorter insights on a separate page, which can be accessed by clicking on the "Social Media" button in the top of this page.
All edit30.com articles are protected by copyright. For reuse permission, contact us by email at editor@edit30.com. No unauthorized use of this material is permitted.
It’s news to me: Who to trust? “For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them,” Rasmussen reported today, 10-24-09.
The polling organization asked this question: “I’m going to read you a short list of issues in the news. For each, please let me know which political party you trust more to handle that issue.” Responses were:
Healthcare
...D-40%; R-46%
Education
...D-38%; R-43%
Social Security
...D-37%; R-45%
Taxes
...D-35%; R-50%
Economy
...D-35%; R-49%
Abortion
...D-35%; R-47%
Immigration
...D-33%; R-40%
National Security
...D-31%; R-54%
Iraq
...D-31%; R-50%
Government Ethics
...D-29%; R-33%
Edit30 authority Edit30 brings more than three decades of corporate, marketing and investor communications expertise to the blog arena. We provide the insight executives need, but may not get from insiders or retainers. Find out more on our "About" page.
|
Critics can say what they will, but when you drop $4 million in a single night entertaining your customers, you want reassurance that you got what you paid for. And so it was for staid, scientific Intel on its first date with the saucy social media during Super Bowl 44.
And since pre-pubescent squealers aren’t the top-of-mind audience as prime microprocessor buyers, Intel must believe that a more adult, sophisticated and technologically savvy market may reside on the social net — at least from time to time.
“Intel Corp. executives are monitoring social networks like Facebook and Twitter to gauge consumer reaction” to two commercials it ran during the bowl, according to Computerworld. “Intel’s marketing department will be monitoring the social networks to determine whether the commercials were a hit among viewers.”
This is Intel’s first time monitoring the social networks, which began during the game and will continued for an unspecified time, Intel told the magazine.
One year ago today, January 25, 2009, we launched Edit30 with this statement:
“Our mission is to provide the multiple perspectives on communications issues that senior management needs, but may not get from insiders or retainers.
“To achieve this goal we seek to provide objective perspective, opinion, analysis of communications challenges, and gently undermine needless self-importance.”
We reaffirm these objectives, and admit that we have strayed from time to time. So, we resolve to get back on track and “provide objective perspective, opinion, analysis of communications challenges….”
It has been a good year; we’ve made many new friends; and we’re inspired to keep moving forward. Thanks to everyone for your support. Please keep it up!
A not-too-subtle shift cropped up on the front page of The New York Times this morning; it is in the publication’s coverage of the highly contentious Obama-Reid-Pelosi healthcare proposals currently working their way through Congress.
The change is either quite significant or merely an editing oversight (which we think is unlikely) that will be corrected in the paper’s coverage yet to come.
Here’s the sequence of stories that imply a tale yet untold. These snippets are excerpted from the paper’s online edition, with our underlined emphasis added to help you follow along.
Tuesday, December 15
Obama Health Care Meeting Aims to Rally Senators
WASHINGTON — As the battle over health care lurches toward a conclusion [full story]….
Saturday, December 19
Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said Saturday that they had clinched an agreement on a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system [full story]….
Sunday, December 20
Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries
WASHINGTON — Buried in the deal-clinching health care package that Senate Democrats unveiled over the weekend [full story]….
Monday, December 21
Democrats Face Challenge in Merging Health Bills
WASHINGTON — Even as the Senate took a significant step toward passing its version of a sweeping overhaul of the health insurance system before Christmas [full story]….
Until today’s edition, which carried yesterday’s dateline of December 21, The Times consistently refer to the various pieces of Obama-Pelosi-Reid legislation as actions addressing America’s “health care” needs that require changes in the nation’s “health care system” and will ultimately be manifest in a “health care package.”
Now, however, with passage of the Senate version of the voluminous document (well over 2000 pages plus hundreds of pages of amendments) The Times has made a significant change in its reporting, though it is one that is probably overlooked by most readers. That change is that The Times now refers to the historic health-related effort as “a sweeping overhaul of the health insurance system.”
This is no small shift in news perspective — from “health care” to “health insurance” reform.
“Health care” relates to the delivery of medical services; “health insurance” involves the business of pricing and managing the cost of healthcare services and products.
This change appears to be recognition by The Times that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi assault is not what they have said it is — a healthcare improvement effort — but a fundamental business restructuring of one-sixth of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, a dramatic social and economic alteration.
Many critics of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi efforts have charged the trio’s real goals are to fundamentally restructure American business and punish insurance companies, and not necessarily to improve the quality of healthcare (which may or may not be an ancillary outcome).
This small change at The Times may portend a huge adjustment in America.
