New Harbor Group Blog

What a Man

2011-07-25T11:26:00.002-04:00

Eulogy for Governor Bruce Sundlun
As delivered by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Sunday, July 24, 2011

What a man. What a life.

Bruce Sundlun’s accomplishments -- as a record-breaking athlete, as a resourceful war hero, as a superb lawyer, as a successful business entrepreneur, and as political leader of our state -- would each on their own be significant. You could probably write a book about each. Together, packed all into one energetic life, it makes Bruce Sundlun one of the most accomplished and remarkable men in our state’s history.

And that’s not even counting five marriages, four children, three unsuccessful runs for governor, two dead raccoons, and one presidential inaugural parade run without a hitch through deep snow for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

There’s really just no way to fit it all in.

Let me step into my role as a Sundlun staffer, and ask you to think just of his brief four years as governor. Hit (on Day One of his administration) by an unprecedented bank failure affecting 300,000 Rhode Islanders, AND by the worst budget deficit in state history, AND by an implosion of the state’s entire worker’s compensation system, AND with the urgent need to restore ethics in government, Bruce was the man for that moment, and swung into his customary decisive action.

The budget was promptly and fairly balanced and the whole budget process improved.

Inventive solutions to repay the depositors and clean up the RISDIC mess were found and implemented, and those at fault were made to pay -- over a hundred million dollars.

His worker’s compensation reform moved the state from an embarrassment to a model, moving what was then the business community’s worst problem completely off the problem list for now going on 20 years.

As a problem solver, he had no peer.

And that alone would be pretty extraordinary. But there was that ethics gap. So Bruce wrote Executive Order 91-One, the ethics executive order that succeeding governors renewed virtually unchanged. He reformed our Ethics Commission. He changed the way we appoint judges, to reduce the politics. He changed the way we fund elections, with a public finance plan and donor limits. Through an intense storm of legal and political opposition, he opened up the pension records; putting an end forever to backroom special pension bills. He got our State Police nationally accredited.

He even cleaned up the Capitol literally!

All that was extraordinary -- but still not enough.

In the worst economic times the state had seen since the Depression, with a shrinking budget, he decided to extend universal health care to children – and started the program that became Rite Care. Against immense opposition, he built our new airport terminal. He embarked on the Westin Hotel, the Convention Center, and the Providence Place Mall. He finished the Jamestown Bridge and built the Expressway. And even that’s not the end of it.

It was an amazing burst of activity. I will bet that almost every Rhode Islander, almost every day, is somehow touched by something Governor Sundlun did.

And through it all, he drove his staff crazy. He was irrepressible, impatient, imperial, unscriptable, combative, frustrating, willful, constantly threw caution to the winds, impossible to keep up with – he drove us nuts.

And we loved him.

We loved him because he was bold and brave, and was warm-hearted and trusting and generous, and because he was willing to throw caution to the winds to do what was right. We loved him because he never once had us make excuses or try to shift the blame.

That was not his style. “Never complain; never explain.”

We all remember his Bruce-isms:

“Always touch base with those concerned before taking action.”

“How fast would you get it done if the Russians were in South Attleboro?”

“When you’ve won, stop talking, close your briefcase and leave.”

“Message to Garcia.”

“Who, what, where, when; don’t bother me with why.”

The phone calls, at all hours, that began with no “hello” and ended with dial tone.

The road shows known to his staff as “Dome on the Roam”, or more precisely, “Bruce on the Loose.”

And sometimes just that big foxy grin.

We saw that his qualities of friendship and loyalty had an almost physical force; that he had your back even if you made mistakes (no one ever was thrown under the bus); and that he was a better friend the more the chips were down.

Politics is full of fair weather friends; Bruce Sundlun was your stormy weather friend. Politics is full of people who take tiny cautious steps with their finger up constantly testing the winds; Bruce stepped boldly down the path he thought was right, even if that meant stepping right in it.

People wonder what lives on after they die. Well, Bruce, we do. And every one of us has been changed: made better, and stronger, harder-working and more resourceful, by your vibrant elemental force in our lives.

We’ve gone on to be judges and lawyers, to run state and federal agencies, to become Senators and councilmen and Lieutenant Governors, banking leaders and senior partners in national accounting firms, but none of us ever will be more proud of anything than the simple title: “I was a Sundlun staffer.”

Soozie and Marjorie, Tracey and Stuart and Peter and Kara: Thank you. Thank you for sharing your husband and father with our state. For those who loved and were changed by him, I thank you. For those who knew and were touched by him, I thank you. And for those who never knew him directly, but whose lives are better today because of what he did, I thank you.

As I close, I want to take you back to a scene from that wonderful movie I saw as a kid, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” As you’ll recall, Atticus Finch takes on the courageous but unpopular defense of a black man wrongfully accused of rape. At the end of the trial, Atticus’s daughter Scout -- proper name Jean Louise -- is up in the gallery of the courtroom, with the black townspeople, who aren’t allowed down on the regular courtroom floor. The courtroom empties, but they remain, and slowly stand. As Atticus packs his papers together, closes his bag, and walks out, an elderly man leans down to the little girl and says, “Stand up, Miss Jean Louise. Your father’s passing.”

At the end of this service, as Bruce is taken to his gravesite after 91 years of a life well and fully lived, we will all stand up. And rightly so. A governor will be passing.

What is Your Message?

2011-06-08T16:08:00.001-04:00

People are barraged with thousands of bits of information every day. Attention spans are notoriously short and everyone’s brain is working hard to sift through the noise. This reality makes a clear, effective message essential if your organization wants to be heard through the noise – and understood.

A clear message does two important things:

An effective message gives your audiences an overall structure, or framework, to understand what your organization does and/or its goals;
An effective message gives your messengers (employees, board, etc.) a structure to tell people what you do, and to be understood.

With a clear message in place, the facts and figures and stories about your organization will serve to support and reinforce that message, reinforcing for people who you are and what you do.

Neglecting to have a clear, understandable message can be dangerous for your organization. Without a message, it is nearly impossible to describe your organization effectively, or to be understood. Without this understanding you will likely miss countless opportunities. Even worse, others - including competitors - can take the disjointed parts and define you on their terms, instead of on your own. Reporters, too, are left to piece together the parts of your story on their own, defining you to fit their needs or confirm their preconceived notions.

Here’s an example of a bad, unfocused message, and a good, strong one. You’ll know who the company is after you read the good message. You’ll also realize how awful the first message is after you recognize the company - and probably smile when you think about how often people describe their organization using something like Message #1.

Message #1

We were founded by a visionary who started a movie company, then we got into television and amusement parks – which we still do – but now we own a TV network with three channels - one for kids, one for sports and one for general audiences. We also sell books and toys based on the characters from our movies and we even run a cruise line.

Message #2

We use stories and characters – like Mickey Mouse - to entertain, to teach lessons and to give people and families fun things to do.

Clearly explaining your organization in a sentence or two is crucial to being known and understood on your terms. Your key message is what you want your audience to “take away” from their interaction with your organization. All clear understanding of your organization comes through the prism of a good, strong message.

Effective messaging also provides you and your team with a structure, or framework, to communicate with all your audiences: customers, potential customers, the press, investors, donors, partners and employees. It provides a framework for all of your communications: marketing materials, speeches and presentations, web site and social media content, news releases and op eds, and just about everything else.

Finally, it’s important to realize that your message and your mission statement are not the same thing. Most mission statements are vague, laden with jargon and buzzwords glued together and watered down by a committee. These statements avoid doing what a message needs to do – prioritize what is important for people to know about your organization.

With a strong message in place, an organization is well-positioned to tell their story, and have it understood. From there, the work of creating a 21st Century communications distribution network to effectively reach your audiences can begin.

You (and Your Business) Can’t Live Without Twitter

2011-02-02T16:11:00.004-05:00

Chris Barrett called me the other day. Chris is a reporter at the Providence Business News, and he is just the latest in a steady stream of reporters over the past few years to ask us about something we posted on Twitter. In this case, Chris was referencing a Tweet with news about our client the Quonset Development Corporation. (We also manage Twitter accounts for many of our clients.)

This is a good thing, since we like to talk to reporters about the great work our clients are doing. Twitter helps us do that, since the New Harbor Twitter account has a large number of reporters following it. Often, it leads to good stories about our clients. And Twitter is an easy way to start the conversation.

Over the past four years, Twitter has become a key tool in our effort to tell stories about our clients to the people who need hear them. For us, that includes reporters like Chris Barrett. Twitter also makes it easy to let people know what you’re up to or what’s on your mind.

It can provide your employees, or board members or fans and supporters with information about you that they can use to tell your story. It can give customers information they need to know about you. And it can establish you as a thoughtful observer in your particular industry or the passing scene.

Sure, some people use Twitter to share earth-shattering news like “I’m standing in line for coffee right now.” But it is also used for far more weighty things as well. There’s a reason why the Egyptian government shut down Twitter, and the entire Internet, in the past week – and before them, the Iranians. It has become a powerful tool – and a dangerous thing for dictators.

A tool like this is too powerful for you to ignore any longer. You, and your company, need to be on Twitter if you’re not already there. To find out how easy it is, sign up here: http://twitter.com/

Once you’re on, here are a couple short blog entries that can quickly help you make the most of Twitter, including a brief, 10 point orientation followed by these 50 key points about using Twitter for your business. Or if you’re ready to make a serious commitment to social media, give us a call to learn how we can help make it happen.

Questions? Shoot me an e-mail and we can talk.

Posted by David Preston

The Last Days of RISDIC

2010-12-23T10:27:00.007-05:00

Next Saturday, January 1, marks the 20th anniversary of the beginning of Rhode Island’s credit union crisis. I recently came across an article I wrote on the 10th anniversary of the closure, published in the December 2000 edition of Rhode Island Monthly magazine. It’s an interesting look back at a dramatic time in our state’s history, and it is posted below.

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

Where Were You When They Closed the Banks?

The memories may seem fresh, but the banking crisis exploded ten years ago next month. One insider reveals the surprising countdown to the worst financial crisis in the state’s recent history.

By David Preston

By 2 a.m., most of the New Year’s Eve revelers were gone. First Night was over, Kennedy Plaza was empty, and the city was cold and quiet on the first morning of 1991. High above the Plaza, Sheldon Whitehouse and an associate at the big downtown law firm Hinckley, Allen, Snyder and Comen seemed well on their way to pulling an all-nighter, gathering reams of documents incoming Governor Bruce Sundlun would need later that day.

It hadn’t been much of a New Year’s Eve or for that matter much of a holiday season for any of us, least of all Whitehouse. Since leaving his job as assistant attorney general in early December to come work with us on the Sundlun transition team, he’d had a front-row seat for the rapid disintegration of financial institutions insured by Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corporation (RISDIC). Now, on the last day of the year, the dike had collapsed and a financial tidal wave that had been building for two months was about to come crashing ashore. On his first official day as governor, Sundlun was declaring a legal bank holiday. It’s a phrase that always seems ironic – there was certainly nothing festive about what was about to unfold. In less than twenty-four hours, we knew Sundlun would padlock shut forty-five banks and credit unions.

For the members of the Sundlun team, the autumn of 1990 had been euphoric, a sweet victory after four years of hard work and bitter disappointment. Some had endured the thrashing Governor Edward DiPrete inflicted on Sundlun in 1986, when DiPrete won the election with 65 percent of the vote. Two years later I joined the Sundlun Team as policy adviser for what started out as another sacrificial offering to the campaign gods. On the June day in 1988 that I signed on, a published poll showed Sundlun trailing DiPrete almost three to one. But after a steady string of scandals surrounding DiPrete, capped by the infamous Cranston land deal we found ourselves in a competitive race. In the end, though, despite $2 million of Sundlun’s personal money, we lost a heartbreaker, 51 percent of the vote to 49 percent. It was a tough loss, and I never saw Sundlun more disappointed than he was that election night.

In 1990, with DiPrete weakened, other Democrats smelled blood in the water and decided to run. A four-man race shrank to three when former Lieutenant Governor Richard Licht bailed out, leaving Providence Mayor Joseph R. Paolino, Jr., Warwick Mayor Frank Flaherty, and Sundlun.

As Sundlun’s deputy campaign manager, I sensed it was going to be a tough primary campaign and I was right. Paolino jumped out to an early lead, while our team floundered. Flaherty, largely unknown statewide, was a distant third at the time. In late June, Paolino won the endorsement of the Democratic State Committee, which had been only too glad to have Sundlun carry their water in two previously hopeless efforts. But the same week, Brian Lunde and George Burger, two savvy Washington campaign operatives, arrived in town, and that changed everything. They redefined the direction of our campaign, enforced structure in our staff, crafted a clear and compelling message presenting Sundlun as the outsider – and then persuaded him to part with almost $2 million more than the $1 million he’d already committed to spend.

Having anted up, Sundlun became more focused. In September, the primary was ours: the general election in November, an anti-climax. The vaunted DiPrete campaign machine of the previous three elections was no more, and Sundlun racked up a 74-26 win, powered by another million dollars, and a corps of dedicated volunteers who took to heart the Sundlun message that he was an ‘independent businessman, not a professional politician.’ It was Ross Perot, two years before Ross Perot.

