Wise executives and business communicators have long understood the prudent admonition that “only a fool gets into a fight with a man who buys printer’s ink by the barrel.”

But politicians and their minions often live by a different set of rules, which should not become [...]]]>

Press Secretary Gibbs (r) Dodges Questions from Reporter Ryan (l)

Wise executives and business communicators have long understood the prudent admonition that “only a fool gets into a fight with a man who buys printer’s ink by the barrel.”

But politicians and their minions often live by a different set of rules, which should not become models for corporate behavior.

A couple of recent situations bring this disparity in acceptable behavior to mind, and both involve the nation’s number one spokesman and the White House press corps.

The first also reminds us of Media Relations Rule One: Nothing, absolutely nothing, is off the record regardless of what you are told. If you say it, you can expect it to show up somewhere — accurate or otherwise.

And Rule One played out for White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the morning of December 7, 2009. Of course, he didn’t care because he plays by that different set of rules.

Nonetheless, that December morning the Gallup organization released its latest presidential performance poll, which showed Obama’s approval rating hitting a new low, 47%. That was the lowest level for any president at that stage of his presidency going back to Harry Truman, 60 years ago.

Gibbs, of course, is paid to shore up any breaches in his boss’s public image and he takes that responsibility — and its opportunities — seriously. So, when confronted with the Gallup news, he quipped: “If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor.”

That was an off-camera comment made before the beginning of the official White House media briefing. But officially Gibbs later said: “Five days ago there was an 11-point spread. Now there is a one-point spread. I’m sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that.”

High government officials can — but shouldn’t — get by with snide comments like that; public company executives and their spokesmen cannot.

Another instructive incident for executives to avoid depicts inappropriate and dismissive behavior belittling a news correspondent, official-level disrespect that also annoyed the reporter’s colleagues.

This exchange occurred immediately following White House embarrassment about a guest list mix-up at an official White House event. It involved American Urban Radio White House Correspondent April Ryan, who was attempting to learn who was involved in the snafu.

Gibbs is clearly exasperated by Ryan’s questions, her personally, and his own inability to move on to other questions. Gibbs sighs:

“April, April. Just calm down. Take a deep breath for one second. This happens with my son; he does the same thing.’

The White House press corps surrounding Ryan collectively gasped, “Oooooooooh” and Ryan responded: “I am older than your son. Don’t play with me. I’m being serious.”

Respect is utmost in maintaining a civil working relationship with the media and demeaning them — regardless of much an executive may dislike an individual reporter or her questions — is the epitome of poor judgment that can sour even a solid media relationship.

Ryan, however, was both diplomatic and practical when asked about the incident by ABC News correspondent Jordyn Phelps.

Phelps reported that “she recalled the words of former Clinton White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, who described the relationship between the White House press office and press corps as a ‘friendly, adversarial relationship. Ryan said her heated back-and-forth with Gibbs is an example of that process at work.”

A pragmatic Ryan added: “There are some days where it’s more friendly than adversarial. There are some days when it’s more adversarial than friendly. At the end of the day, we always try to find that balance. And you have to remember, there’s always another day.”

In the Greek tragedy Antigony, Sophocles coined the phrase that “no man delights in the bearer of bad news.” In the modern world, that bearer may be the media and interaction with them requires patience and judgment; and cute quips and sarcasm don’t make the grade.

————————————————————–

And here’s a link to a Wall Street Journal story that explores Gibbs’ bullying style: ”Polling is both an art and a science, but recently it’s also become a subject of political intimidation.“

However, the entire membership didn’t agree with that decision, and some disagreed violently, in a phrase. As a result, “about 60,000 senior [...]]]> Fundamental in the DNA of special interest groups like the AARP is adopting and proselytizing a particular political stance. And so the group’s management endorsed Obama’s healthcare reform almost a soon as was announced.

However, the entire membership didn’t agree with that decision, and some disagreed violently, in a phrase. As a result, “about 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 (2009) due to the group’s support for a healthcare overhaul,” according to an AP story in USA Today dated August 18, 2009.

USA Today noted that “AARP is strongly backing a healthcare overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won’t support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.”

But, what evolves from that strong pro-Obama-healthcare stance is interesting in terms of AARP’s own communications and their assessment of Obama’s communications.