The NPR weekend current events quiz program “Wait, Wait; Don’t Tell Me!” today played this Willie Nelson hit, “To All the Girls I Loved Before,” in tribute to Tiger Woods’ accomplishments. It is a great song, but a sad connection.
Act quickly, accurately, fully. Those are the fundamental principles of crisis communications, and they should have been applied at the very outset of the Tiger Woods debacle. However, that has not been the case, even a full 14 days after Woods’ fateful run-in with a tree outside his Orlando home. (See our earlier post on CC and Woods.)
_______________________________________
12-12-09 — “Tiger Woods is to take an “indefinite” leave from golf following a week of damaging personal revelations that have tarnished the reputation of the sport’s greatest star,” The Financal Times reported today from Los Angeles.
_______________________________________
As time passes, rumors and speculation grow, and the ability to control them erodes to the point where any such hope is impossible. Two people who know from top tier, real world experience offered their assessments to USA Today, both former White House image and press advisers.
“‘One of the first things I learned when I got to the White House is that if you’re going to have to eat crow, you need to eat it right away,’ said Dana Perino, a former press secretary for George W. Bush. ‘The longer it sits on the plate, the worse it’s going to taste.’”
Chris Lehane handled image issues for President Bill Clinton and was the chief spokesman for Vice President Al Gore; He told USA Today that Woods needs full disclosure of his problems soon.
“Americans are forgiving, and they also forget,” said Lehane, a partner in the California public relations firm Fabiani and Lehane. “There’s nothing you can do about the past. People judge you on how you go forward.”
However, the longer the brew of speculation is fueled by the likes of torrid tabloids — and not dampened by a full disclosure from the accused — the more likely is the whole brew to explode and yield collateral damage.
And that’s where The Tiger mess is right now, exploding and splattering the broader sports endorsement business, according to Forbes’ SportsMoney columnist Mike Ozanian, who writes:
“Sponsors like Gillette and Electronic Arts are going to drop Tiger Woods regardless of what they are saying now. Near term, Tiger is done as a corporate pitchman.
“Fallout: companies that throw big money at athletes are going to do a lot of research on them to make sure they are not phony (or make risk-adverse decisions based on information they do have) and funnel their endorsement dough at popular athletes whose image will not blow up.
“Some of these athletes may not even be among the best in their field, but they will typically be in global sports and not be ticking time bombs. But forget about any golfers picking up the sponsorship slack.”
The court of public opinion often is the ultimate arbiter of controversial issues. If that turns out to be the case in the Tiger Woods situation, the final outcome may be neither pleasant nor profitable.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, released today (12-09-09) shows that “news coverage of the past week has taken its toll on the image of Tiger Woods.”
That national telephone survey found that “just 38% of Americans now have a favorable opinion of the golf superstar,” down from 56% a week ago. Two years ago, 83% of the public held a favorable opinion.
The Rasmussen data shows…
- 49% hold an Unfavorable opinion of Woods, up from 27% a week ago;
- 12% with have a Very Favorable opinion; and
- 21% have a Very Unfavorable view.
- 53% say they’re following the Tiger Woods story at least Somewhat Closely;
- 18% are following it Very Closely. Both figures are up from a week ago.
- 42% of men still have a Favorable opinion of Woods;
- 35% of women say so.
- 33% of married Americans offer a Favorable opinion of Woods.
Noting that “It’s hard to turn on the television or visit the Internet without finding the latest wrinkle in Woods’ marital saga,” Rasmussen notes understatedly that as an apparent result of the tempest “advertisers have stopped showing television commercials featuring the superstar, and he may lose millions of dollars in endorsements.”
Obviously, opinions vary widely. Some say the whole sordid affair is none of the media’s business. Others wonder which companies can conceivably have him as a spokesman. Others, but darn few, say “Who cares?”
Regardless of perspective, the Woods situation is a human tragedy. It is a series of decisions and events — some certain and some merely alleged — that are, for now, fading a brilliant Kodachrome image into sad sepia.
So many questions; so few answers.
Gerald Posner, the chief investigative reporter at The Daily Beast, told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow on his show The Kudlow Report Thursday night, 11-03-09, that current negotiations between Tiger Woods and his wife, Elin, could up the value of her existing $20 million/10-year pre-nuptual agreement to a total of at least $80 million.
Here’s the way the deal could work, according to Posner.
Elin would get $5 million immediately, “sort of a signing bonus.”
Then Woods would “cut three years off the [10-year] pre-nup so it will vest in two more years — she’s been married already for five — and instead of the $20 million you were going to get, you’ll get the $20 million plus another $55 million paid out over five years
“So what they are trying to do, the Woods corporate team, is to keep her in the marriage for at least seven years, knowing that’s the best thing for the brand that the brings in $100 million-a-year.”