Sundlun liked meetings – but short ones – and as the campaign staff became the transition team, half a dozen of us would meet every day around 5:30 p.m. The meetings in the office at Sundlun’s Providence home at 320 South Main Street included the usual suspects: me, Whitehouse, key transition staffer Brian Gallogly, chief of staff-to-be Ed Wood, Patti Goldstein, and Cumberland State Senator David Cruise, one of a handful of elected officials who’d supported Sundlun in the primary, and a future chief of staff. Later, Barbara Cottam, who’d worked for Paolino at Providence City Hall and was Sundlun’s choice as press secretary, joined the group, and depending on who was in town that week, Lunde or Burger as well. It was a chance to catch up, make sure nothing fell through the cracks, and prep all of us for the next day.

The campaign mantra had been simple: a higher standard of political ethics and better fiscal management. From the beginning, we thought the biggest problem facing our new administration would be the budget deficit. Sundlun had promised to restore the sales tax to 6 percent after DiPrete had raised it to 7 percent six months earlier. To do that would require $34 million in cuts, not at all that much in a budget of $1.3 billion. But the deficit had ballooned over the course of the year, and ultimately as much as $260 million would have to be slashed just to bring the budget into balance, never mind keep Sundlun’s promise to cut taxes. Through November and into December, the outgoing administration first denied the problem existed. Then they denied the size of the problem, almost to the point of absurdity. By inauguration day, there was no disputing that Rhode Island faced an enormous deficit – percentage wise, the largest in the nation. The looming deficit colored every policy decision we made during the transition, and while we disputed its magnitude with the outgoing administration, RISDIC began to crumble.

The collapse of Heritage Loan and Investment Company, and subsequently RISDIC, is now part of Rhode Island legend. The Federal Hill institution was taken over by RISDIC in October 1990 when examiners found its book to be almost incomprehensible. A few weeks later, Joseph Mollicone, Jr., president and controlling shareholder of the bank, disappeared and ultimately turned into a fugitive as it became clear that more than $13 million in bank funds had also disappeared.

RISDIC made good on Heritage deposits. But depositors at other RISDIC institutions, led by insiders – members of the banks’ boards of directors and upper management – were worried that the agency would not be able to cover their deposits if the need arose. Thus began a series of what Whitehouse called silent runs, large-scale withdrawals that gained momentum in early December.

Early afternoon now, Whitehouse arrived at our meetings at South Main Street from his vigil at the Department of Business Regulation (DBR). His updates of the banks’ dwindling liquidity grew increasingly alarming. Initially he told us, “I don’t know how they’re going to make it.”

Soon, though, that became, “They’re not going to make it.”

Shortly before Christmas, he was predicting that they might not even survive the next day. At first we figured that Whitehouse – the new kid on the team and not part of our original campaign group – was overreacting. Soon, we found out he was right. It was the morning of December 19, the Wednesday before Christmas. L. William Seidman, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and former Iowa Senator Roger Jepsen, then chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, arrived from Washington with a small army of regulators and examiners for a meeting at the State House. The DiPrete and Sundlun teams listened as Seidman delivered a two-part message: First, we’ve taken a look at these institutions and it’s really bad. Second, we can’t help you. Seidman suggested they seek what he called private capital to solve the problem. “There’s only one person in this town with that kind of money,” Sundlun said, and set up a meeting for that very day at 4 p.m. with Terry Murray, head of Fleet Bank.

That afternoon “we waited and waited,” Whitehouse remembers. But no one from the DiPrete administration came. “Finally, Murray said, ‘Let’s get started. We’re not going to see anything out of that guy except taillights on a Winnebago.’”

The meeting that followed was cordial, but ultimately unsuccessful. Murray gave the same answer Seidman had given: sorry, we can’t help.

It was over for RISDIC.

Next day, Whitehouse began camping out in a conference room at the DBR, the agency responsible for examining and supervising the RISDIC-insured institutions. Federal officials joined them as well. The Treasury Department, even the White House, was involved now, concerned that a bank failure in Rhode Island could spread a panic that might topple other institutions weakened by the Northeast’s faltering economy. For Whitehouse, the immediate task was to determine just how bad it was. Meanwhile, RISDIC officials tried to limp to January 1, so Sundlun, and not DiPrete – who had clearly checked out – could provide much needed leadership.

We continued to hope for the best, that the feds would show some flexibility. On one hand, they were urging us not to do anything to incite a panic. On the other hand, they steadfastly refused to consider insuring three institutions we believed were healthy: Union Deposit Loan and Investment Bank, Chariho-Exeter Credit Union, and East Providence Credit Union. That refusal made it clear that whatever happened with RISDIC, we were on our own. Not only was there no federal money in the offing, but regulators were also completely unwilling to assume any risk.

Shortly after noon on December 31, the phone rang in the DBR conference room. Whitehouse picked it up. “A RISDIC attorney was on the other end,” he remembers. “He said, ‘I’m calling to let you know that the board is meeting and we have voted to put RISDIC into conservatorship. We’re sending documents to you and the governor (Sundlun) reflecting what we’ve done.’”

Now we knew how the end would come.

Whitehouse hung up and redialed. “RISDIC just pulled the plug,” he told Sundlun, “and voted to put themselves into conservatorship.”

“What the hell does that mean?” Sundlun asked.

“It means we own them now.”

Around four that afternoon, I was at the transition office at One State Street finishing up the writing of the next day’s inaugural address when I got a call from State Senator David Cruise. “The governor wants you to come down to the meeting a little early today,” he said.

I headed down the hill toward South Main Street. When I arrived, Whitehouse, who’d been huddled with Sundlun, showed me the RISDIC letter. “Conservatorship” looked an awful lot like “receivership,” legal-speak for what happens when bankrupt companies are taken over by the government.

“So this is how it happens,” I remember saying to myself. But how were we to deal with this mess in the short term? Eventually, most of us expected that the state government would establish something like the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to sort through the rubble of the former credit unions. The RTC had been the feds’ creation in the aftermath of the meltdown of the country’s savings and loan industry. It had taken over and managed the assets of the S&Ls and paid off depositors, with the government making up the difference. To try to close the gap, it sold the assets of the old institutions for the best possible price. Ultimately, the successful Depositors Economic Protection Corporation (DEPCO), conceived and announced the following weekend, would become Rhode Island’s own version of the RTC.

But that was days – or weeks – away, or so we thought. The question now, as the sun set on 1990, was what to do with these credit unions that no longer had deposit insurance, as the law required. Many of them were in pitiful financial shape, tapped out on their lines of credit, some with only pennies per depositor left on-hand.

We had three options to thrash out, none of them appealing. First, assume responsibility for all the credit unions with the full faith and credit of the state. This would allow business to continue as usual on January 2. But no one knew how big that hole was that taxpayers would have to fill. (Ultimately, it would turn out to be $333 million of the $1.7 billion in total deposits that were paid back). And no one, least of all Sundlun, was ready to take such a big leap off a cliff in the dark. With the budget deficit as a backdrop, full faith and credit was out.

A second option was recievership, which meant that a court-appointed reciever would take over the assets of the institutions. Depositors would file claims against the reciever, and as the assets of the credit unions were sold, they would get some money. Given the depressed state of the economy, though, this was an awful option. I cringed, thinking of my parents nearing their sixties and forced to extract what remained of their life savings from the recievership that was once Columbian Credit Union. The obvious flaws in the receivership approach led us to kill that idea, which was probably the second worst possible choice.

The only one that was even worse was to allow several dozen virtually bankrupt banks and credit unions to open for business on January 2 without insurance. Any available money would be gone in minutes – maybe seconds. The resulting runs would have been a clear danger to public safety, particularly for the desperate thousands waiting outside in lines, watching their breath evaporate in the cold air, just as their savings had done.

We all knew that without full faith and credit, opening the day after New Year’s was not an option. So with surprising speed, we decided to close the banks. Sundlun, quiet until now, nodded grimly. Everyone else, surprised at the quick consensus in favor of such a drastic action, fell silent. “Then that’s it,” Sundlun said. It was not a question. More silence. Then, the 5:30 p.m. fireworks from First Night exploded with a roar that reverberated down South Main Street and rattled the windows. It seemed to signal both the end and a beginning.

Whitehouse got on the phone and started making calls, doing fifty million things that needed to be taken care of before heading over to Hinckley, Allen, Snyder, and Comen. I trudged back to the transition office and wrote a brief new paragraph for the inaugural address alluding to the “problem.” Then I looked up a copy of Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to the nation after he declared a bank holiday in 1933 following panicky wide-scale bank runs. From that, I drafted a statement for the governor to give the following day. Toward the end of the draft remarks, seeking to strike an FDR-like tone, I wrote for Sundlun the line, “I am confident” that the crisis will be resolved quickly, and handed the pages to the governor.

In the entire three-page, double-spaced text, Sundlun made only one change. He crossed out the words “I am confident” and penciled in the more tentative “I hope.”

Famous for Being Famous

2010-09-29T14:04:00.000-04:00

Somewhere along the way in our cynical universe the phrase, “Any publicity is good publicity” became the mantra in some quarters. In fact, it’s not true, and self-evidently so. Just ask BP, Goldman Sachs or Toyota if they’re pleased with the publicity they’ve received over the past year, and whether that publicity has made the company more profitable. Clearly, the answer is no.

But while “bad” publicity is rarely a good thing, there are a small handful of circus acts out there where Barnum’s old adage, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right" still does apply. Primarily, this is reserved for those who are famous for being famous. Then, almost any publicity is a good thing.

For instance, Paris Hilton. Most of my clients (all, in fact – at least so far) would view getting busted for cocaine possession as a bad thing. But for Paris, it’s all in a day’s work. She gets coverage for the arrest; then she gets coverage for tweeting about the arrest; then she gets banned from a Las Vegas casino; then there’s the court appearance; then she gets publicity for the time honored Mick Jagger/Paul McCartney Denied Entry to Japan stratagem. It’s practically endless, but all feeds into her unending quest to be famous and talked-about (er, tweeted about).

For Paris, the “bad” publicity actually pays off, in a diversified, far-flung business empire which includes nightclubs, cosmetics, a clothing line, an energy drink (at least at one time), a best-selling autobiography published when she was 24 and, last, but certainly not least - herself! Paris reportedly gets hundreds of thousands of dollars just to show up at parties.

“If it's in Japan, I get more,” she once said. Great work.

So, yes, there are rare instances where any publicity is good publicity. But not many, and not if you take yourself seriously. Because unless you’re Paris Hilton, a rapper/gang-banger, Mike Tyson or PT Barnum, there are a lot of ways to get publicity that isn’t good, and is actually harmful. I wouldn’t recommend any of them.

Posted by David Preston

Lessons from Tuesday's Elections

2010-09-17T14:00:00.002-04:00

Every election teaches lessons, and last Tuesday’s primary elections in Rhode Island were no exception. Here’s a brief summary of lessons learned:

An absence of polling data introduces an element of old-school uncertainty to campaigns that is actually kind of exciting – at least for the voters and observers. Independent polls aren’t in the budget for media outlets anymore, so we’re pretty much flying blind. Polls are also difficult to conduct in an era with fewer land lines and people who have less time to answer 15-20 minute questionnaires. For instance, on Tuesday morning it was anyone’s guess who would win races for Mayor of Providence and Attorney General – something that would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
The fragmented nature of TV advertising has made it too expensive for “down-ballot” candidates (i.e., everyone in Rhode Island except candidates for Governor or federal offices) to afford making a meaningful impression. There are some exceptions, i.e., Gina Raimondo, the Democratic candidate for General Treasurer -- a fundraising powerhouse. But newcomers without personal resources and some name recognition are at marked disadvantage.
With TV less of an option, radio, the web and an effective ground game that gets out the vote take on even more significance. David Segal, an underfunded candidate for Congress, got 20% of the vote in a four-way race with an impressive web presence, effective ground game, enthusiastic, committed supporters and an overall smart campaign.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision has cleared the way for “independent expenditures” - constitutional expressions of free speech by companies and organizations for and against candidates in campaigns which had previously been illegal. But no longer. Nationally, corporations and billionaires are pumping millions into Congressional races, but here in Rhode Island it was organized labor that made the most prominent use of independent expenditures. Watch for much, much more of this as time goes on, until legislatures act to regulate the practice.
Because the participants can be mediocre, and the results are often mediocre – or less -- successful businesspeople sometimes think they can parachute into a campaign and win. They would be wrong. In this election cycle there have been a few examples in Rhode Island where success in business has not translated into success in politics. Here’s my advice for political newcomers: Get the most experienced, savviest help you can find with an up-to-date understanding of what it takes to win in 2010 (or whatever election year you happen to be in), be prepared to spend a great deal of your own money, and absolutely be ready for Prime Time when the curtain goes up. Why? Because politics is a whole different ball game (or plumbing job.)

Posted by David Preston

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

2010-08-23T11:24:00.003-04:00

A respected non-profit recently sent out an RFP for a firm to create a newsletter for the organization. Although we rarely respond to RFPs at New Harbor Group, we strongly believe that having a newsletter is a good thing. Every organization should have some way to tell its story and update its key audience on a regular basis.

