Where Do You Stand?

If you’re a regular “Where Do You Stand?” reader, you may have noticed that I’m a rather, shall we say, conversational writer. Some would attribute that to my country hick Southern heritage, while others might accuse call it unprofessional unconventional. On a number of occasions, I’ve been asked to “fluff up” a document or “give it some of that emotional stuff you’re good at.”

Now I could take this personally and consider it a knock to my professionalism (and a massive ego blow), but since the sky in my world is a lovely shade of chartreuse, I’ll take it as a compliment. And here’s why.

In the communications arena, we’ve been given incredible power - the power of using just the right words to start or add something valuable to a conversation. If our words achieve superpower status, they evoke the response we’re hoping for: choosing a certain school or hospital, supporting a company’s employee program, learning the facts about a controversial issue and overcoming a bias, or contributing to a worthy charitable cause. 

The problem with this power is that so very many people have the chance to try their hand at it, especially today. We’re practically conversing in our sleep these days (and I’m sure some dream-sucking brain wave iMind device is just around the corner), so it’s more difficult than ever to bring the power of words to life. To have an impact, our words need to do much more than appeal to logic (sorry, Dr. Spock) and be grammatically correct; they need to make people care.

Our words need to have passion and feeling and conviction to rise above the chaff. To achieve superpower status, though, they also need truth. While the former makes for good reading/listening, the latter separates the hucksters (and let’s face it, most politicians) from those whose words can make life better, healthier, easier, more exciting, more meaningful and more fun. The challenge of taking my writing to higher levels and mastering that superpower is why I love my job - and why I’m trying to come up with a great “X-Men” mutant name for myself. (”Thesaurus” has kind of a nice ring, huh?)

So the next time you want something “fluffed,” bring it on. I’m not ashamed to say that if you give me the facts and some good reasons why people should care, chances are I’ll write something that will make the people you care about laugh, cry, get motivated, get healthier or just generally get better.

And chances are, I’m the only writer you know who’ll work while in a superhero suit. Or at least a mask - I need a couple more months at the gym before I break out the full suit. Anyone know the number for Halle Berry’s trainer?

The Olympics are now over, so China’s time in the spotlight will slowly fade away. The games in Beijing served as a PR opportunity for the country – a chance to put reputation management skills to the test and show the world that it’s more than just home to a Communist government. The Games left viewers with images of the Bird’s Nest, Yao Ming holding a young hero from a devastating earthquake, the dominance of the Chinese diving team and the excellent 12-year-old Chinese gymnasts.

But was the entire image of China a sleight-of-hand, created in a masterful PR stroke to portray a false sense of reality? Did the glitz and flash convince Westerners to overlook the country’s records on pollution and human rights? Or did we all realize it was just a show, like that little girl behind the curtains at the opening ceremony with the “crooked baby teeth and chubby face” (not my words; these are from The Los Angeles Times) who provided the voice for the lip-synching, much prettier Lin Miaoke?

Some experts have commented on the mixed messages presented by China. “China is trying to present itself as nonthreatening and in a lot of ways nonsocialist,” Michael Dutton, an academic at Australia’s Griffith University’s Asia Institute who studies political cultures, told The Associated Press. “They’ve gone all out to try and present a country that’s ancient yet super-modern.”

So what do you think? Has your opinion of China changed due to the Olympics?

We’re often asked in our business if “building relationships” reaps ROI in the long term. I could give countless examples of how positive relationships can buoy companies during downturns, how Southwest Airlines has risen to the top of its industry by cultivating employee support, how journalists’ ability to tell a compelling story can either lead to increased interest in a company or an absolutely smeared reputation. (A bit of warning before you watch this clip: it’s not for the weak-stomached.)

This morning I was drawn to the story of Leroy Sievers, an National Public Radio blogger, decorated news correspondent and cancer patient. He died this past weekend. Candidly, I didn’t follow his blog, My Cancer, while he was living. An avid NPR listener, I had simply popped onto NPR’s web site to catch up on political news… and I’m forever touched by his words of strength, encouragement and, gulp, his own farewell. 

Check out a recent comment, left today by one of his readers:

Leroy taught me that is not true, life is a gift and like every gift, each one is different, some people get a huge, brightly decorated box that may or may not contain something that they want. Others get a small box, packed inside with the one thing that they had wanted more than anything.

