Is it True?

Recently, in a nearby town, a local legend passed away at 92.  He was a giant, one of a generation that seemed to produce many such men.  They served in World War II and came home to build the thousands of strong communities that made our country what it was in the post-war world.   This particular man – a judge – was eulogized in the local paper with a 900-word, 33-paragraph story that included the story of his life, and the praise of people who had known him in different ways at different stages of his life.  (I did not know him and we had never met.)  He was praised for his legal acumen, his patience with young lawyers, his love of his family and his commitment to service and his community.

But, like all of us, he was not perfect, and there was one incident, later in his life, that was part of the public record.  That day, he had been charged with drunken driving following an auto accident in which it did not appear that anyone was seriously hurt.  The case was continued without a finding, and he was given three years' probation.

Now comes the dilemma for the journalist.  Do you include this information in a story about a now-passed leader of the community?  And if you do, where do you place it in order to keep it in perspective, and provide your readers with the truth about this man’s life?

These are some tough questions.  Does leaving it out undermine the credibility of the story – and the paper?  Does a mention of this incident – almost 20 years ago – unfairly overshadow this man’s life and accomplishments?  And if you include the information, where in the story does it go so that it is placed in the proper context?

Well, the newspaper handled it in a way that, in my opinion, struck just the right balance.  They included it in 49 words in the next to last paragraph of the lengthy story.  It was an elegant solution –accurate, fair, and based on what I have since come to know about this man – placed in the proper context as a small piece of the true story of his life. 

---------------

Meanwhile, the headline over a story in a local newspaper last month about the Internet in Rhode Island stated that “29% of adults don’t use” the Internet here.  This seemed noteworthy, until you learn that the national average is … 29%*, something the story failed to mention.

And while the lead paragraph made a brief, glancing reference to the fact that “Rhode Island ranks high in terms of access speed and coverage” the story never mentioned how high.  From there, it moved on to dwell on the less favorable 29% figure.

So what are those numbers?  Well, it turns out that Rhode Island is Number 3 in how widely the Internet is available.  That’s pretty good.  Further, we are Number 1 – the best in the country – when it comes to the speed of our Internet.  That – well – that’s the best!

Bottom line: failing to including the fact that our “bad” number was at the national average, coupled with the absence of a more precise description of just how highly we rank in terms of access speed and coverage were serious flaws in the story.  This, in my view, led to coverage that failed to present an accurate picture of Internet infrastructure, and use, in Rhode Island.

*Source:  The John H. Chafee Center for International Business at Bryant University

Sender/Subject Line Hall of “We Could Do Better”

February and March 2013 Edition

(Names changed to “Acme” or “Office Holder” to protect the guilty - many of whom we know and have already tried to warn.)

Before we begin, some background from the New Harbor Blog archives on why your e-mail newsletter is so important:

The On-Line E-Newsletter: You Can’t Live Without It

And why your Sender and Subject Line combination is so important:

Delete Me!

Without any further ado … we present the “winners”:

Sender -- Subject Line
Acme Supply -- March Articles and Featured Products
Acme Supply --March Updates and Events
Acme, Inc. -- Acme, Inc. Volume 2 – Issue 2
Acme, Inc. -- Acme, Inc Volume 2 - Issue 1
RI Office Holder -- News from the RI Office Holder
Acme of Rhode Island -- News from Acme
The Acme Group, Inc.-- News from The Acme Group, Inc. 
Acme Financial  -- News from Acme Financial
Acme & Acme -- Acme & Acme’s Focus Newsletter:  Winter 2013

Teaching about a Crisis

Back in August, when the days were long and warm, Marion Orr from the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University asked if I was interested in teaching a class in Crisis Management and Communications beginning in September.  I agreed, and it was a great experience.  I’m looking forward to doing it again.  The students were thoughtful and engaged, and the weekly preparation for class gave me a chance to make certain that the counsel I was giving clients was the newest – and best – advice I could give.

On the first day of class, I outlined the semester, my goals for the class, and my approach to crisis communications.

I happen to share the view that quite often a crisis can present real opportunities to make an organization better over the long term – and for individuals to shine.  My goal for the students, then, was to prepare them to  be able to contribute, and to distinguish themselves, in a crisis.

Here are my expanded notes from the rest of that first class, a very basic, initial “How To” when it comes to the communications of managing a crisis.