But here’s the problem: This particular group asked for proposals for putting together a print newsletter. Bad idea. If you don’t have a newsletter, and you’re thinking about starting one, here’s why an on-line edition is absolutely the only way to go:

Why pay for printing and postage? Who does that anymore? It’s simply a waste of money.

Keep it fresh. The on-line version won’t get stale waiting to be printed and then sitting around in the bulk mail trays at the post office.

Get (really valuable) information. An on-line version will give you data about your audiences – who opened the e-mail announcing the latest edition, and who hit “delete”; what stories are popular, and which ones aren’t. With a print newsletter, recipients may read it, or they may toss it – you’ll never know.

And speaking of data, your advertisers will be thrilled to know how many people visited their website – and perhaps even hired them or bought their product because someone clicked on their ad in your e-newsletter.

Keep the conversation going with social media. With your on-line newsletter you can actually engage with your audiences, either in the comment section, or even better – with social media. Your on-line e-newsletter is a great way to drive your readers to your social media pages (and your website itself), communicating with your audiences and finding out what they’re really thinking about you.

Not to mention, it’s green.

Amazingly, the main objection to an on-line newsletter is usually this: Somewhere out there exists a mythical, 90-year old person who doesn’t have e-mail or use the Internet. Needless to say, in a world where 84% of Baby Boomers – who are now well into their 60s – say that the Internet is an essential, like bread and milk in a Rhode Island snowstorm, I’m dubious. I’ve never met this person who isn’t on-line, or learned their name, but this person is the reason why people tell me they can’t possibly put their newsletter on-line.

Nevertheless, if you’re in print and thinking about the transition to an on-line e-news, I have a solution for the “90-Year-Old Person Who Doesn’t Use the Internet” problem which works like a charm. I’d be glad to share it with you.

We recently helped our client the Rhode Island Society of CPAs make a successful transition from print to an on-line edition of their newsletter, What Counts. The transition was flawless, and the Society now enjoys all the benefits of an on-line newsletter I described above.

And yes, there was one person (out of 1,800) who called to say he still wanted to get the newsletter in print. So we printed this version, and mailed it to him. First class.

If you have an existing print newsletter, you need to be thinking about how to transition to an on-line edition as soon as possible. If you don’t already have a newsletter, and are preparing to start one, the only place you should be publishing is on-line.

What Does That Poll Really Mean?

2010-07-27T12:29:00.003-04:00

Now’s the season for political “polls,” but what do they really mean – if anything?

There are two reasons to conduct a poll:
1. To find out information that you need to know.
2. To get some degree of validation for information that you want others to know.

Reason #1 is the political equivalent of market research. Some may find this idea unsavory because of worries that it could lead to pandering by candidates. Well, maybe. Certainly poll-driven candidates are out there, but I give voters more credit for seeing through them. In reality, it’s crucial for candidates to have good information about what voters care about in order to stay in touch with the electorate’s top priorities. If a candidate wants to talk about apples, but the electorate wants to know about oranges, the campaign’s in trouble. A poll can help a candidate know what voters want to know about – and address those concerns.

Unfortunately, polls with reliable numbers are hard to find and expensive. What makes it hard – and expensive - to conduct a good poll?
• You need good callers who understand the questions and ask them the right way;
• You need callers who can be trained to pronounce candidate names and place names correctly;
• Informative polls are long, and it’s difficult to get people to stay on the line all the way through to the end;
• It’s harder to find voters in the era of the cell phone, which are off-limits to pollsters by law;
• It takes time and a real expertise to draft a sound, useful questionnaire;
• It takes time and expertise to interpret the data, weighing it properly so it’s reflective of area demographics.

In short, the kind of good data you need for the first kind of poll is expensive and difficult to come by – and becoming even more so.

Which brings us to the second kind of poll. These tend to be notoriously unscientific and rigged to score points for whoever is releasing it. Your radar should really go up if poll numbers are released by a political party, an organization affiliated with one or a special interest group.

In reality, all public polls should be greeted with healthy skepticism. Media outlets used to do them with the necessary rigor, but few can afford it anymore, with some national exceptions (NY Times, CBS, etc.). Local media outlets are, for the most part, unwilling to spend the money it takes to get really good data. They usually settle for on-line polls or automated telephone polls. (I think my dog Buster responded to one of those the other day.) What you end up with is very cheap data that barely passes the accuracy laugh test – but is reported by the media with a straight face. The best information is usually found in the hands of well-funded candidates, and jealously guarded like the precious commodity that it is.

If you want to know who’s really up and who’s down, the best indicators are not public polls but the activities of the candidates. If they’re spending precious time and resources campaigning in neighborhoods, towns, counties or states they are expected to win, they’re in trouble. If they’re launching a desperate attack on an opponent, they’re in trouble. But if they’ve kept a consistent message, are counter-attacking from the high ground, and campaigning in areas that are considered a toss-up, they’re looking at good numbers.

Media Training for Generals

2010-06-24T10:47:00.008-04:00

Last week I conducted media training with the board of my client, the R.I. Society of CPAs. Based on the events of the last 24 hours, I think it’s fair to say that the CPAs are probably better equipped to successfully manage their media relationships than (now retired) Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff.

Here are four points straight from New Harbor’s media training presentation that Gen. McChrystal might want to ponder in his retirement.

DON’T say anything you don’t want to see on TV or in print attributed to you.

This is Rule #1. If they quote you and you didn’t say it, you might be able to get it fixed (yes – even then, only “might.”) But if you said it, you own it. And as the years go by, it gets increasingly difficult to ensure that the pieces of your interview a reporter uses are even put in the right context.

When President Obama said the General exhibited “poor judgment,” he wasn’t kidding. This is basic stuff.

Set limits. Don’t let a reporter go on an indefinite fishing expedition.

Two weeks, practically uninterrupted access?! Big, big mistake. It’s hard enough not to say anything you regret in an hour, never mind two weeks.

DON’T say anything ironic or sarcastic. Think twice about trying to be funny – it usually doesn’t work, especially in print.

Gen. McChrystal and his team never claimed to be misquoted, or taken out of context – they just came out with their hands up. But if you get too comfortable, the temptation to try your new stand-up routine can become overwhelming. Don’t do it!

DON’T assume the microphone, camera or tape recorder is off immediately before or after an interview.

As long as the reporter is there, you should assume you are on the record and anything you say is “in play.” (I talked about the dangers of “Off the Record” here.) In fact, my rule is that if there’s an interview taking place or a reporter on the premises, I carefully consider everything I say until that’s no longer the case.

And finally, question the concept of “reporter as friend.” Clearly Gen. McChrystal and his team got awfully comfortable with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone – way too comfortable. Perhaps after two weeks they saw Hastings as one of their group, or even a “friend”. Very dangerous. There are some reporters I consider to be my friends, and I’m always “friendly” with all of them. But when they’re working, they simply cannot be expected to do what your friends routinely do – overlook all the silly, unwise, injudicious or out-of-character things you may say.

When it comes to interacting with the media, it’s all on the record. Even between friends.

Notes on Central Falls, and Crisis Communications

2010-05-25T12:00:00.003-04:00

A busy week in Central Falls, R.I. with the superintendent of schools, and later the court appointed receiver for the city, helped reconfirm some fundamentals of the PR business, and bring a new twist to some old lessons.

Who are you?
A thoughtful, self-aware answer to this question lays the foundation for everything else. It goes beyond the cliché of “What is your brand?” to a deeper question about you, your organization and its values. Without this core understanding, it is almost impossible to deliver your message consistently and effectively.

Know the Key Point you’re Trying to Convey…
In Central Falls, the schools superintendent Fran Gallo was able to identify the issue at hand: “I need the flexibility it takes to run the high school in a way that gives the students a chance to succeed.” Pretty simple. And the reporters got it. The next day, Gallo’s pull-out quote on the front page of the Providence Journal likewise summed up her main point, illustrating the other side of the same coin: “In the past, when we wanted to make changes, the contract was an immediate barrier.”

… And Don’t Get Tired of Saying It
Most human beings with good social skills learn early on that repetitive = boring. But when conducting multiple interviews -- particularly one after the other, as was the case in the Central Falls schools matter -- you have to say the same thing every time. If you don’t, every media outlet will have something different, and your message gets muddy.

Give the Communications Team as Much Time as Possible to Mount the Learning Curve
Your communications advisor should have the time not just to learn the facts, but to get to know the client. What are they comfortable saying? What’s their voice? What’s the back story? Is there any area that seems harmless, but is actually a trap in disguise? The sooner communications is brought into crisis planning, the better the result.

Summarize – and on one page, if possible
Reporters don’t have a lot of time these days (see below), and neither do citizens, so it’s important to answer the question “What’s this all about?” quickly and clearly. I like to do it on one page. This summary of the agreement between the school department and the teacher’s union in Central Falls is a good example of laying it all out one pag e.

There’s no Substitute for Preparation
I’ve been doing this for a long time, but I never, ever speak with a reporter without preparing ahead, even if the circumstances only allow for a few moments to collect my thoughts. There’s no such thing as doing an effective interview without preparation. Whenever someone says, “I’ll just wing it” or, “I know what to say,” what I hear is, “Just give me the keys so I can drive this interview into the ditch.” As much as anything, last week was about taking the time to prepare for the interview.

Be Responsive
A reporter’s existence these days is a lot harder than it used to be. Most newsrooms in 2010 are very thin, with reporters who cover several stories a day – so their existence can be daily scramble. In addition, there are very few reporters who actually cover a “beat.” This means that quite often a reporter is assigned to a story in an area where they have little, if any, background or expertise. In both instances for Central Falls, we made an extra effort to get news outlets the information they needed right away, to take the time to answer background questions and to make the principals available for interviews at a place and time that fit into their schedules. Reporters will tell you that they will always be fair, but my experience is that when you work to accommodate them in this way, they will be even more “fair.”

Pick Good Clients
In the end, it’s always great to get a note like this from a client: “I can't imagine where we would have been without your valuable help.” The best clients are those who know they need your advice, and appreciate your counsel in their time of need. If they value what you have to offer, your job will be that much easier, and their message that much clearer.

Posted by David Preston

“How Did Tiger Do?”

2010-02-24T12:38:00.003-05:00

Many people have asked me, "How do you think Tiger Woods did?"

My initial response was that it depends on the answer to a central question I pose whenever considering a communications strategy: What were Tiger’s goals?

Was his goal to get the issue behind him so that it’s not a distraction when he returns to golf? This is the most readily achievable objective. For some, it is a goal that he may have already accomplished with his public apology.

Was his goal to make himself more marketable as a pitchman for potential sponsors? If so, he’s got a long way to go before winning back that kind of corporate trust.

Was his goal to redeem his reputation and stop being the nation’s favorite punch line? This may happen as the initial shock fades, but not any time soon. And like Bill Clinton, Tiger’s going to have to live with the fact that this unflattering episode is destined to appear near the top of his obituary.

Was his goal to save his marriage? Some of Tiger’s remarks seemed to be aimed at accomplishing that important goal more than any other, but we’ll have to see what happens there.

Overall, Tiger’s performance last Friday was a good one. He did all the right things. He did not try to pass the responsibility for his behavior onto anybody else. He did not make excuses, and he didn’t whine. Tiger accepted full responsibility for his behavior in a complete and unequivocal way something that is very unusual for these kinds of celebrity apologies, particularly for athletes.

One notable comment in Tiger’s speech, which struck me as a parent, was that he specifically expressed regret that children who held him up as a role model had been let down and disappointed. He made a point of apologizing to both children and their parents. That’s in marked contrast to most other athlete apologies, where the fallen star says, "It’s not my fault or responsibility that your kid looked up to me as a role model, and if your kid was let down, that’s your problem, not mine." This was not your standard apology of the Roger Clemens/Barry Bonds/Kobe Bryant variety: "If you were offended, I’m sorry that you were offended, but I’m not sorry for anything that I did because it’s somebody else’s fault." In his almost 14-minute apology, Tiger used no weasel words.

So Tiger’s performance was good, as far as it went. But in order to complete the process, and achieve at least some of his goals, Tiger will have to sit down sooner or later and answer questions in a formal interview. There’s simply no other way to put this thing behind him.

Here’s how that interview will probably play out: Tiger’s advisors will reach out to a friendly interviewer and set very strict parameters for what can and can’t be asked. Ten years ago this interview would have gone to Barbara Walters. Today, however, my money’s on Oprah Winfrey, since Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric, as "hard" news anchors, won’t credibly be able to agree to the ground rules that Tiger’s people will require. Oprah will ask some tough – but not too tough – questions based on the parameters that will be established ahead of time. (If she’s really lucky, it will be in September, during the final week of her show – I know, I’m a cynic.)

And with that piece of business complete, Tiger will be able to approach the next step of the plan – starting to win golf tournaments again.

One final note: The biggest single element of Tiger’s attempt at redemption will be whether in fact he does save his marriage. If that were to happen, people would be in a position to say, "Well, if she can get by it, I guess I can, too." If the marriage is not saved, it will be a loose end that will make tying up the rest of it very difficult.

So the short answer is: Tiger did what he had to do last Friday, and he did it well. But there’s a long way to go before it’s over for him – if the exposure of multiple extra-marital affairs can ever really be over.