Leroy’s box may not have been as large as some others, but it was packed, right to the end with all of the things that he loved.

We should understand that as humans we don’t have the gift of life or death, all we have is what is contained within the box. Enjoy your gift to the fullest, no matter its size.

I now plan to read the blog backwards, keeping in mind that his words created an international community of support. It’s compelling proof that relationships matter.

At Standing Partnership, a reputation management firm, we are regularly advising our clients on creative and effective ways to develop and maintain a positive reputation in the community.

Recently, on my trek to work – a wonderful 45 minutes or more thanks to the Hwy. 40 closure – I was hit (almost literally) with how challenging it can be to maintain a positive reputation every day. A man driving a branded truck from a local plumbing company cut me and two other drivers off while changing lanes. My immediate thought was: What kind of message is his reckless driving sending to the drivers around him? Does his company not care about public safety, and are they bound to be as rude to you as a customer as they are to other drivers?

In a related instance, I was asked to contact a local company via phone to gather information for a client. I was greeted by the receptionist with a not-so-friendly attitude. When I asked to speak with someone within the company, she insisted on knowing my name, company and the reason for my call. While the information requested of me was understandable (I’m sure she was screening calls for this person), her attitude certainly was not. How would her rudeness have affected a potential customer’s decision to conduct business with her company?

By one employee choosing to act in a manner inconsistent with a company’s values and mission, they can be damaging public perception of that company. It is important for all employees and management within an organization to understand the value of a positive reputation and work collectively to reinforce and retain positive public perception.

Recently I attended Bulldog Reporter’s PR Universtiy “Social Media Bootcamp” for PR professsionals. I’m still digesting all I learned and trying to experiment with a few things to keep them the top-of-mind.  One (of many) tools trainer Sally Falkow demonstrated was Nielson BuzzMetrics’ Blog Pulse. This site has several intriguing tools (and I’ve only begun to explore them myself) that help measure the visibility of blogs, the frequency of blog posts by keywords, how blogposts generate ‘conversations’ across mutliple sites (and where those conversations are taking place) and much, much more.

Here are just a few ideas I had on how I might use this site: Say one of my clients wants to know who the influential bloggers are on a subject…enter a keyword and see who pops up by ranking, track their conversations to other sources and keep an eye on what they post. (Yes, I know Technorati does some of this too). Now let’s imagine I need to know how much blog volume takes place on a subject. Enter a keyword (I entered Brett Favre, who I just love) and presto! a graph pops up indicating in early March and early August people were talking about Brett. (Hmm, no surprise there.) If I click on a date, I can find out what people were saying about him. Nice little tool to keep an eye on conversations, competition and communicators (bloggers). 

For now, the services I explored are free.  Let’s hope they stay that way.

When things go wrong, you have an issue to manage.  But, prompt positive action can turn the situation around — or, at least, nip it in the bud.  Circuit City just demonstrated this.

Mad Magazine published a parody Circuit City ad, poking fun at things like the price of flat-screen TVs and hard-to-find Wii gaming systems.  Apparently, someone at headquarters ordered Circuit City stores to remove and destroy the magazines, and the Consumerist Web site posted both the fake ad and the real e-mail.

Jim Babb, in Circuit City’s corporate communications office, fired off a note to the Consumerist, reporting that the censorship directive had been reversed and he’d apologized to Mad’s editors.  By displaying a sense of humor, his quick response and tone headed off an issue:

Speaking as “an embarrassed corporate PR Guy,” I apologized for the fact that some overly-sensitive souls at our corporate headquarters ordered the removal of the August issue of MAD Magazine from our stores. Please keep in mind that only 40 of our 700 stores sell magazines at all…

In addition I have offered to send the MAD Magazine Editor a $20.00 Circuit City Gift Card, toward the purchase of a Nintendo Wii….if he can find one!

“Someone with a brain stopped the madness,” reported the Consumerist, posting Babb’s e-mail.  The site continued:

Let’s evaluate it on the 3-step system for fixing corporate gaffes:

1. Admitted they were wrong
2. Stopped doing the wrong thing
3. Made a material gesture of apology

Check check and check on all three, plus points for speed. You go, girls.