The Class in a Nutshell

Fill the vacuum

• It’s not going away

You can decline to comment if you want, but burying your head in the sand with a “no comment” will not make it go away.  More likely, it will give other people an opening to define and characterize you – almost always a bad idea.  At our firm, we usually recommend that a client take the opportunity to safely define themselves quickly, then step back and consider their strategic options.

• Minimize and mitigate

Getting a “good” story out of a crisis, in the immediate term, is an extreme rarity.  Usually, you’re stuck with the following options: “bad” and “worse”.  The goal, then, is to do your best in the merely “bad” range, then work to get out of the spotlight as quickly as possible.

Step back and think strategically

• Get perspective – Step back and take a deep breath

You may only have minutes to do this, but take the time to do so, because it’s important.  It’s amazing how many negative after effects of a crisis are self-inflicted.

• Who’s the client?

When a person has done something wrong at an organization, human beings, being what they are, can sometimes be hard pressed to distinguish between the needs of the individual and the needs of the company.  Therefore, it’s important to determine whose interests are to be served.  Make sure this is clear in your mind, and in your approach.

• How does this end?

Start addressing a crisis with an end in sight.  It makes it easier to get to a better ending, and return to the job of moving the organization forward.

Make your friends before you need them

• Tell your story

Pro-active communications ahead of a crisis will pay enormous dividends when trouble hits.  Start today.

• Carve out your real estate; have a presence; get some followers and talk to them

Not on Twitter and Facebook?  Get on. Now.  And get some followers.

• Be a good citizen

Invite local officials for a tour.  Reach out to local reporters for a tour as well.  Engage in some strategic philanthropy with the community. Earn a reputation as one of the “good guys.”

Have a plan for the first 25%

• Website up to date; assignments in a crisis; how to find people 24/7

There’s a certain “blood in the water” dynamic that the media brings to covering a crisis.  If your website is out of date, or incomplete, it gives them an incentive to see what else in the public realm might be out of date, and newsworthy:  Your corporate annual reports?  Your licenses?  Your inspections?  Your taxes?  Anything in the public realm could be fair game, if a reporter can find it and wants to pursue it.

Also, take a few minutes to decide who will do what when a crisis strikes, and how you can find them 24/7.

Now is not the time to save money

• Dedicate the resources to succeed – even if you didn't do it before

US Airway’s brilliant post-crash handling of its passengers who landed in the Hudson a few years ago is exactly the way to go in a crisis.  Follow their example, within reason, and be prepared to spend some money on the resources necessary to weather the storm – even if you didn't follow the advice in the bullet above, and do it before.

Don’t take communications advice from your lawyers

I’m an attorney, so I know that lawyers have more narrow goals and needs in a crisis than the organization as a whole.  Their goals (limiting liability, keeping you out of prison) are very important, but they by no means cover the entire spectrum of what’s required.  After all, if you win the case, but lose your reputation, what is the end result?  An attorney’s audience includes (perhaps): other (opposing) attorneys, a judge, a jury and regulators.  But an organization’s audience is made up of … everybody.

Subway’s recent, spectacular failure to minimize and mitigate the controversy surrounding the definition of “foot-long” (you have to read this) is a perfect example of why it’s so important to make sure your attorneys stay in their lane.

The Human touch

• Brand = feelings
• Step in the other guys shoes
• Remember that feelings, empathy matter

Your Mother was right – people are watching... at least at first.  So be human.  Be empathetic.  Leave the litigation and the nitty gritty questions of liability for later, after the spotlight has passed.  In most cases you can preserve your brand, your reputation and your business, while effectively defending your legal position.

Be simple, clear, repetitive – without sounding like it
Have a clear message. Find content that reinforces that message. Deliver that content, and that message as long as you have to.

Defend your credibility at all costs
Don’t lie.  You’ll be found out – probably within the hour – and your value to the organization as a communicator will be done.  If you are a communicator, make certain that your organization is getting you the latest, best, confirmed information as quickly as possible.  Otherwise, you may end up unwittingly undermining your credibility.  (Also, don’t acknowledge as true information from other sources that you haven’t confirmed.)  If you make an honest mistake, clear it up quickly.  Failure to do this just gives the story legs.

Finally
Get back to pursuing your mission, and telling your story on your own terms to the people who need to hear it, as quickly as possible.

Thoughts on Tuesday’s Election

For Republicans, this election should have been about the economy.  In a normal year it would have been awfully difficult for any President, or any incumbent, to get re-elected in this economy.  After four years, it should have been nearly impossible to shift blame.  But the fact that none of this happened says something fundamental about the GOP in 2012.