Posted by David Preston

New York Comedian Proves Universal Desire to Lend a Hand

2010-02-16T10:39:00.003-05:00

This video stirred my nostalgia for New York. I lived in the city for almost three years, working as a reporter for the Associated Press and enjoying some great adventures from my closet of an apartment in the heart of Hell’s Kitchen. It’s the free-spirited sense of spontaneity among its residents that I miss most, and that is demonstrated in this short, offbeat film. Spontaneity exists elsewhere, too, but nowhere else will you find quite the kind of unlikely interactions among strangers that you see in New York.

In the clip, comedian Mark Malkoff sets out to be transported from the southernmost end of Manhattan to the northernmost end, only by having people carry him. They can give him a piggy back, hold him like a baby, hoist him over their shoulders or share his weight with a group – whatever it takes to help Malkoff make his destination without having to move himself.

His success depends on the kindness and open-mindedness of complete strangers in a city often characterized as unfriendly. But those of us who have actually lived there know otherwise. Sure, folks might be too busy or focused to nod and smile to every passerby. They might be abrasive in a crowd or push past you on the subway. But when it comes to doing something outlandish for a complete stranger’s pet project? Many of them espouse a healthy “why not?” attitude – they’re up for it “just because.”

“I am proving to the world that New York is a nice place,” Malkoff says at the beginning of the video. He then proceeds to ask random people on the street to carry him a few feet, a few blocks, whatever they can manage.

During the course of his quest, not only do more than 150 people offer to assist him up the island, but many of them open up and tell him about their families, relationships or what they’re cooking for dinner. He receives cooperation from a diverse array of pedestrians – men, women, young, old, individuals, couples and large groups, and a cross-section of races and ethnicities. He even takes advantage of the virtual community, sending out Tweets when his luck runs thin on the street. People on Twitter see his cries for help and come to his aid.

All in all, it’s a good lesson in assuming the best of people and managing to rally them toward a common cause in which they have very little personal investment.

On a far more serious note, we have been seeing a lot of this public spirit during the last few weeks in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti. The amount of money that has poured into the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations since the devastation hit has been amazing.

How does this translate to good PR? Good PR depends on knowing your public. Good customer service, good marketing, good advertising, successful media campaigns all have one thing in common: They know their audience and treat them with respect.

Assume the best of people, and in many cases they’ll rise to the occasion. Just who is your audience? It could be the next person who shells out a generous donation for victims of a natural disaster in a foreign country, or the next person who offers to carry a complete stranger on his back for no good reason.

Malkoff dared to assume that New Yorkers – so often mislabeled as mean and uncaring – were actually nice and supportive. As a result, he got carried all the way to 140^th Street. Imagine what might happen if you or your company did likewise, and assumed the best of people?

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

Learn from Those Who Chase the Spotlight

2009-12-15T10:44:00.002-05:00

It’s our job to help people and companies monitor media attention or manage potentially harmful coverage, so when somebody seems to crave the public eye for all the wrong reasons, it piques our interest.

The latest dubious episode of shamelessly courting the spotlight is the couple now known as the White House party crashers. Tareq and Michaele Salahi claim they were invited guests to the exclusive state dinner. The White House says otherwise.

In recent months, it seems self-imposed public embarrassment has reached new extremes. First there was Jon and Kate, willing to expose their questionable parenting and marital skills to a national audience. Then there was the infamous “balloon boy” saga, which brought bad parenting for the sake of fame to new heights. And now, there are the White House “Don’t Call Us Party Crashers” party crashers.

As the e-mails between a White House representative and the Salahis come to light, it is still uncertain how an uninvited couple could arrive and be admitted to a high-security, invite-only event. The lines of truth are blurry. Could they have been confused about being welcomed at the event? Is this just a reality television stunt for Bravo’s show “Real Housewives of D.C.”?

What these people, so eager for attention, seem to overlook is how uncomfortable and potentially incriminating it is to find oneself caught in a lie. It’s not very becoming – or legal, for that matter – to come uninvited to a White House dinner or to make your child lie to officials after pretending all day that he was stuck in a balloon when you knew perfectly well he was safe at home.

We think of these episodes as good teaching moments for our clients and blog readers. Not that we expect anybody we know to pretend that his kid is in a balloon 7,000 feet in the air or sneak into President Obama’s parties. But on a smaller level, these fiascos are still relevant. Remember that video, images and audio recordings can all be transmitted much more easily these days than they used to be. If you think you’re leaving a private voicemail to a colleague or friend’s phone, think again. It can always be made public with the click of a button. The line between public and private grows blurrier by the day. Something you might want your friends only to know about (say, a slightly embarrassing photograph of you on Facebook), could easily slip out of your control and end up in the public sphere. Just ask Tiger Woods.

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

Even the Anti-Social Need to Pay Attention to Social Media

2009-12-08T08:41:00.002-05:00

Blogging, twittering, facebooking, it can be a bit overwhelming.

But every day we’re reminded how these new communication tools are taking a leadership role in driving dialogue, nationally and locally. Not just dialogue about movie stars, fashion or special sales - but also about important issues like healthcare, the war in Afghanistan and our economy.
For corporations and individuals who carefully guard their reputations, ignoring the “social” media can be devastating.

Take the Friday after Thanksgiving Day blog post about the reputed “black screen of death.” It accused Microsoft of releasing a faulty security program with its new Windows 7 that caused computers to go black and crash.

Posted on Friday November 27 by an obscure computer security company, and allowed to flourish unanswered, the “black screen of death” claim spread with alarming speed.

By Monday morning the blog post had morphed into a news story picked up by wires, PC World, ComputerWorld, CNN and MSNBC. With each repetition the story gained credibility. And with each hour the story was repeated by dozens of additional publications each quoting the other. Mind you, there was still no substantiated connection between Microsoft and the “black screen of death”.

Finally, ZDNet’s Ed Bott tracked down the destructive roots of the story, the sloppy journalism and sluggish public relations that allowed it to flourish.

By Monday afternoon- as a few good journalists got around to asking Microsoft for comment- the headlines turned... but only slightly. As Bott notes the new headlines didn’t help much:

“Microsoft is investigating… Microsoft is probing… Microsoft is looking into the problem… And then, finally, on Tuesday afternoon: Microsoft denies blame for ‘black screens of death’. Oh, really? By the time your name appears in “So-and-so denies…” headlines, you are toast. Ask Tiger Woods.”

Used to be you’d have more time before turning into toast- at least a couple of news cycles. Now it happens in a matter of hours, or even minutes, at the speed of one quick key stroke.

For those who have yet to dive into the “social” media- the “anti-social” among us- there are quick and easy ways to get started. Our basic advice as you put your toe in the water: get an interactive website, set up a blog, sign up for Twitter and establish an e-newsletter. This is your basic communication network, which will allow you to quickly reach your key audiences with accurate, up to the minute information. It doesn’t have to be time consuming, but it can be reputation saving.

Oh and about the black screen of death? Debatable on whether it even exists. But a couple of things do exist- a new “safety patch” sold by the obscure company that posted the first blog and of course out there in cyberspace- just waiting for a Google search- the hundreds of headlines, news stories and posts on the topic that sprouted up and left unchecked, ran rampant.

Posted by Dyana Koelsch

PR Ideas Are All Around

2009-11-19T09:11:00.002-05:00

A good PR firm looks for inspiration everywhere. The best communication or marketing concepts can come from any place, and often from people who are not primarily focused on promoting a client. I like to look at the greater creative world for ideas that might be repurposed for the people who hire us. When I stumbled on this (http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/bio-diversity/?hp), I immediately asked myself why I liked it so much, and what it can teach us about PR.

Here’s what I like about it:

It incorporates out-of-the-box thinking. We all know the directive to “think out of the box,” but that’s easier said than done. It takes real thought and mind-bending to come up with something truly creative. Christoph Niemann, the Berlin-based artist of this piece, clearly had a million original thoughts when he conceptualized this project. Not only did he imagine simple leaves into new shapes, but he played with the words (“Birch and Ernie,” “Poplar and Un-Poplar”), and used inventive pairings of subjects.
It’s playful, poignant and full of personality. Oftentimes, our clients need advice about very serious issues. In those cases, of course, it’s not effective or appropriate to be playful. But part of good PR is recognizing when to bite your tongue and when to put it in your cheek. Many companies have turned to humorous viral videos to promote a new product or get the word out about their services. Humor is a universal language, and if you know when and how to use it effectively, it can do wonders for getting yourself noticed. If not humor, why not tell a poignant story, or otherwise lend original personality to your message?
It’s simple and aesthetically pleasing. Cleverness aside, Niemann clearly has an understanding for what draws the eye. This can be easily overlooked by a company eager to produce a message full of information. But sometimes simplicity says it best, and sometimes keeping the images and concepts clean will create a more compelling final product.
It’s not what you think. Personally, I don’t like to be tricked. But I do like to be pleasantly surprised. Here, you expect to see pretty leaves, and upon closer inspection you see they have been altered. That is a fun revelation, and whets our appetite for more. Just as Niemann viewed an everyday object through the lens of an artist exploring all its possibilities, a company wanting original PR can think about how to reinvent everyday concepts for its own purposes. What will make your constituents, clients or customers chuckle? What will make them think in new, inspiring ways? What will make them remember you and want more of what you have to offer?

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

Delete Me

2009-11-09T08:43:00.001-05:00

In the New Harbor playbook, the e-mail newsletter is the indispensible tool for reaching a targeted audience in a meaningful, effective way. We’re on the receiving end of a lot of e-newsletters, too - some good, some not. But it’s amazing to us how often the most important element of the total e-news package is overlooked and misused. That piece? The subject line.

Check out some of the subject lines (with the senders’ names changed to “Acme” or “Jones” to protect the guilty) in e-mail newsletters we’ve received, just in the last week:

Acme Newsletter for November 4, 2009
Your November Acme Newsletter
Acme Newsletter November 2009
News from Acme
Acme November Newsletter
Acme News
News from the Office of Politician Jones

We’re not making this up. So here’s the point: It’s a shame for someone to go through the effort of creating and distributing an e-newsletter, only to have a subject line that basically screams “Delete Me: I’m another boring, cookie-cutter e-mail newsletter. ”

The subject line (working in tandem with the sender field) is the most important piece of the package, because if it gets lost and recipients don’t open it, what have you gained? The sender field can really help here. For example, if the sender is “Acme” or “Politician Mary Jones,” say it there. That will free up the subject line to tell your readers what it’s about, not who it’s from – since the sender line already tells us that.

So give your subject lines some serious thought, because they’ll make or break your e-news. And experiment a little. Sometimes, we’ll do two or three different subject lines when sending out the client e-news, just to see what works as an opener, and what doesn’t.

One tactic that can work well is striking an informal, personal tone in subject lines. Last year’s Obama campaign was particularly good at e-mail, including subject lines. For example, they sometimes sent e-mail from “Barack Obama” with subject lines like, “Hey.” A couple of days later, one from “Michelle Obama” would be titled, simply, “Re: Hey.”

Another possibility is to be more specific in your subject line. Use a quotation from the newsletter that might be especially relevant or interesting to your audience. Feel free to hint at the content inside, without giving everything away, so that readers are likely to click on the email to find out more.

Ask yourself: What would make you want to read this email? Chances are “Acme Newsletter November” would not be as compelling as, well, almost anything else.

Bottom line: don’t let the time and effort involved in putting together an e-mail newsletter campaign be wasted by a saddling it with a boring, generic subject line.

Posted by David Preston

It's never too early for PR

2009-10-14T13:03:00.003-04:00

It’s never too early to start incorporating public relations into your business plan…as illustrated recently by the high stakes race between paint retailers Sherwin Williams and Benjamin Moore to attract new customers.

Both companies released slick i-Phone applications this summer that allow users to snap a picture- whether it be of a flower, an upholstered chair or seashell - and instantly match it to one of the thousands of hues in the paint companies’ system, while at the same time harmonizing and coordinating palettes. The apps even provided directions to the nearest store.

Actually Sherwin Williams was first out of the box with the new application. But that turned out to be largely irrelevant, because Benjamin Moore was first with its public relations campaign. In fact, Benjamin Moore’s PR campaign was in full swing months before its “ben Color Capture” application was even available to the general public. That meant Benjamin Moore scooped the free publicity and was featured in blogs and lifestyle stories in numerous media outlets including the New York Times.

The Benjamin Moore media blitz left Sherwin Williams in the unenviable position of having to pitch reporters and bloggers with an “us-too” story line. But once the story is done - it’s done. By the time Sherwin Williams launched its PR campaign, the cool “new” i-Phone paint app was simply old news.

Benjamin Moore’s product development director Carl Minchew, speaking at the Ad Age/ Appilicious Apps Brand Conference, said the application has received over 50,000 downloads and generated a surge in businesses that is still accelerating. “We got a lot of media coverage. We were seen as being first, much to the chagrin of our larger competitor. We beat them to the punch on getting the word out about our application and that seems to be more important thing than being first,” said Minchew

Getting their public relations underway early in the research and development phases gave Benjamin Moore a focused, multi-tiered campaign implemented for maximum effectiveness. Did it matter that Benjamin Moore wasn’t first with the new product launch? Clearly not. What mattered was the ability to get out early (first) with a coordinated PR campaign that defined the company as the industry leader.

