Author: fxshaw

In terms of things not really worth getting agitated about, the “crisis” about President Obama telling school kids to stay in school is near the top of the list, as the NYT shows very clearly. What’s disturbing here is that it’s another example of debate from the edges being accepted as mainstream argument. For example:

And Chris Stigall, a Kansas City talk show host, said, “I wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.”

Really? Given all the very real challenges and dangers kids face in the world, this is the biggest one? And, as usual, the voice of the middle is at the end of the story, nearly forgotten:

Some Houston parents, however, said telling children they should not hear out the president of the United States, even if their parents dislike his policies, sends the wrong message — that one should not listen to someone with whom you disagree.
“It’s difficult for me to understand how listening to the president, the commander in chief, the chief citizen of this country, is damaging to the youth of today,” said Phyllis Griffin Epps, an analyst for the city who has two children in public school.

Years ago, while taking a class to get a foster care license, an instructor delivered a great example of perspective. He asked – on a scale of one to 10, how big of a deal would it be if:  your child didn’t do homework and did poorly in school? Mostly the group gave fives and sixes. Was disobedient? Sixes and sevens. Didn’t come home until 3 a.m.? Nines and 10s. Then he looked at one person who had said “10” to the last question, and said, now you’ve just given a 10 – the highest possible score. Now say you got a call from the hospital that your child had been hit by a car and was in critical condition. Where do you go from a 10?

For me, that was an eye opening exercise in perspective and scale. If everything is important, and it’s the end of the world basically for any elected official to give what will surely be a pabulum speech to kids, then nothing is important because perspective is so skewed.

In my job, I get asked all the time to give perspective on how big news will be. I’ve been around some big deal news announcements and I’ve not hit 10 yet. 

Today’s Gail Collins column about Levi and Sarah is an extended link to the Vanity Fair article of the same topic. One of the points she makes is that wow, it’s hard to have to deal with an offended ex whatever with a communications platform:

Given the fact that Johnston is a 19-year-old high school dropout whose mother was arrested last year on six felony drug counts, it is conceivable that he is not the perfect arbiter of normal families. But even if he were an Eagle Scout with a scholarship to Harvard, can you imagine anything worse than discovering your daughter’s teenage ex-boyfriend has been given a national platform to discuss his impressions of her mom’s parenting skills?

News flash: today, every single bitter ex, disgruntled friend, unhappy customer or key rival has access to a national platform, and it’s called the web. Farhad Manjoo wrote recently about Twitter and customer service, books have been written about the power of blogs, Emily Yoffe as “Dear Prudence” covered the perils of tweeting about co-workers and so on. And of course there are the people who have lost jobs or been disciplined at work for things they have said/done that were suddenly made visible to the world via the interconnected nature of the communications metaverse we now all travel.

So it is slightly jarring to me to read Collins’ take – yes, bummer to have someone with whom you disagree have a platform like VF (amplified nicely by the NYT here). But the reality is that outside the NYT bubble this is happening on a daily basis, for both good and ill.

It used be when I was giving counsel to people on communications and what was/wasn’t appropriate, I would use the throwaway line – would you be okay if you saw this in the NYT? That was often enough to get people to stop and think again about tone and manner in written communications. Today, it could quickly appear in myriad places and be amplified and extended by twitter and the NYT both. The only difference is scale.

Great article about barefoot running and the potential for impact on shoe companies today in the NYT. It’s a good read, and really represents a classic story archetype – the role of disruption in business. Setting aside for just a moment the topic, let’s look at the elements of the story:

• Established business
• Unconventional alternatives
• Inconclusive data
• Compelling color bits on the side of the insurgents
• Passionate advocacy on both sides
• Money to be made/lost

What you get is a story that follows a very predictable course – an established industry working to protect their profits from a scrappy and uncoordinated band of people working to disrupt them. It doesn’t matter if you are an insurgent or a category/industry leader, you better understand how this story archetype will play out before stepping into a story.

Of course, I like this story too because I’ve been following the debate and trying to evolve my running (or, basically over the last six weeks, my lack of running) to try and move away from classic running shoes to something a bit more barefoot. Jury, as they say, is still out, but I do recommend the book “Born to Run” as a good look at the overall trend and thinking.

Technorati Tags: running

In his column today, David Brooks makes a point re: incrementalism in the pursuit of big goals, as it pertains to politics. It’s a good read, and worth considering from a communications standpoint as well. Our holy grail often is the strategy or super cool tactic that instantly changes the landscape. I refer to this as shattering the lens by which the world looks at something, and then reforming it to create a new view. And yes, this is possible, and yes it happens, and yes we should all aspire to this, when it makes sense.

But there is the other kind of change and communication too – the kind that only comes with grinding, sustained effort. The end result may be the same (a new view of a company/product/individual), but the tactics are different, and in many way much much harder. This is change by small increments, the kind that comes not from a single bold stroke but a series of small, patient maneuvers. It’s not as sexy, it does not have the instant gratification, but achieves the same result. And in an era of 140 character communications plans, the long haul can seem quite daunting!