Tuesday was not about the economy.  It was not even about whether Pres. Obama’s healthcare law was an overreach by the government and his party. 

Tuesday’s election was about George Wallace. Yes, the Governor’s part of history now, passing away in 1998 (and to be fair, he did express remorse at the end), but the bitter, resentful, angry, self-righteous, anti-immigrant legacy he left to today’s GOP has now consumed the party.  On Tuesday, simple math and the “better angels” of America’s nature evoked by Lincoln, combined with the dynamic character of America’s population, finally caught up with the Republicans.

Here’s the math:  In a country where the percentage of minority voters is now 28% - and rising – the GOPs 40+ year strategy of appealing to white voters, and more specifically white males, has now run its course.  Gov. Romney won 59% of white voters, who made up 72% of the electorate.  But he lost African-Americans 93-7(!) (13% of the electorate); Hispanics 71-29 (10%, and surging) and Asians 73-27 (3%).  These Americans (and other immigrants) hear what is being said about them, either directly or in code.  Naturally, they are voting against it.

In 2008, following John McCain’s defeat, I wrote this – “Twenty years ago, when Jesse Jackson was winning Democratic presidential primaries, I used to wonder if a Democrat could say what had to be said to win the nomination and still win in November. Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis confirmed that the answer was "No.”

The GOP is now in the same ditch, far from the electable mainstream and right where the Democrats were before Bill Clinton pulled them out.     

Another interesting facet of the current state of the GOP is the party’s indifferent relationship with facts. Whether it’s an insistence that tax cuts reduce deficits, Gov. Romney’s misleading (at best) ad about Jeep moving jobs to China, the attacks on Nate Silver’s use of statistical models to assess polling data or Karl Rove’s meltdown about his home network Fox News bowing to scientific laws of probability and calling Ohio for Obama Tuesday night (and here), the party seems to have adopted Nietzche’s philosophy that “There are no facts, only interpretations."   This outlook will only reinforce an existing tendency towards unfounded certainty, making it even easier to blame the voters.  This, in turn, will make the transition to something new and electable even harder.

All of these troublesome traits find their focus on the problem of the so-called “Tea Party”, which will be a vexing one for the GOP to solve.  They are a reliable enthusiastic base, but they are not really serious about problem-solving, and their allegiance comes at a very high cost.  They forced Sen. McCain (see, Sarah Palin) then Gov. Romney far to the right to win the nomination.  For both, there was no coming back to electability.

The Tea Party has also cost the GOP four U.S. Senate seats.  In 2010 it was Nevada and Delaware (“I am not a witch”).  In 2012, it was Indiana and Missouri, where two fringe candidates made comments about rape that cost the party seats they should have won.  Forfeiting four winnable Senate seats is a high price to pay to secure a base that is never, ever satisfied.

This is not to say that America is not facing serious problems.  While the Obama years have seen a significant reduction in the rate at which spending has increased, we continue to accumulate debt at an unsustainable rate.  Further, we have made commitments to entitlement spending that simply can’t be met.  In Rhode Island, our state’s economic performance speaks for itself. 

Once, the Republicans had an answer:  Ronald Reagan.  But Pres. Obama was right when he observed that Reagan could never win today’s GOP nomination.  The cheerful, optimistic, neighborly, “give the other guy a hand up and the benefit of the doubt if he genuinely needs it”, pragmatic world-view that personified the Gipper has been swallowed by something much darker.

People are open to alternatives in 2012, largely because they are uneasy, some even frightened.  Things have changed so much from our parents’ day that bedrock ideas – like the notion that hard work and loyalty would bring security and upward mobility – are now called into question.

This uncertainty, and our self-evident, self-created problems make people open to change.  But they’re reluctant to give the reins to strangers who make them vaguely uneasy –a little too rigid, a little too self-certain, a little angry and maybe even a little mean.  Given the choice presented on Tuesday, it’s not surprising that many voters decided to overlook the familiar flaws of the status quo, and stick with what they know.  That uneasiness, and the resulting outcome, was felt here in Rhode Island, too.

If they want to win again, the Republicans have a painful path ahead of them.  What they’re doing now isn’t working, and will become even less likely to work in the future.  Some, egged on by the hosts of their “Entertainment” wing, will demand an even more pure version of what they are today, because that’s where the pundits’ bread is buttered.  Many will blame the voters, ignoring the market-based truism that the customer is always right.  They’ll argue amongst themselves.  But if they want to win, they’ll have to find their own Bill Clinton.  They’ll have to change.

Posted by David Preston