Other conditions to the offer include, Posner reported, that Elin “has to be part of the marriage and she has to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which means she never tells or sells her story any time in the future.”
Posner added that “For her it is not a simple matter of dollars and cents…. She evidently has a commitment to the children.… She didn’t know what was happening even though others on the [PGA] golf tour did. So she feels humiliated, she feels betrayed.”
(This post includes updates of 12-10, 12, 14-09)
Early reports indicate that Tiger Woods’ “transgressions” are likely to have little, if any, immediate impact on his corporate endorsements. His personal image, however, is another story, and that could impact his endorsements over time.
On the endorsement front, Marc Ganis, president of the Chicago-based sports business consultancy Sportscorp, told the Toronto Star that “None [of Tiger's corporate clients] have left him. I don’t expect any to leave him. I don’t expect it to adversely affect any deals he may be negotiating.”
With a more studied assessment is Rick Burton, a Syracuse University professor specializing in sports marketing. He believes that “Things probably will change, as this story continues to be played out,” adding that means sponsors may eventually change their minds.
 Accenture Web site homepage Burton pointed to the comment made by Procter and Gamble’s Gillette in its statement on their relationship with Woods: “We don’t comment on future marketing plans.”
______________________________________
Endorsement Updates
Saturday, 12-12-09 — The New York Times reported today that “Gillette became the first of his major sponsors to distance itself [for the golfer], saying it would limit his role in its marketing. A spokesman said the move amounted to “a timeout” for Woods.”
Previously, Gillette’s public position was: “At this time, we are not making any changes to our existing marketing programs.” They added that as “a matter of policy, we don’t comment on future marketing plans.”
Monday, 12-14-09 — Agence France-Presse reported Monday that “Accenture, a Dublin-based technology and management company, said that Woods was ‘no longer the right representative for its advertising.’”
Two days earlier, on Saturday 12-12-09, Bloomberg.com reported today that “Tiger Woods has disappeared from the home page of Accenture Plc, the consulting company that has built its marketing campaign around the golfer since 2003. An image of Woods among cactuses, rotating on the site’s main page along with photographs of a skier and skaters this week, is no longer on display. Links to some Woods-related content aren’t working and lead to messages saying the requested page can’t be found.”
______________________________________
So far, several of Woods’ major endorsement clients have said they are sticking with him.
Electronic Arts —”Our strong relationship with Tiger for more than a decade remains unchanged.”
Nike — “Nike supports Tiger and his family. Our relationship remains unchanged,” Nike Golf spokeswoman Beth Gast told the New York Daily News.
PepsiCo’s Gatorade —”Tiger and his family have our support as they work through this private matter.”
Bank of America Corp — “Still plans to continue its talks to take on a broader role with the Tiger Woods Foundation,” according to the Phoenix Business Journal.
While Accenture didn’t respond to MSNBC inquiries, the company continues to feature Woods’ image on their corporate home page, as of Wednesday afternoon. And Accenture is in a particularly difficult spot, according to Syracuse University’s Rick Burton, who told the Daily News:
“A lot of brands have built their entire positioning platforms around him. If you walk through any airport right now you’ll see giant Tiger Woods billboards for Accenture, a financial services company. They are everywhere. It’s pretty difficult for these companies to back off from that.”
“If a sponsor cuts him loose, that makes it look like the relationship was tenuous to begin with,” Burton said Wednesday. “I don’t think Accenture, Nike or Gillette want to do that. Sometimes what they’ll do is take an athlete and put him into a probation period, a quiet window.”
“And for Woods,” The Los Angeles Times reports, “the ad window has been very quiet.” The newspaper wrote (12-10-09) that according to Nielsen ratings data, “no Woods ads have appeared on television since Nov. 29, two days after he crashed his Cadillac SUV outside his home in Florida.”
The Chicago Tribune reported that, “advertisers who banked on Woods’ reputation as a champion face the tricky task of reassessing the value of their marketing relationship with him now that Woods has confessed to unspecified “transgressions” in his personal life.
Woods “has tarnished his perfectionist, clean-cut image, one that has earned him hundreds of millions of dollars in endorsements off the golf course. While his appeal will endure, he is no longer the man with a charmed life: an extraordinarily successful athlete with a happy, stable family.”
Continuing the fall-from-grace theme, the Tribune quotes Robert Tuchman, executive vice president at Premiere Global Sports: “His whole image has been built on he’s unbeatable, he’s superhuman, he’s perfect. And now people realize, ‘Well, maybe that’s not the case.’ There’s definitely going to be some fallout.”
Not so says the New York Daily News:
“Corporate America has no intention of letting go its fierce embrace of Tiger Woods – no matter how many affairs he had. Woods is not only the world’s richest sports star, taking home a staggering $117 million last year – he’s a reliable cash cow who has brought untold riches to his sponsors.”