Indeed, it seems to be an epiphany equal to that of “Cool Hand Luke” immediately before  The Captain stammered the phrase, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communication.”

And when that comes form an organization that claims a membership of 40 million — 13% of the nation’s 305 million population — that amounts to something.

Demonstration of this Ahah Moment is the AARP’s “What’s Next” article in their bulletin this month, which states, in part:

“The Obama administration and Congress… [need to] pay more attention to public opinion and do a better job of explaining the proposal to average Americans.”

Perhaps even more interesting, the AARP articles states that Obama himself and Congress “need to address a critical question: What happened to sour a majority of people on reform in the 14 months between November, 2008, when Barack Obama won the White House with an apparent mandate to overhaul the dysfunctional healthcare system, and January, 2010, when Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts widely perceived as a rejection of reform legislation then on the table.”

Indeed, “What we’ve got here is [a] failure to communicate,” or is it.

Could it be that the message was communicated, but the audiences didn’t like it. Gallup reported today that never has Obama’s healthcare proposal had more than 51% approval in their national polls, and that it now sits at 48% – 45% oppose – favor, while Rasmussen’s polling gives the Obama plan a 53% – 42% oppose – favor rating.

Is it, then, a failure of communications or are the communications just fine while the messages they transmit simply are not being well received? Thus, has this communications effort been the fulfillment of the bone-headed threat, “If you don’t understand what I am saying, I shall speak louder.”

Elevator speeches are true multi-taskers. They’re well suited not only for, well, elevator conversations, [...]]]> An “elevator speech’ is a great and wondrous pearl to have rattling around in your head. But, creating one of these little treasures that actually says something meaningful, is broadly understandable, and inspires the listener to ask for more is tough work.

Elevator speeches are true multi-taskers. They’re well suited not only for, well, elevator conversations, but also for cocktail parties, speech introductions, explaining your job to your spouse or for your kids’ use on Career Day. And it is good for reminding yourself why you spend so much time at work.

So, when we read Gail Corkindale’s lead on her recent Harvard Business Review blog, we had to step back and say, “Well done!”

The Londoner’s commentary subject was “Why Good People Skills Matter in a Recession.” But before she answered that question, Gail had to establish her credibility, that she knows something you need to know, too. That’s what an elevator speech does: It informs, establishes credibility and invites further inquiry.

Here’s here’s Gail’s lead paragraph, otherwise a nearly perfect elevator speech.

I spend a great deal of my time coaching executives on how to become more effective leaders and managers. An important part of this work is to help them develop good relationships with their key staff and stakeholders. We explore different ways of influencing, motivating, and leading people and by extending their skills — I help executives to get the best out of their people.

In its absolute shortest form, an elevator speech between the fifth and sixth floors is:

I help executives to get the best out of their people.

However, in its full multi-floor elevator speech form, you learn what she does, for whom, and why. All of which invite you to ask, “How do you do that?” which is a key end-game objective of the elevators speech.

The rest of her HBR blog commentary is excellent, too, but this little gem of a paragraph is the real take-away meat.

Gail Corkindale is a London-based executive coach and writer, who focuses on global management and leadership. She was formerly the management editor at the Financial Times.

“I apologize; the map has an error. The number of providers for Raleigh is 18, [...]]]> We thought our meticulous checking of the Forbes data for all 20 of their entries on their “Wired Cities” map was pretty responsible, and indeed unearthed their error regarding Raleigh-Cary, NC. We notified the publication, and so indicated. The magazine responded saying:

“I apologize; the map has an error. The number of providers for Raleigh is 18, not 17. That puts Raleigh near the top in that category. Also, cities that scored in the top 10 in all 3 categories got a few extra points, for consistency. Raleigh was the only city that met this criterion this time around. I hope that helps shed some light on the ranking.”

Even though we believe our work proved enlightening for all, not everyone agrees. Forbes’ Managing Editor is of that other mind. He wrote us and noted that “we worked hard to produce this proprietary list,” and that, in effect, he only wants to share it via his Web site despite the fact that our original post provided two links to the Forbes site. So, here’s yet another link.

And since the ME suggests that we “please run [just] the top three names…” of the 20-city list, we’ve decided to pull our chart completely. Sorry!