Posted by Dyana Koelsch

Don't Try This at Home II

2009-09-21T14:00:00.001-04:00

A while back we posted some thoughts about the dangers of going "off the record". Recently, President Obama ran into trouble wading through this uncharted territory, which is defined by the question: what, exactly, does "off-the-record" mean. This episode highlights a new question: does technology change those meanings?

The issue came up when the President called hip hop artist Kanye West a "jack-ass," in what Obama thought was an off-the-record conversation. (West, you may recall, stormed the stage and gave a foolish, self-centered speech in his native gibberish at this year’s VMAs, upstaging another artist who had actually won an award.) But the reporter in the interview from ABC Twittered it, and so it got "out there", much to the chagrin of the White House.

(This raises another question: Maybe I’m old school, but who, exactly, sits in the Oval Office fiddling with their Blackberry while conducting an interview with the President of the United States?)

The good news for the president? Well, his language wasn’t "too" salty, and he said something that most folks who cared actually agreed with.

Some of the discussion about "off-the-record" seemed to center around whether or not Twitter is a media outlet that would be covered by an off-the-record agreement. This strikes me as being besides the point, and ABC apparently agreed, apologizing for breaking their agreement with the President. But the real issue is the degree to which technology moved so fast that ABC’s editorial process couldn’t keep up. One more thing for reporters, Presidents and the rest of us in the business to be mindful of.

Also of note: if you listen to the recording, you can hear the President say, "Cut the President some slack," after his comments about West. This sheds light on my view that your ability to enforce an off-the-record agreement often depends, in part, on how much leverage you have. Sometimes you don’t have any leverage. If you’re the president, you would think that you and your press office have a great deal of leverage with covering media. Nevertheless, the president was out there; technology had let the cat was out of the bag and no amount of presidential leverage could get the cat back in. I just wouldn’t want to be that reporter going forward as I tried to cover the White House. ("Excuse me, Mr. Emmanuel would like a word with you.")

This episode highlights how dangerous the "off-the-record" waters can be, and offers an interesting window into how the speed of the new media can nullify old ways of managing the relationship between covering and covered.

Nevertheless, my advice to clients remains the same: be very, very careful out there.

Posted by David Preston

Capturing the News Grazers

2009-08-28T10:16:00.002-04:00

Did you read the newspaper today? Or perhaps instead you caught the headlines online, or on your mobile phone. You might have plugged into the daily radio talk show or shared your impressions on Twitter or Facebook and ended the day with a televised newscast. If that sounds familiar you’re what the Pew Research Center for People and the Press calls a news grazer - an integrator who is constantly shopping for news tidbits throughout the day and from a variety of sources. Representing a growing segment of the news audience, Pew notes integrators are more affluent, highly educated and younger than those who consume their news in the traditional manner- i.e. newspapers and nightly television newscasts.

The big loser in this ongoing trend is the newspaper industry that continues to see a decline in readers and struggles to redefine itself into an economically sustainable model.

While the decline of the American newspaper industry has been happening for several years, (as noted in the table above) it is becoming more evident as new generations mature. At the opening fall semester at the Naval War College, (where I’ve taught media relations for the past nine years) I noted for the first time- not one student in the class was a daily newspaper reader. As an aside, this week the Phoenix’s David Scharfenberg has an insightful look at the Providence Journal’s attempts to adapt.

It may come as no surprise that the audience migration to the internet for news has accelerated in recent years. The real questions now is - Where on the internet are news consumers going? Having a web based communication strategy means more than just plunking up a website and hoping your audience finds you.

In fact, standard news organizations are still valuable credible ways to connect information with audiences. The biggest growth in 2008 was at sites offering legacy news. The Project for Excellence in Journalism in its 2009 report notes, “The old norms of traditional journalism continue to have value. Virtually all of the most popular news websites are those associated with traditional news organizations, whose legacy platforms are paying for the news gathering, or are aggregators, which collect content from traditional newsrooms and wire services rather than produce their own.”

The challenge now is for media outlets to figure out how they’ll raise enough revenue to continue paying for quality reporters who generate content both for traditional news sources and new media sources. With diminished reporting staffs, there is added value to well rounded public relations efforts that provide factual, efficiently packaged information that can be disseminated to news grazers on multiple levels. An effective multi-pronged new media strategy includes e-newsletters, traditional news sources, legacy news websites, blogging, and finally creating and maintaining your own interactive and interesting channels of communication.

Posted by Dyana Koelsch

Crisis Communications, Big Papi Style

2009-08-14T13:50:00.013-04:00

Come clean. Do it quickly. Don’t fuel the fire.

The Red Sox’ David Ortiz used all those crisis communications techniques recently in a mostly successful effort to address his alleged failure to pass a 2003 doping test administered by Major League Baseball.

Big Papi’s PR at bat was made even more difficult by this curve ball: He hasn’t been able to see the actual test results, which are under a court seal. This made the “come clean” part of the equation very difficult, since Papi wasn’t completely certain what may have triggered the positive test result. Further, taking the time to find out would have violated Rule #2: Do it quickly. So he balanced the two by finding out what he could in a reasonable amount of time (meaning quickly enough so that it didn’t look like he was ducking allegations and not giving harmful speculation time to gain credence), then offering up the best possible response given the lack of information available to him. He believes he was “careless” with over-the-counter supplements.

There are a number of useful PR lessons that can be gleaned from Papi’s performance:

Stay in control. Always maintain your composure. Even though the release of information that was supposed to be confidential made the “victim card” available, Papi – to his credit -- didn’t play it.
Be candid and accurate. Get as much information as you can about what you’re up against, and make your points with as much candor and clarity as you can. Then, don’t push your luck. Don’t speculate, don’t protest (see: “victim card,” above) and of course, never lie. Just stay focused and say what you know to be true.
When it’s over, stop talking. After you’ve presented your side of things clearly and succinctly, there is no reason to keep fueling the conversation. Leave the spotlight as soon as you can. Too often, those accused of scandals or corruption get carried away defending themselves (we’re talking about you, Roger Clemens), and it often only serves to raise suspicion or create vulnerabilities that didn’t exist. Once you’ve said your piece, fade from public view with as much dignity and grace as you can muster.

Bottom Line: Big Papi’s reputation for candor and being one of the Good Guys sustained little damage, and the matter has faded from the public consciousness – for now.

Posted by David Preston

Click here to Listen to David discuss this topic on WPRO

The PR Lessons of Jon & Kate

2009-07-14T17:03:00.002-04:00

The celebrity machine runs on public displays of humiliation.

The world has been mourning the death of Michael Jackson – an undoubtedly huge talent, but one whose signature move was a crotch-grab, and whose relationship with children leaves lingering suspicion in some minds. And shades of Eliot Spitzer, the governorship of South Carolina’s Mark Sanford teeters in the wake of outright lying regarding his whereabouts and the publication of lovelorn e-mails to his Argentinean mistress in the national press.

So why are fans everywhere riveted as the growing rift between TLC super parents Jon and Kate blasts across tabloids and TVs around the country?

Because all those other people – the Britneys, MJs, and Spitzers of the world – are not “normal” people. They are performers and politicians who have sought the spotlight. And while Jon & Kate did agree to let TLC camera crews document their lives for “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” they perhaps didn’t know exactly what kind of attention they were inviting, or just how much drama was in store. After all, the show’s producers have an incentive (ratings) to make this couple’s life look as salacious and dramatic as possible.

Some say there is no such thing as bad press, which may be true when you’re selling a product or growing a brand. But when the quality and privacy of eight kids’ lives is at stake, and a marriage is strained to the breaking point, that aphorism is not entirely true.

Somebody should have warned these two that when you’re a celebrity, there’s no such thing as a private moment, or a “pass” when it comes to even a momentary lapse in judgment. Even the small failings are grist for the national mill – or threaten a marriage.

The Jon and Kate debacle also highlights one of the first key pieces of advice we give at New Harbor Group to clients who find themselves in hot water: Stop talking - until you figure out what, if anything, needs to be said. (See here how Disney skillfully used silence to end a “crisis.”)

Don’t go running off to People (Jon) and US Weekly (Kate) to tell your respective versions of the home-wrecking scandal that is bringing you down. Don’t book a dozen interviews that will only dig you deeper into the hole you’re trying to climb out of. You might be tempted to tell the world your side of things, but don’t. It doesn’t work, and it just never ends. Gov. Sanford felt the need to announce publically that his mistress was his “soul mate.” Maybe it felt cathartic for him to hold a public therapy session, but the public only shook its head and wondered whether he was really equipped to be governor.

Likewise with Jon & Kate. Their now sad, desperate search for a media outlet that will tell the truth as they see it, will continue to be in vain. The only truth tabloids and entertainment television care about is that scandals sell ads.

The public is not on your side. The public is on the side of entertainment. And when you’re talking about the lives and futures of eight innocent kids who did NOT sign up for the spotlight, that is just not enough. Even Michael Jackson – who hid his kids from the media – knew that.

Posted by David Preston

Interns

2009-05-06T14:45:00.004-04:00

Back in the mists of time, when I was the director of one of the state’s political parties, I used to joke that with ten good interns, you could probably run many of the smaller countries out there (San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein, etc.). I’m a big believer in internships here at New Harbor, and I had a chance to talk about that earlier today as part of a panel on the topic at the Greater Providence Chamber Business Expo. Joining me on the panel were Tim Hebert, CEO of Atrion Networking Corporation; Phil Carlucci, Vice President, Global Service Delivery at Hasbro; Rachel Croce, Services Administrator at Atrion; Dan Egan, President of AICURI, and Mike Tevolini a student at Johnson & Wales University and a member of the Class of 2009.

For any organization, the main point about internships is this: If you take just a few minutes a day to plan an intern’s work, the benefits can be enormous. I usually tell interns that while they may have to go on the occasional coffee run or make copies now and then, my goal is for them to be able to walk away with something tangible for their portfolio – something they can point to at a future interview and say, “I did this.” (This summary of legislative campaign finances is a good example of a New Harbor intern project).

On the intern’s end, here’s the short list of what I need: a professional demeanor, can-do/I-can-figure-it-out approach (tempered by good judgment), and a minimum of ten regularly scheduled hours per week. A regular schedule is the key to the whole package, because it helps me plan the work, which allows them to put together their portfolio piece. And finally, we generally get many more inquiries than we can accommodate, so misspellings or mistakes on the resume or cover letter result in automatic disqualification.

Oh, and there’s a happy ending. We hired Erin Canfield, 23, our “In-House Media Mogul”, from an internship two years ago. I expect we’ll be doing more of that in the future.

Posted by David Preston

There’s No Substitute for Preparation

2009-04-29T11:11:00.001-04:00

We do a lot of crisis communications work, helping clients prepare for crises that may never happen – or are already well underway.

A prominent local attorney found himself in hot water recently, and the initial newspaper story reflected a common, understandable – but completely avoidable – mistake in handling the media during a crisis. In the story, the lawyer’s secretary was quoted describing what services he was still providing for his clients. No real harm was done, but I cringed when I read it, because it had the makings of a real disaster. It was clear that the poor woman just happened to pick up the phone when the reporter called, didn’t know what to do, and was too polite to end the call quickly enough.

Based on our experience, here’s what we would have recommended:

Get the reporter’s name, where they work, why they are calling and their deadline.
Tell the reporter that someone from the company will respond to them as quickly as possible.
Notify the designated person inside the firm (or outside, like us) about the call immediately. This is crucial, because the inquiry is not going to just “go away.” If it’s TV, their next option may be to show up in your reception area with cameras rolling, a la ’60 Minutes’.
Avoid answering questions, regardless of how innocuous they seem, or engaging in any further conversation.

The reporter may try to press you by saying they are “on deadline.” However, in this initial call, that does not require you to offer a response. You do, however, need to respond in a timely manner. (Ultimately, the response may be no response – but at least make that a conscious decision.)

From there, take a few minutes to think it over. What’s our key message? How do we want to communicate it to the reporter? Phone call? E-mail? What about the other reporters who will follow? Who else do we need to talk to? Board of directors? Boss? Employees? Customers? Regulators? How will we deliver the message to them?

Bottom line: Don’t feel pressured, take a deep breath, and think through what you want to do. You may not have all day, but believe me, there’s at least enough time to avoid making a damaging, irreversible mistake.

There’s a lot more to this, so if you want to know more about what else you could do here, or what you could be doing right now to prepare for or mend a crisis, shoot me an e-mail or give me a call.

Posted by David Preston

Make a Good First Impression

2009-04-17T10:44:00.001-04:00

A likable, well-regarded professional I know left her old firm and started a new one, with her name on the door. They got off to a good PR start by sending out a press release and getting some ink. But when I tried to send a congratulatory note, things got tough. A quick search didn’t turn her up on LinkedIn, or any other social networking site, and a Google search directed me (and any new business that might be out there) to the old firm. Directory listings sent me to the same place.

OK, here we go – the website address! Oops, I need a username and password to get in? That’s probably where the phone number is, too.

Hmm. Give me a call if you’re trying something new – I’ll make sure this doesn’t happen to you.