In comments on the post, The Consumerist’s readers also gave the company points for wit, style and speed.  Red faces removed and chuckles all around. 

It’s better not to have the problem in the first place, but when you do have a problem you still have a chance to set things right. 

Serious issues require a serious response, but when the issue is about humor it helps to be able to laugh at yourself.

An apologetic J. Crew e-mail to customers and newsletter subscribers hit inboxes this morning. The company has been having some internal issues that resulted in the mistreatment of online and catalog shoppers over the past few weeks. Sometimes it’s best for a company to own up to its own shortcomings. Rather than exacerbating a negative reputation, by acknowledging fault and sincerely expressing regret, a company can manage their reputation in hopes of earning back a client’s trust. J. Crew’s simple (yet sincere) note is moving them back in the right direction after some sort of breakdown.

…our fearless COO, Melissa Lackey (who we’re convinced never sleeps), has written an article for PR News’ “Crisis Management Guidebook, vol. 2″ now available from the PR Press. With the intriguing title “Winning the Most Serious Game in Town: the Reputation Championship,” it’s relevant to anyone wanting a game plan for building and maintaining a company’s reputation. Congratulations on the inclusion, Melissa!

InBev continues to advocate for its offer to buy Anheuser-Busch, the last big beer brewer firmly planted in the United States.  In an op-ed in Tuesday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, InBev CEO Carlos Brito promises to keep the beloved Clydesdales and Grant’s Farm, and repeats previous promises to promote Budweiser and keep A-B’s 12 U.S. breweries.  Brito is also making the rounds on Capitol Hill, where Missouri’s U.S. senators are among his vocal opponents.

Meanwhile, St. Louis’s new on-line newspaper, the Beacon, published an interview with former A-B marketing exec William Finnie.  It highlights the fact that change is coming no matter where things go from here.

• A-B can sell to InBev.  InBev will cut costs to help pay the $46 billion price, although InBev argues they’ve created 12,000 new jobs since their company was formed in 2004.
• A-B can buy the other half of Grupo Modelo, the brewer of
  Corona, which would derail the InBev plan.  Modelo’s owners are in a good position to drive a hard bargain and A-B will have to cut costs to pay the price.
• Or, A-B will have to come up its own compelling plan that offers shareholders enough value to reject InBev’s $65 per share.  Whatever else that might involve, it will include cost-cutting.

Cost-cutting is the common theme in all of these scenarios. Markets inevitably recognize weakness and opportunities, like the ones created by several years of flatter earnings and stock price at a company where double-digit earnings growth used to be the predictable norm.

There is speculation that InBev might be persuaded to sweeten its $65 per share offer, though Brito says, “It’s a fair price, a full price, that’s it.” For the kind of institutional investors who own most stocks, a substantial premium in hand may be compelling enough. However, InBev continues to court other stakeholders through Brito’s op-ed, legislative visits and a Web site, www.globalbeerleader.com.

To get the deal done, Finnie speculates InBev might be persuaded to move its global headquarters to St. Louis and call the combined company by the proud, historic name of “Anheuser-Busch.”

If St. Louis winds up with the world’s largest brewer under a familiar corporate name, it could turn out to be a lot less change – and pain – than some of the other scenarios might bring. The menu of choices is tough, but all involve change. Unfortunately, the options don’t include the status quo that Anheuser-Busch successfully defended … perhaps too long.

Thomas Friedman writes today that the selection of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee has given more of a bump to America’s overseas image than “the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years.”

He talks about how Obama’s nomination demonstrates that people still hunger for “the idea of America,” which he defines as: this open, optimistic, and, indeed, revolutionary, place so radically different from their own societies.

I would argue that this “idea of America” equals the American brand. The War on Terrorism and other political activities have impacted America’s reputation, but the American brand still lives in the hearts and minds of people around the world. Friedman argues Obama’s nomination reminds people of the America they once respected, thus improving our country’s global reputation.

Companies facing reputational attacks can learn from this lesson. With a strong brand that captures the hearts and minds of stakeholders, reputational damage can be repaired. A brand is who you are, while your reputation is current opinion based on recent behavior. If your company is suffering from reputational damage, look to your brand – the core of your organization’s being – and with bold actions make a bold statement that will demonstrate you are better than recent behavior would indicate. As Friedman argues, America has done so with the nomination of an African-American man.