Forbes give us a conventional map of the US with 20 little dots scattered about representing the nation’s top broadband cities. Clicking on a [...]]]> If you’re attempting to communicate effectively, understanding which media are used by whom is critical. And an enumeration of “America’s Most Wired Cities,” released today by Forbes.com, also is informative, sort of.

Forbes give us a conventional map of the US with 20 little dots scattered about representing the nation’s top broadband cities. Clicking on a city-dot pops up a data box (below) providing that metro area’s national broadband rank, percent of broadband adoption, number of broadband providers, and people-per-WiFi hotspot.

All worthwhile data, but there are two problems: First, you can’t display data for geographically nearby cities because their data boxes overlap one another, Charlotte and Raleigh, for instance. Try it.

Problem two surely is an unintended consequence, but it is one that’s works out well for the folks at Fortune Headquarters. You see, it appears that determining — using Forbes statistics — who actually is America’s broadband Numero Uno is challenging. Forbes says it is Raleigh-Cary, NC, as shown in the image above.  But, by one of their own metrics, the American Broadband Kahuna might actually be Atlanta or even San Jose. It all depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Since Forbes only provides the nifty little interactive map, and not the actual table of statistics, we did the job for them. Here’s what it says.

[We have removed our chart of Forbes' data, previously in this space, because a Forbes managing editor requested that we use only the top three cities on their list. We don't think that's fair, so the whole list is out.]

And, since we’re certain Forbes got it right and we just don’t understand or that they want to get it right, we dropped their editors a little note of inquiry, as follows.

Dear Forbes,

Your “Most Wired” chart is very interesting, but creates a problem: What equation did you use to determine “Most Wired”?

You say it is Raleigh-Cary, which is not surprising given RTP, but your numbers don’t support this. So what were your criteria?

• Not Broadband Adoption because Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta has 74% and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 72%. Raleigh scores 71%.
• Not Number of Providers because five cities other than Raleigh (17) have 18 providers.
• Not People per WiFi Hotspot [a lower number is desirable] because San Jose has 2249 while Raleigh has 7024.

I am sure there must be an equation that melds together these numbers to determine the “Most Wired,” but you need to state what it is — and I would like to know, too. (For your reference, attached is a PDF of my chart constructed from your numbers.)

I’m eager to hear what’s up, if you please.

Sincerely, RMM

We’ll let you know what we hear from our friends at Forbes. Until then, you can pick who’s number one in broadband in the US; you’ve got at least three choices.

For your further reference, we’ve posted the latest Pew Internet study of Internet demographics, and added a tab for it at the top of this page.

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, is legendary as the world’s second richest person and as an investor who examines businesses with a keen eye toward accurately assessing present fair value and future profit potential.

During this morning’s CNBC’s Squawk Box segment, Buffett responded broadly to a question about Toyota’s [...]]]>

Warren Buffett on CNBC's Squawk Box 3-1-10

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, is legendary as the world’s second richest person and as an investor who examines businesses with a keen eye toward accurately assessing present fair value and future profit potential.

During this morning’s CNBC’s Squawk Box segment, Buffett responded broadly to a question about Toyota’s Crisis Communications during the on-going vehicle safety recalls. While he didn’t judge the automaker’s performance, he did demonstrate characteristic succinctness and accuracy in defining the best practices in the execution of all Crisis Communications:

“Get it right;
“Get it fast;
“Get it out; and
“Get it over.”

“Get it over” is particularly important to an investor like Buffett because it is shorthand for taking all necessary steps to expunge your problems and put them behind you — so that you can move forward with job one: manage and grow your business.

We at Edit30 have regularly commented on Crisis Communications practices, and are pleased that the “Oracle of Omaha” agrees with us as we write on our  Crisis Comms Page (see tab at the top).

Other Edit30 observations on Crisis Communications included the following subjects.

• PGA Golfer Tiger Woods’ reputation management
• Hyatt Hotels’ Boston labor-management dispute
• DuPont’s management of the economic crisis
• Banks’ global failure to communicate
• CEOs who don’t communicate, do so at their at their own peril

The five items above represent just a few of our observations on the CC subject. For the full list, search “crisis communications” in the box at the top left of this home page.

And since pre-pubescent squealers aren’t the top-of-mind [...]]]> 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.

“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 [...]]]> 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!

The change is either quite significant or merely an editing oversight (which we think is unlikely) that will be corrected in [...]]]> 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.