Posted by David Preston

Khe Sanh

2009-04-08T13:38:00.001-04:00

A little-noted passage in President Obama’s Inaugural Address perhaps served to close an important chapter in our nation’s history.

Citing American battlefield victories to highlight the bravery and define the sacrifices made on our behalf by previous generations, the President said, “For us, they fought and died in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.”

The first three battles are well known to Americans, but the inclusion of Khe Sanh may well have been the first time that a Vietnam-era battle was included with the others – certainly in such a high-profile setting.

Forty-one years ago today the Marines at Khe Sanh stood their ground and won a savage 10-week battle there. Like Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the Chosin Reservoir, every Marine knows the story of Khe Sanh. It is another example of why the Marines are the Marines.

Khe Sanh was a base, with a dirt airstrip, in the northernmost reaches of South Vietnam. In January 1968, a few days before the Tet Offensive, the Marines at Khe Sanh were surrounded and attacked by tens of thousands of communist troops. The base was subject to an artillery barrage that hit the ammo dump and made the airfield – which the Marines relied on for resupply – completely unusable.

Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese advanced towards the perimeter of Khe Sanh, crawling through tunnels and trenches covered by jungle, drawing the noose tighter around the base. Finally, after two months, with the Marines still holding on and a relief force making slow progress, the communist troops retreated into the jungle under a blistering air and artillery bombardment. On April 8, the Marines and the relief force linked up near Khe Sanh.

President Obama’s inclusion of Khe Sanh with these other hallowed examples reflects his generational outlook that perhaps now is a good time to bring down the curtain on the proxy fights left over from the 1960s – battles that have overshadowed the last 30 years of American politics, and still echo in today’s debates about Iraq and Afghanistan. Looming over it all, the question: “Where did you stand on Vietnam?”

To his credit, the President moves beyond the political to a higher level of basic truth – that the bravery and sacrifices made in Vietnam are part of an American tradition that began at Concord, was confirmed at Gettysburg and reaffirmed at Normandy.

President Obama‘s careful, thoughtful style reflects a deep understanding of the power of words. He deliberately included Khe Sanh in the Inaugural to deliver the same message he sent by visiting Baghdad yesterday: The politics and noise that come with our democracy should never obscure the noble character of those who serve to protect it. And further, that the Marines at Khe Sanh, and everyone who served in Vietnam, should take their rightful, historic place alongside those who came before – and after.

Posted by David Preston

Coverage of Coverage

2009-03-25T13:24:00.001-04:00

We’ve always said that landing good stories on behalf of our clients is just the beginning of good PR. Once the piece appears, we immediately seek an even wider audience by creating “ripples in the pond.” One way to do that is to push for “coverage of coverage.”

You may remember Juliet Vongphoumy, who calls our client, the Button Hole golf center, her “home club.” Last summer, the (then) high school freshman beat all the boys to win the state high school golf championship. We pitched Juliet’s story to Sports Illustrated, and she was recently highlighted in SI’s kids edition. Good coverage.

Then we let the Providence Journal know that Juliet had been in SI Kids, and there it is – coverage of coverage.

You might even say that with this blog, we’ve created coverage of coverage of coverage. And that’s the whole idea –to initiate not just a story, but a conversation.

If a good news item about you, your company or your organization is published, here are some easy ways to create ripples on your own:

Post it on your website.
Link to it (either the original source or its mention on your website) from your social networking sites.
Create an e-mail vehicle to friends, clients and prospects with the link included.

Then get the conversation going.

Posted by David Preston

The Fate of Newspapers

2009-03-10T19:00:00.001-04:00

For hundreds of years, newspapers have traditionally been a favorite medium for getting out important public information, advertising or news about local business. So we never take it lightly here at New Harbor Group when a paper folds or makes major cutbacks. Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more of that these days.

For example:

- The Providence Journal recently announced its employees can expect 74 layoffs.

- Next door in Connecticut, the Hartford Courant said it will be letting go approximately 100 employees.

- On the other side of the country, The Rocky Mountain News just closed, much to the distress of many regular readers. And that is surely an indicator of what’s to come.

(Combined age of these newspapers? 575 years. Lesson? Adapt, or else.)

From Philadelphia to San Francisco, presses across the country are in danger of grinding to a halt, forcing PR companies like us to reassess how to adapt to the changing news media landscape.

While we’ll always have a soft spot for print, and will continue to give newspapers a chance as long as they stick around, we are telling all our clients that they have no other choice but to join us in exploring other mediums.

Internet. Online video. Blogs. Social networking. Virtual news feeds. Mobile devices. These are not going away, and are probably only in their infancy in terms of potential for reaching audiences and disseminating information to the public quickly and effectively.

If anything, the downfall of newspapers has shown us the not-so-surprising destiny of any industry that’s not willing to take chances and embrace new technology. The Rocky Mountain News was an outstanding news product with many loyal readers in its community and beyond, but something about its culture or business model resisted the changes required to adapt to new readership habits and refused to meet the needs and the wants of the customer.

Sure, some newspapers have been trying to establish a reputable online presence, and many have succeeded quite well. But is it too little, too late? And how does a newspaper make money on-line? Whatever the answer, we‘re watching and learning from the struggles of the news business, and are poised to pass them on to our clients .

We are committed to perfecting new tools and communicate to the public in a way that works best for our clients. More and more, that means stressing to our clients the vital importance of reaching their audience with the most cutting-edge techniques.

Will your ad go further on page D-12 of the local paper, or on the Facebook pages of everyone who lives in the target community? Do you want to print your news release … or Twitter it? Maybe both.

Posted by David Preston

Advice for Captain Sully

2009-02-05T13:18:00.000-05:00

“Sully” is now a household name, but what about the man behind the moniker?

The pilot who so gracefully brought down an engineless plane into the Hudson River on a frigid January afternoon without a single passenger casualty now has to grapple with an avalanche of book offers, interview requests, media pitches and fan mail. The hardest part (safely crashing a plane onto the river) might be over, but surviving all the attention will be its own type of challenge.

We’re not too worried about whether the oh-so-calm Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger can maintain his cool in the spotlight, but we do have some advice. (While we wouldn’t know the first thing about safely evacuating a waterlogged plane, dealing with public attention is what we do.)

America’s favorite pilot should take some time to think about his own personal and career goals, and take advantage of this newfound opportunity to pursue them. Is he thinking about retirement? A book deal could be a good money-making project to keep him busy after a lifetime of flying. Sully is a brand now, a brand that represents integrity and heroism. He can use that to pursue his goals, whether that means writing a book, growing his consulting company or holding himself out as a public speaker. Maybe he wants to raise money for a favorite charity, in which case the now-trusted Sully face could certainly go far.

Whatever he puts his mind to, we would strongly recommend that he maintain that apparently well-developed sense of dignity and humility above all else. That’s what’s appealed to folks so far, after all, and nobody likes to see a nice guy get full of himself once the cameras roll. In a country dealing with an epic financial crisis, eight years of diminished stature on the world stage, Bernie Madoff and a heaping daily dose of lurid celebrity news, people are thirsting for somebody they can trust. Even Obama can’t claim that he’s saved 155 lives.

Unlike many celebs or CEOs who make headlines, Sully actually has a pretty darn good approval rating in the public’s eye, so he can use that to his advantage. A true “Captain of the Ship,” he walked the aisle twice as the plane was taking in water and everybody else was out on the wings, just to make sure nobody got left behind. The Sully brand epitomizes a cool professionalism, modesty, ethics and class. The most important thing now is to guard that brand at all costs. Think carefully about who you give interviews to, Cap’n. Don’t let your story get over-hyped or slide out of your control. And don’t worry about saying enough is enough to the media after giving a few interviews. Leave them wanting more.

That way they’ll go out to buy the book or hear you speak or sign up for your consulting services or come to your fundraiser.

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

A Little Thing

2009-02-02T09:01:00.000-05:00

Here’s one of the reasons – besides good food and friendly service - why Jiggers, a diner near me, always has a line out the door, even on cold days like yesterday. While people stand in line, the Jigger’s folks hand out free mugs of coffee. It’s not a stroke of genius, it costs practically nothing, but it tells their customers that they’re not being taken for granted – a good message to send in this economy. My guess is that the places who hand out free coffee to their waiting customers are the ones who will still be standing two years from now.

Who Wants to be a Gazillionaire?

2009-01-26T08:59:00.000-05:00

We are working hard to impress upon all our clients the absolute need for a dynamic website, one where they can quickly post all the great media coverage we get them, easily maintain a blog and link back to it all with their brand new e-mail newsletter.

What’s the biggest obstacle to this communications nirvana? More often than not, it’s…”The Web Guy”. I don’t know why, but a surprising number of the “web guys” we’ve come across use the word “can’t” a lot more than most other people do. And pricing can be mysterious, filled with unpleasant surprises. Last week, someone told me that he learned too late that his “Web Guy” couldn’t call him back before noon because A) he was out late playing in his band the night before, and B) the boss at his “real job” wouldn’t let him call back until lunch. OK, maybe that guy could have stood a little checking out, but unfortunately, that story strikes a chord, and probably not just with me.

So here’s my proposal, “Web Guys”: We are telling our clients that they need your services – a lot. If you are a talented web designer who can work with creative direction, finish on time, charge a reasonable price with no surprises and otherwise work without drama we are very interested in talking with you. Send me an e-mail or call me. I know you’re out there. If it works, you may just be on your way to being a gazillionaire.

Alexander Hamilton

2008-11-24T13:22:00.000-05:00

Ah, the ‘Golden Age’ of American politics. Newspapers defined the issues in measured, non-partisan tones while statesmen debated the issues, transcending personal attacks and invective as they traveled the land.

Having just finished Ken Chernow’s fantastic bio of Alexander Hamilton, one thing is clear –

It never happened.

Our gauzy impression of the Founder’s era is wishful thinking. Newspapers back then were vicious, partisan purveyors of every conceivable rumor, easily the equal of today’s Internet, only slower. Meanwhile, the Founders made insider deals in backrooms while engaging in all manner of political skullduggery. Some, including Hamilton and Jefferson, even did “have sex with that woman.”

Make no mistake, though – they were giants. Moreover, it’s hard to escape the feeling that it was an unusual bit of extra ordinary luck for the Founders to exist together in their singular place and time. Charles de Gaulle noted that “The graveyard is full of indispensible men,” but Chernow’s book makes it hard to imagine any of it coming together without George Washington.

Hamilton’s story is a fascinating, distinctly American one. Born to a single mother, he endured an impoverished, tumultuous childhood in the West Indies on St. Croix. But he showed great promise at an early age, and a group of wealthy local merchants pooled their resources to send him to New York to attend what became Columbia University. Hamilton called New York City home for the rest of his life. Today, his life size portrait looms in the background at City Hall whenever the Mayor of New York holds a press conference.

Hamilton had talent and drive in great abundance. He left college when the Revolution began, earning a reputation for bravery in battle, and quickly rose to become Washington’s right hand man at the age of 21. Back in combat, he personally led one of the final charges of the war on British positions at Yorktown.

In Washington’s first term, it was Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, more than any other American before or since, who laid the foundation for our modern American economic system. (Two years ago, when Atlantic Monthly listed the 100 Most Influential Americans in history, Hamilton was ranked 5th, and was the first non-president to be listed.) The clash between Hamilton’s vision of a manufacturing base with a strong federal government and Jefferson’s state-oriented, agrarian outlook defined the politics of the age. Jefferson got more and better ink - both then and now - but today’s U.S. is much more Hamilton’s country than it is Jefferson’s.

Now about that “Golden Age”…

The Founders cut back room deals. In fact, in a small New York room while the city served as the new nation’s temporary capital, Secretary of State Jefferson and Hamilton cut the Granddaddy of all American political back room deals. To bind the states more closely to the central government, Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume and pay the Revolutionary War debt of the states. This was obviously tempting to the states, but Jefferson saw what his colleague was up to. So he agreed to what was called “assumption” – as long as Hamilton agreed to place the new permanent capital in the south, on the Potomac River to be precise. The deal was done.

There was all kinds of maneuvering. Hamilton, with the approval of Washington, worked hard to repair relations with England, seeing trade with the Mother Country as a key way to build a strong economy. Amazingly, at the same time, Secretary of State Jefferson was conspiring with France (where he served as ambassador for many years) to undermine the English, passing along privileged information from cabinet meetings and generally working to thwart Hamilton’s efforts to cultivate them.

They fooled around. Before there was Monica, the widower Jefferson carried on at Monticello with his slave Sally Hemmings, while Hamilton got around as well, despite a loving relationship with his wife that produced several children. One particular dalliance of Hamilton’s with a woman named Martha Reynolds, exploded in public view in 1796 in…

…The vicious, partisan newspapers. Newspapers in those days were political vehicles more than news sources. The Jeffersonian papers reveled in the delicious details of Hamilton’s affair with Mrs. Reynolds. They also “exposed” John Adams’ plan to re-establish the British crown in North America by marrying his son to the daughter of George III. (Don't feel bad for Adams - after a falling out between the two, he rarely missed a chance to point out that Hamilton was, well, a "bastard".) Incredibly, even Washington was the subject of partisan abuse, like any other common pol, during his second term. Meanwhile, the Federalist newspapers denounced Jefferson for the “rape” of his slave.