Incrementalism and Big Bold Goals are not mutually exclusive.

I am sure our fine profession will be held in even higher esteem when Kim Kardashian’s show about a PR agency hits the airwaves. Words (nearly) fail me. In general, I think it’s a good rule of thumb…if you are in PR, and you really focus on corporate PR and building brands, you shouldn’t be the story. I’m just sayin’.

This is not a political blog, but there are often communications lessons and observations to be seen in the political sphere. The coverage thus far of Ted Kennedy is a case in point. This  piece documenting the split in views expressed by the extremes is a good example of what can happen when the debate is highjacked by the edges, and how the middle can be lost. Key point:

“If you can’t say something nice about a person, then say mean things about them instead,” wrote Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist and leading conservative blogger. “Especially if they are unapologetic manslaughterers.”
Rush Limbaugh countered Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who called Kennedy a “lion of the Senate,” by saying, “We were his prey.”
The response summed up the political changes in his lifetime: from an era when courtesy was common and negotiation was a valued skill to an age when many of the loudest voices in both parties treat compromise as surrender.
The case in point: the gulf between Democrats and Republicans on a health-care overhaul, which Kennedy championed.

So what we have in this case is highly vocal criticism from a likely very small minority of pundits, which I bet will eventually be perceived as the established POV for conservatives everywhere in the U.S. But it’s also likely not even near the truth…and this is a warning for communicators. We too often pay attention to the early voices, the loud voices, often extreme voices because they were there first with a product review or criticism or comment, and change our communications strategy to address that specific issue or concern. Sometimes, that is the right course. But often the middle is the place where we are trying to talk to – not the long tail or the early tail, but the broad audience…and optimizing for the edges can be deadly.

Always, always, always, start by understanding your audience, and don’t be seduced by loud voices. They aren’t always the ones who carry the day.

The WSJ comes delivered to my door folded and secured with a rubber band; the NYT wrapped in the standard blue bag. So the first headline I saw when I picked up the paper was from the Journal: SAT Scores Fall as Gap Widens, Asians Gain.  Then when I opened up the NYT, I saw this headline: SAT Scores Mostly Hold Steady for Class of ’09. Which is true? In this case, both article essentially said the same thing, only the headlines were different, to which I do *not* ascribe an liberal or conservative motives, thank you very much. But it did make me think about the impact/import of headlines and how they shape perceptions of the story that follows. To whit, my headline here, which I am sure is true and which…mark my words…someone will say in the next year. Maybe not twitter, but texting, social media, blogs, trend du jour, will be blamed for poor writing/reading skills. You heard it here first. 

This perfectly combines three of my loves – new media, cooking and technology. However, I’m pretty sure this falls into the list of things that I am not allowed to do at home. For the record, I will admit to owning and using this cookbook. ‘Nuff said.

Technorati Tags: cooking

Wikipedia is on the cusp of making some changes that will likely make it a better product, but which also calls into question the idea that anyone should be allowed to edit regardless of expertise. Essentially, they’ve agreed that authority matters, and that expertise in an area trumps many other things. I wrote extensively about wikipedia for a bit, with the realization that the controls might be a bit loose when my son was contributing to the indie music section as a 15 yr old. Nothing against 15 yr olds, of course. 

I see this as a good evolution on their part, and one which strikes a good balance. Here is hoping they can work through the changes without causing huge internal strife. While I was deeply skeptical about Wikipedia for a while, the guts of the service are good, and this is a step in the right direction. It also reflects the right move in that it explicitly recognizes that there needs to be a better balance between fact and opinion, and that someone (usually a subject matter expert, as defined by having multiple sources) gets to decide. I’m all of more fact and less opinion!

Technorati Tags: wikipedia 8gk6qyp5uf

Tom Murphy’s take on the app store PR flack-o-rama is pretty right on. He captures the essence of the issue perfectly. He notes:

That said this does raise a couple of interesting issues:

• To be credible participants in the social media sphere should PR firms (who have been ensnared in many of these issues since the Interweb emerged and in the real-world before that) publicly state that they eschew these kinds of activities? [This was proposed by the Anti-Astroturfing campaign three years ago]
• Where do PR industry organizations such as the PRCA stand on this kind of activity?
• What does this mean for all the “social media gurus” who claim that the ”crowd” will rid the ills of the world – if the crowd is in fact armies of marketing people posing as teenagers (though I’d imagine real teenagers would spot the sweaty 30-something imposter)

These are the right issues, and draw a bright line to a clean conclusion – it’s bad behavior that injures the profession. Yes, I’m sure there is more to the story. Yes, there is another side to be told. But I’m deeply skeptical the facts will change substantially and the end will be the same – sock puppetry of the worst sort.

Know who you are, act as you know, do as you’d want others to do – rules apply to the real and the virtual alike.

Technorati Tags: astroturfing