So, if a company decides that Woods’ image is no longer aligned with their image and strategic direction, how do they break an endorsement contract?
Jason Maloni, vice president of the Sports and Entertainment at Levick Strategic Communications told The Washington Post that “Tiger needs to be concerned because some endorsement contracts contain a ‘morals clause’ that gives the sponsor the right to cancel or change the terms of the engagement.”
Maloni added, “No one wants to buy razors from a spokesman scarred in a domestic dispute. We don’t know that for a fact but that was the early implication.
(Update) While execution of a morals clause right by Woods’ employers may be an option, such a strategic decision will create a mountain of news — likely negative news — for the company. No company wants negative news, of any type or at any time. Therefore, silence and patience seem to be the desirable option.
The Wall Street Journal writes (12-10-09), “As the din over Tiger Woods’s car accident and alleged extramarital affairs grows louder, most of the golfer’s corporate sponsors appear to be taking a page from the sports-marketing playbook: Wait to gauge any long-term fallout from the scandal and consider letting contracts lapse when they come up for renewal.” (end Update)
In any case, “Human beings are flawed and men AND women make mistakes. What’s most important is what we do once we’ve made a mistake. If true, as egregious as infidelity is, what’s more concerning is when someone is not as forthcoming as they should be.David Letterman handled this superbly. Tiger, to date, has not.”
One problem with Tiger Woods’ current public relations problems is the difficulty separating personal emotions about him from his status as a brand and brand representative.
Woods’ case is especially challenging because the personal characteristics that make him so compelling as a role model for teens and other youths are the same traits that make him credible and compelling as a corporate spokesman.
He delivers a package with all of the ideal qualities. He’s young, talented, attractive, black, successful, polite, soft-spoken, well-mannered, temperate, and respectful. What’s more, he worked hard and bootstrapped himself to incredible success and vast wealth.
This is the idealized young man that mothers worldwide want their sons to be.
And, not surprisingly, CEOs find this package equally attractive and very valuable in pitching their products.
As a result, Tiger Woods long ago ceased being a mere golfer, or even a personality. He became a brand. And that changes everything.
Unlike animate people, brands are inanimate. So to humanize them — to make them attractive and approachable — brands must convey human qualities that include status, trust and warmth. Brand images must be able to reach out to consumers and evoke the right emotions. In the end, brands must stimulate positive buying decisions.
Tiger Woods, as a brand and brand representative, delivers. He has moved well beyond the animate human purposefully walking a fairway. For his own brand and some of the world’s largest corporations he is grace under pressure, he is trust, he is success. You want to be associated with him; you want to be him.
As a result of this unique status, Tiger Woods must guide his affairs differently than mere mortals, and expectations for how he is treated relative to ‘the common man’ are different, too.
- His allowed margin of error is substantially reduced;
- His expectations for privacy are considerably diminished; and
- His rights of personal privilege with the media are significantly eroded.
In exchange he is paid quite handsomely.
But, the public world of the personal brand gets even more complex. Since individuals and corporations invest trust, emotions and cash in their icons, they have stated and unstated expectations for the behavior.
Indeed, they expect those they have elevated to perform as promised, to be talented, attractive, successful, polite, well-spoken, soft-spoken, well-mannered, temperate, and respectful.
When performance disappoints, it can threaten the brand and the brand’s market value.
So, as much as Woods or his family may want to keep personal problems private, in the world of Tiger-Woods-the-brand those problems, or even suspicions of problems, are public business.
It is for these reasons, at a minimum, that we are amazed that it appears that Tiger-Woods-the-brand may be guided by a bevy of lawyers while nary a professional public relations counselor is in sight.
Had a competent PR and crisis communications professionals been part of the brand team, Woods would have been better prepared and presented. He would have been able to…
- Assess the possible impact of salacious tabloid articles and accusations before he was assaulted by press questions — and have devised suitable and sustainable responses;
- Devise tactical plans for a variety of personal and professional what-if scenarios [before the explosions]— and have devised suitable and sustainable responses;
- Respond appropriately, in the correct tone, and at the proper length following a minor auto accident; and
- Utilize the dispassionate interface that a PR representative provides a client when a harried throng of reporters comes calling.
While it may be unpleasant to depersonalize and commercialize individuals, that is what happens when a person becomes a brand.
And Tiger Woods is the biggest personal brand in the world with a net worth of over $1 billion and endorsement contracts that include the world’s leading corporations, including Accenture, American Express, AT&T, Electronic Arts, FedEx, Nike, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble Co.’s Gillette, Tag Heuer, Upper Deck, and the TW brand itself.
|
|
Recent Comments