Tough stuff – never mind Hamilton's deadly duel with Aaron Burr, who at the time was sitting Vice President of the United States!

I highly recommend the Chernow book. It will reinforce how fortunate we have been as a nation, and it will cure you of that longing you’ve had for a Golden Age of American Politics – something that never happened.

Notes on Last Tuesday…

2008-11-07T13:48:00.000-05:00

It says something good about America that my kids (ages 9 and 11) don’t even give it a second thought that an African-American has been elected President of the United States.
--
A sad end for John McCain, a genuine American hero who I voted for twice over the years. It’s troubling that what McCain endured for his country in Vietnam, and how he understands patriotism, are viewed by too many as out-dated relics of an ancient era.

McCain’s defeat recalls this nugget - almost always true - from an old-timer late one night many years ago in a smoke-filled Providence campaign headquarters: “Who wins campaigns? The guy who runs the best campaign!”

George Bush dealt McCain a tough hand. But in both tone and execution, McCain’s effort was unworthy of him. In contrast, Obama’s campaign was the best presidential effort I’ve seen in my lifetime. (How do you quantify that? Obama is the first Democrat to break 51% since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and only the second since Harry Truman in 1948.)

The GOP base McCain inherited from Bush and Karl Rove was a stone around his neck. That base is careening perilously away from the new mainstream in American politics and heading over the cliff into “Fringe Valley”. To placate that base, McCain had to say things he knew better of, and pick the unsettling Sarah Palin. 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.” Now, McCain’s campaign makes me wonder if the GOP hasn’t created a similar, self-defeating dynamic.
--
In my little town of East Greenwich (pop. about 13,000) I had the chance to work with some neighbors on a school bond referendum for a new middle school that proved, again, that a good campaign almost always wins. The amount in question, $52 million, was a daunting amount for a town our size, made even more so by the current economic climate. Further, voters had already rejected a similar plan two elections ago. But starting in the summer, a small, focused group of volunteers began to identify supporters over the phone. This is a grueling process, but one that makes the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, in local races, there is no substitute for phone banking and door-to-door campaigning. It doesn’t matter what else you do: a candidate that doesn’t do those two things might as well just roll the dice. And challengers who aren’t prepared to invest the time and effort in these two things should seriously reconsider running at all.
--
It was heartening to win with 65% of the vote, particularly with a tiny budget of only a couple thousand dollars raised on the Internet. My old rule of thumb for local races was that the campaign should expect to spend $2 to $4 per voter, with most of that money going to direct mail. But just as the Internet is making mainstream news outlets struggle for relevance, the ‘net is also helping save local campaigns thousands of dollars by allowing them to bypass the Post Office and communicate directly with voters. Direct mail is still an important tool, but in a local race it becomes a lot lower priority – our campaign didn’t do any, and didn’t suffer for it. (We didn’t do any newspaper advertising, either.)
--
The Rhode Island GOP continues its march to extinction, winning only 10 of 113 legislative seats. Sure, I know New England is rough terrain for Republicans, and I know that the larger turnout in Presidential election years is tough to overcome. Still, I wonder how many of them relied on mail, earned media and other indirect communications to make the kind of personal contact that only doorbells and volunteers on telephones can create.

If you’re not directly touching voters – like Barack Obama or the Taxpayers for EG Schools – you’re probably not running the best campaign. And if you're not running the best campaign, you're probably not winning.

“Pretty Good” Government

2008-09-18T15:00:00.000-04:00

I’m all for “Good Government” (even though “Pretty Good Government” sometimes gets better results), but the recent fracas about the process surrounding the hiring of Providence School Superintendent Tom Brady (one of the best in the business) reminded me of a true story about President Teddy Roosevelt’s seizure of the Panama Canal Zone from Colombia. After the deed was done, Roosevelt asked Attorney General Philander Knox to author a legal opinion justifying the audacious action. To his immortal credit, Knox responded “Mister President, do not let so great an achievement suffer from any taint of legality.”

The Red Sox Are. Are You?

2008-09-15T21:00:00.000-04:00

In the end, there are two kinds of companies: There’s the “Company Policy” Model. Their answer to any request that deviates even slightly from “Company Policy” is a resounding “NO.”

These are the places that won’t let your six-year old use the clearly visible restroom, even though his bladder is bursting. Why? Because Company Policy says it’s for Employees Only.

(A friend of mine gets even by asking to use the restroom after his purchase has been rung up. If the answer is “no” he puts the wallet away and leaves the merchandise on the counter.)
This isn’t necessarily a characteristic of big companies – this kind of self-defeating behavior is the norm at enterprises of every size. These companies are not centered on the customer. In fact, they seem to give off a vague sense of doing you a favor by taking your money.

The other model is the “Disney World/Nordstrom” model. At these places, they find a way to say “YES.”

Well, add the Red Sox to the Disney-Nordstrom list. Here’s why: We took our two kids to a rainy, damp Fenway Park Friday night. (Wakefield was awesome; Sox win 7-0.) Our seats were a few rows beyond the reach of the overhead cover. When we asked Alicia, the usher, if we could sit in some empty seats under the cover in order to keep out of the rain, she said….YES, without thinking twice. When the ticket holders showed up in the 4th inning (Who shows up in the 4th during a pennant race?!) we moved. By then, the rain had stopped and the night was saved.

Here’s to the Alicia, and the Red Sox, who understand that it’s all about the customers.

She’s Dead. No She’s Not. No, wait…yes, she is.

2008-08-21T22:08:00.000-04:00

Some media moved quickly to correct their erroneous stories (using anonymous sources) announcing the death of an Ohio congresswoman. As soon as the corrections got out, though, she actually died.

Reminded me of my old publisher who said “Be first, but be right.”

And another thing – why would you use an anonymous source in these circumstances in reporting a death? It’s unfortunate, but the rush to declare someone dead puts journalists in an unseemly light.

What’s it worth to you?

2008-07-14T16:06:00.000-04:00

After a rough ride on the fast ferry from Quonset Point, RI to Martha’s Vineyard, an unhappy customer took the plane to Providence and a cab back to Quonset to get his car. Once there, he asked the ferry owner for his money back. The ferry owner told him to, basically, pound sand.

From there, the one-way passenger wrote a letter to the Providence Journal. So now, everyone can Google ‘Vineyard Fast Ferry from Quonset Point’ and get all the gory details in the letter which comes up fourth, before you even have to scroll down.

So what do you do? In the old days, “pound sand” was probably a safe answer. Now, the business owner may be better off very quietly refunding the handful of complaints along these lines (and they probably are very few). Refunding a dozen tickets a year is less harmful to the bottom line than having this type of letter on the web. However, once the refund number gets too high, you’d have to rethink things.

Of course, in a world where no good deed goes unpunished (and unpublished), the now happy ex-customer would probably reward your generosity by writing a letter to the paper praising you for graciously refunding their money - unleashing a deluge of similar requests.

PR Opportunities in Disguise

2008-07-09T20:45:00.000-04:00

Opportunities for great PR are everywhere. Take the local business weekly’s annual “40 Under 40” feature where – you probably already guessed it - they honor 40 local leaders who are under 40. Each of the honorees is interviewed, resulting in 40 nice, glowing profile stories in a special section of the paper.

Here’s what I tell my friends who usually make up about half the honorees every year (everybody knows everybody in Providence): What the paper is really doing is giving you an opportunity to help them write a great marketing piece about yourself. After it’s published, the opportunities are endless - post it on your website (company and personal), post it where you use social media, e-mail the link to friends, clients, prospects, etc.

A chance like this makes taking a few minutes to prepare for the interview a good idea. Think of the message you want to relay, then use your answers to reinforce your theme(s).

And one last thing – take a minute to go back and see what the reporter has done in the past. It can’t hurt to mention the “good job” they did on a recent story, or see what questions they’re inclined to ask. (BTW - The ‘Favorite Movie’ question is a perennial for 40 Under 40, so don’t kill the gravitas by blurting out “Talladega Nights!”)

A Great American Story

2008-06-05T21:00:00.000-04:00

Katie Vongphoumy came to America from communist-ruled Laos in 1982 when she was only 20. She had been trying to get here for a long time. Her first escape attempt as a teenager failed, and she ended up spending two years on a slave labor “farm”, partaking in the utopian paradise created by the winners of the wars of the 1970’s in Southeast Asia . On her next escape attempt, Katie made it to Thailand, and then America. Katie and her husband Sam, also a refugee, settled in Rhode Island and had four daughters. On Monday, their oldest daughter Juliet did something no other girl has ever done – she won the state high school golf championship, beating all the boys by two strokes.

Juliet is only a freshman at LaSalle Academy, and “a peanut” to boot – five feet tall, a shade over 90 pounds. It was funny to hear the discussion on local radio the day after her win: “And she doesn’t even belong to a country club!” Imagine that! Juliet “plays out of” Button Hole, a great place that uses golf to teach inner-city kids important lessons about life (and a client of New Harbor Group). Apparently, you can learn to play just as well at Button Hole as you can at a country club.

Seeing the picture of tiny Juliet playing a shot against a backdrop of trees on the course just reinforced that it’s all about heart. I was grateful to Juliet and her family for reaffirming – again – the American Story: sacrifice, hard work, focus, drive, commitment…success. And it doesn’t matter where you come from.

Innocent? Or Not Guilty?

2008-06-03T20:30:00.000-04:00

Some chatter around here about the Providence Journal’s banner headline after two local business execs were acquitted in a high-profile corruption trial proclaiming them “innocent”. Yes, the actual legal term is the less-exculpatory “Not guilty”, but the “innocent” tag has it’s roots in journalistic tradition. Here’s how it was explained to me in my reporting days: back when newspapers were printed with letters or entire words “inked” on little blocks of lead, newsrooms used “innocent” because if the “not” block (of “not guilty”) fell out or malfunctioned during printing, the headline in the next edition would say that the acquitted was “guilty”. There you have it.

Show me the Money

2008-04-09T22:40:00.000-04:00

What does it cost to run for office in Rhode Island? That’s one of the questions that will be raised at a campaign school for new candidates scheduled for this Saturday. In the General Assembly, this summary of what every candidate raised and spent during the 2006 elections offers a good idea of what kind of fundraising is involved. Minus the leadership, the average House member raised $12,160 in 2006 and spent $15,366 to win. In the Senate (again, less the leadership), the average winner raised $19,621 during the election year and spent $24,090.

Not surprisingly, winning is a little more expensive for newcomers. The four Senate first-termers spent $29,000, $39,000, $40,000 and $50,000 respectively to win. Of the eight House first time winners, four spent between $20-$25,000 and two spent about $10,000. Another, who had held a different office before, spent $8,700. Finally, a first-timer with no opponent spent only $1,265.

Every candidate will tell you that fundraising is the most onerous part of the job. But the numbers – particularly in the state Senate – show that it’s a must, if you’re serious about winning.

Don’t Try This at Home!

2008-03-13T14:15:00.000-04:00

Some “unauthorized candor” about Hilary Clinton, coupled with an amateurish attempt to go “off the record” got one of Barack Obama’s advisors bounced from his campaign recently. The advisor, Samantha Power, observed that the junior senator from New York is “a monster, too—that is off the record—she is stooping to anything.” You would think that someone at Power’s level would have known better.

“Off the record” is one of those terms that often gets tossed about too casually – and with dangerous consequences. When we conduct media training for clients, we usually caution against the “off the record” approach. Instead, if there’s something that needs to be conveyed to the reporter without fingerprints, we’ll usually work with the client and the reporter to safely pass the information along without someone poking their personal or professional eye out.

Power’s primary mistake (there was more than one here) was not to get explicit agreement from the reporter about conditions before saying the thing that she didn’t want attributed to herself. Another danger in going “off the record” is that there are numerous variations and interpretations of the term. The lack of clear, universally understood definitions can be very dangerous for the interviewee, who – for a lack of clarity about the agreement - may see their name on-line in minutes next to a quote that could end their career, etc.

One more thing – Powers looks like she’s wasting an “off the record” chip to merely make a personal attack. I’d recommend against that.

Slate did a nice job in considering the ramifications of going “off the record”. The State Department’s web site offers the most succinct summary of the rules I’ve seen (although I have some questions about their definitions).

My advice, in short – don’t try this at home!

Nothing: Often a Good Thing to Do, Always a Good Thing to Say

2008-02-29T18:18:00.000-05:00

I rarely suggest that someone decline an interview. After all, with preparation and discipline, an interview can be a good way to deliver your message.

But there are exceptions. For instance, this train wreck on the Today Show where Matt Lauer slices and dices Drew Peterson, the Chicago area cop whose last two wives (he’s had four) have either been murdered (Wife #3) or disappeared(Wife #4). After noting the “coincidence”, the interview gives Lauer an opportunity to matter of factly restate all the evidence against Peterson, and to devastating effect.

Lauer: “How do you respond?”

Peterson: “How can I respond?” or “I can’t respond” or “I don’t know how to respond to that.” Brutal.

But it only gets worse (or better for Lauer) when Peterson’s lawyer sits right next to him, and says more than once “I have to step in here” or “That’s a loaded question.” Next time Drew, while I know it’s good for your lawyer’s business, don’t bring him on the Today Show with you. (Actually, Peterson’s lawyer may be the only guy to benefit from this PR disaster.)
Here’s my question: Why on earth would he agree to this interview?

Well, here’s some experience-based speculation: Sometimes, people get fond of seeing themselves in the media, and forget to ask the basic question “Will this help me or hurt me?” Peterson has shown particularly bad judgment, with a profile in People magazine and an appearance on a radio talk show entitled “Win a Date with Drew Peterson”. Wow.

Peterson may also have fallen for the Today Show producer’s siren song that he would have a chance to “tell your story.” Sometimes, people like Peterson seriously overestimate their ability to talk themselves out of anything. (Here, it’s the job of someone like me to gently say “In reality, you stink at this.”) Also, for this to work, you actually need a good, credible story to tell. In Peterson’s case, not so much.

The only rationale I can think of is the following, and it’s a stretch: let’s say Peterson gets off. This interview will raise his profile in case he writes a book, and, he hopes, increase sales.
Other than that, I’m at a complete loss.

Why the Marines are the Marines

2008-02-19T17:33:00.000-05:00

Every great organization has its legends. These stories define the mission and the traditions of the group, and set a standard of performance that current members can strive for. They also encourage others to want to join.

Few groups take more care with their legends than the U.S. Marine Corps. Every Marine knows the stories of the Marines who came before, and no Marine wants to be the one who fails to meet the standard of performance as defined by these legends. Every Marine aspires to be a worthy successor to the Marines who came before.

I’m reminded of this because today marks 63 years since the Marines landed on Iwo Jima in the Pacific during World War II. When the Marines tell their story to new recruits (like me 25 years ago) the story of Iwo Jima is right at the beginning. (The Marines even use video of the famous flag raising on the island in their advertising.)

Telling the Iwo Jima story makes sense for the Marines. It’s a story of great courage. Of the 81 Congressional Medals of Honor (the nation’s highest honor) awarded to Marines in WWII, 22 were awarded for action on Iwo Jima. This is more than for any other battle in American history. The Naval commander Admiral Chester Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo “uncommon valor was a common virtue.” When you read the citations for the Marines (and five sailors) who received the Medal of Honor on Iwo Jima you will see what he meant.

It also makes it clear that the Marines’ central mission is dangerous, sometimes brutal. During the six week battle for the eight square mile island (about the size of Pawtucket, R.I.) 6,800 Americans were killed. One out of three Americans who landed on the island was killed or wounded. All but a couple hundred of the 22,000 Japanese defenders fought to the death.

When I consider Iwo Jima it’s not long before I get to a sense of gratitude and pride. Gratitude towards the men who fought the battle – combined with the pride of knowing that despite all the distractions a prosperous democracy can create, thisnation still produces men and women who are worthy successors of the Marines on Iwo Jima.

On Second Thought…

2008-01-08T20:45:00.000-05:00

We love to complain about “The Media”, but what would happen if there were no journalists and no press coverage? After all, there’s a reason why independent journalists are at the top of government target lists in totalitarian regimes (see; Russia, Zimbabwe, China, etc.). Recently, I worked on a successful anti-recall campaign in a rural New England town, just outside the suburban ring of both Boston and Providence. This geography means that the community in question falls “into the cracks” when it comes to newspaper coverage.

Officially, the town is covered by three dailies (and a monthly shopper). But the reality is that it is too far from the center of each paper’s gravity to get much daily coverage. The journalists at the three papers, all skilled and conscientious, just didn’t have the time to make covering this town a high enough priority to matter. The result of this diminished scrutiny on the local body politic was interesting. Some folks saw an opportunity to cut governmental and political corners that they might not have if the possibility of daily scrutiny was higher. The caliber of political discourse and the degree of accuracy in town politics declined as well, while the local police department was outwardly political in a way that I had never come close to seeing before. And almost all of this went uncovered, falling like a tree in the forest.

So complain if you will – and there’s plenty to question – but a brief foray into a world without (much) media scrutiny reminded me of Churchill’s wry defense of democracy – it has it’s drawbacks, but it’s better than the alternatives.

While we’re here, a couple things worth reading – in “The Media”:

- Christoper Hutchens considers the role of his writings in the decision of a young soldier to enlist – and that soldier’s death in Iraq.

- The New York Times makes the case for the rule of law as central to the American Ideal.

- The Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop exposes the tawdry “value proposition” of the Spears Family Business.

- An extreme rarity: a thoughtful, reasoned piece about immigration.

A Therapeutic Moment

2007-12-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

The Good News: I like iced tea, so I was glad when Dunkin’ Donuts started brewing it and selling it. The Bad News: Sunday night it took the chain four tries to get my order (medium, black, unsweetened) right. At the DD at 6166 Post Road in North Kingstown (where I made the mistake of driving away without taste testing first) the first try tasted like iced coffee. When I drove around again, the second did, too. The young lady at the window explained: Maybe it’s because we had trouble with the tea brew basket, so we took the coffee brew basket and made tea with it. Could be…

At my next stop, in Attleboro, their first try (3rd total) had sugar in it. I learned this in time because I’ve taken to protecting myself against missed orders by doing something that I hate doing, because it’s so obnoxious – I sit at the window and take a sip before I go. I hate to admit this, but it’s becoming the only way to make certain that you find out in time if you’re getting what you paid for. “No, I didn’t order Sweet n’ Low.” On try number four, I hit paydirt.

Why is service such a challenge for some places? I had breathtakingly bad experiences at Macy’s and Sears over the weekend as well. But then, I had a great experience with AAA’s East Providence office.

You can be sure I’ll renew my membership with AAA, and recommend them to others. Meanwhile, I’ll look for ways to shop around Macy’s and Sears, and I’ll get iced tea at Starbucks whenever I can.

Who’s #1? The Client

2007-11-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

Who is our top business priority? Simple – our clients. It seems like common sense, but from time to time you see a high profile instance where someone forgets that – most recently, baseball agent Scott Boras. (See the recent New Yorker profile of Boras, aptly titled ‘TheExtortionist’.)

A few weeks ago, Boras advised his client, Yankees slugger Alex Rodriquez, to declare free agency and see what kind of a deal he could get from other teams. Then Rodriguez had a change of heart (read Saturday’s very good Wall Street Journal version.) Turns out he really liked being a Yankee, and didn’t want to leave the team. (It probably didn’t hurt that the Yankees were one of probably only three or four teams who could afford A-Rods $27 million annual price tag.)
For Boras, it had become about him - not his client Rodriguez. That’s bad news, and a dangerous place to be for an advisor whose ego is so big he can’t see it coming. Which apparently Boras didn’t. Having crossed the psychic Rubicon where he could no longer trust Boras, Rodriguez reached out to an unlikely counselor – mega-billionaire Warren Buffet, who the slugger had met in his travels. It’s not clear what Buffet knows about baseball, but he understands business and the importance of good, objective, client-centered advice. He told A-Rod to approach the Yankees himself, using two Goldman Sachs execs as intermediaries and advisors, leaving Boras out.

And the deal was done – without the agent.

Sure, Boras will get the commission, but forgetting that it’s not about him will likely prove costly. He’s already been sidelined by Detroit pitcher Kenny Rogers in negotiations with the Tigers, and I’m sure other players are asking themselves a devastating question: “Is this guy really working for me when I’m not in the room?” Once that question is out there, the relationship will never be the same – and rightly so.

The World Series, Ted Williams, and the Fine (Lost?) Art of the Graceful Finish

2007-10-30T16:17:00.000-04:00

Another World Series win for the Red Sox, and a completely different experience from 2004. Three years ago the inevitable moment when the whole thing came crashing down (or dribbling through someone’s legs) always seemed just around the corner. In fact, the 2006 season was well under way before I finally felt comfortable that the 2004 title was not somehow going to be revoked. The Curse? Ancient history.

This year, it was almost like watching the Patriots – you may not have known they were going to win, but you almost expected it, and weren’t the least bit surprised when it happened. I went to Game 1 at Fenway (my first Series game ever), and the 13-1 shellacking the Sox handed the Rockies and their ace Jeff Francis set the tone. Game 3 was a good window into the “new” Sox – after blowing a 6-0 lead and letting the Rockies close to 6-5, the Sox roared back to win 10-5. And nobody was surprised. After that, the Game 4 win seemed inevitable.

Looking back, it’s easy to pinpoint the precise instant when ‘The Curse’ was broken: bottom of the 8th, Game 6, 2004 ALCS. Jeter was on first after his RBI single had cut the Sox lead to 4-2. A-Rod hit a grounder down the first-base line that was fielded by Bronson Arroyo, who tagged Rodriguez out, but A-Rod deliberately knocked the ball loose. The ball rolled down the right-field line, Jeter came around to score and Rodriguez was standing on first. Here we go again - the Yankees had cut the Red Sox lead to 4-3 with one out in the eighth inning and A-Rod was on second base.

Now in the Bad Old Days (i.e., September 12, 1918 to October 19, 2004), we know what would have happened – the umpires would have looked at each other, shrugged, issued a collective “We didn’t see anything” and the Sox, up 4-0 at the start of the inning, would have watched the Yankees go on to win the World Series. But the umps called A-Rod out, Jeter was sent back to first, Arroyo struck out Gary Sheffield, The Curse was broken and the Sox would be champs.
Now it’s a whole new ball game.

——-

Sitting at Fenway in the cold, drizzly Fall murk during Game 1 made me think of the best baseball pieces ever written – Updike’s Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu’, his famous essay about Ted Williams’ last game and Hollywood-ending last at-bat. If you haven’t read it, you should – it’s a great combination of fantastic writing and heroic subject matter.

Forty seven years after his last at-bat, Williams’ numbers are still staggering. Everyone knows he’s the last guy to hit .400 (66 years ago, when he also had an incredible .574(!) on base percentage to go with the .406 average), but he’s also the only American Leaguer ever to win the Triple Crown twice. When he retired, he was third all-time in home runs, trailing only Jimmy Foxx and the Babe – both of whom, coincidentally, had also spent time in a Red Sox uniform.
With the team, Williams (who was born twelve days before the Sox won the 1918 Series), is still #1 All-Time in home runs and batting average, and second only to the great Carl Yastrzemski in runs, hits, doubles, total bases, RBIs and extra base hits.

Those are awe-inspiring numbers, made even more so by the fact that he spent five years in the prime of his career not at Fenway, but flying fighter planes in the Marines.

But for Updike the numbers are just the start. He describes Williams’ volatile relationship with the Boston fans and media – deftly characterized as a “marriage”, with all the attendant ups and downs. And finally – and most important - he presents Williams’ ability to have the sense, the grace, the self-discipline and self-knowledge to know when it was over and how to end on the most graceful note possible.

What makes a strong ending? One way to tell is when the audience, with some surprise, says “Wow. That was really good.” Read the Updike piece - you’ll see what I mean.

Disney Debacle Sucessfully Diffused?

2007-10-19T12:45:00.000-04:00

Here’s a PR challenge old Walt Disney never had to deal with – the pure as Snow White 18-year old ingénue in his latest blockbuster movie showed up on the Internet this summer — stark naked. While Walt was rolling over in his grave, the company that bears his name flawlessly executed two key crisis communications tactics to preserve the franchise and move beyond the problem

If you have kids older than 7, you’ve probably heard about (and watched) High School Musical, numbers 1 and 2, Disney’s spectacularly successful and lucrative made for TV movies. August’s premiere of ‘High School Musical 2’ was the most watched program ever on basic cable. (Previous #1: 1993’s Gore vs. Perot NAFTA debate.) The HSM franchise is so successful that among girls ages 6 to 11 who were watching TV that night, an incredible 80%(!!) were watching HSM2. Another smash for Disney, as they geared up for - what else – High School Musical 3, and more wholesome singing, dancing and happy endings.

But then, a slight problem: a few days later Vanessa Anne Hudgens, who plays HSM’s brainy, sweet-as-pie female lead Gabriella Montez, was on the Internet – in a nude ‘self-portrait’. Not exactly in alignment with Gabriella’s image – or Disney’s enduring 80 year-old brand.

Disney quickly did two very smart things. After deciding to keep Hudgens as Gabriella going forward they did Smart Thing #1 – they quickly announced it, which swiftly and emphatically stopped speculation about the young star’s HSM future. By filling the vacuum, the company effectively cut off media conversation about Gabriella’s future as a student at East Side High. After that, there was very little to talk about.

Then, Smart Thing #2 – with nothing else that would be helpful to talk about, Disney just stopped talking about it. This is a technique that I call “Denying fuel to the fire.”

Hudgens, for her part, also doused the fire with a matter-of-fact but genuine sounding Disneyesque apology to “my fans, whose support and trust means the world to me” for the “private” photos…“lapse in judgment”…”embarrassed”…”regret”, etc.

Case closed.

Now the caveat: Smart Thing #2 - denying fuel to the fire - only works when no additional newsworthy information will be exposed, and the only thing left to do is speculate, analyze, etc. In a dynamic situation, with changing facts and circumstances, there is no choice but to execute Smart Thing #1 over and over again: fill the information vacuum immediately, and define the issue on your own terms. But in the case of Gabriella Montez, with nothing left to say, the story was over.

Rest easy, Walt.