Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lessons Learned’ Category

Lesson 184 The Presidential Address

Posted in Branding, Integrated Marketing, International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Planning, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on September 28, 2013| 1 Comment »

A major address by a president or CEO can be a powerful brand clarification tactic if it is followed by a carefully crafted and coordinated strategic communication and integrated marketing plan.

I came to understand the power of the carefully prepared and orchestrated  presidential address over many years of practice, and it caused me to ask whether or not President Obama’s United Nations address this week has the potential to be the foundation of a long-awaited clarified U.S. Foreign policy.

Such a speech standing alone will not accomplish this goal.  But if that speech contains a limited number of differentiating themes that can be lifted and later reinforced over time, the goal of a clarified policy or brand identity can certainly be reached. But it takes coordination, repetition, and the realization that such clarification only happens over time. Later speeches must repeat these themes in different contexts, and related  department and agency heads and staff must do the same thing.  In fact, all official and daily communication should find ways to reference those themes.

I analyzed the printed transcript of Obama’s UN speech this week and came up with  five such differentiating themes, and one overall perspective.  Overall, he asserted that all nations must stop focusing of what they are against, and begin immediately to articulate what they are for. Then within that perspective, I found these themes:

(1) National security. All nations, including the U.S., will act first to protect the security of their citizens. This explains how and why awkward affiliations and partners can occur.

(2) Universal opportunity. The U.S. believes all people are created equal. Therefore, everyone on the planet should have an opportunity to achieve what they are capable of achieving.

(3) Preserving the planet. Circumstances require that all nations must immediately focus on solving food, water, disease, air quality, land use, and energy crises.

(4) End nuclear weapons. The world must quickly accomplish this together. We simply have no choice.

(5) World peace. We must learn to accommodate various forms of democracy, governance, cultures and religion. We are one interconnected planet.

Are these themes complete and differentiating enough to constitute an entire U.S. foreign policy? If we can agree this is feasible, then to make it work a highly experienced chief strategic communication officer will have to be fully engaged in all White House deliberations, and also have the authority and access necessary to  coordinate all foreign policy communication, and communicators.

In addition, the 24/7 news cycle must be fully accommodated so that all daily messages reinforce those themes, and all action decisions are made taking the speed of daily news demands into account. This also means that operations must be made efficient enough to prevent the leaks and uncoordinated messages that have been undermining the president’s credibility.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 183 Journalism Credibility

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy on September 21, 2013| 2 Comments »

In today’s 24/7 cable and social media dominated journalism, what establishes  credibility?  Is it production and performance value?  Is it arrogantly articulated  opinion?  Is it factual reporting?

It seems to me that many news producers today think that fast talking, stern sounding  anchors and reporters are the key to holding interest and preventing viewers from tuning away. And fast paced anchoring has led to abruptly interrupting expert guests, all in order to keep the program moving faster and faster.

My television interview coaches told me that my job was to focus audience attention on my guests… and not to constantly interrupt them. They argued that my credibility  was mostly established by asking the right basic questions, and then giving the guest a fair chance to fully answer those questions.

In addition, emphasis on speed leads to reporting events too quickly. And when initial reports prove wrong it’s now acceptable practice to get the story out first and correct it later. In the end, is this good modern journalism, or sloppy reporting?

When speed and entertainment become dominant objectives, attention shifts to grooming celebrity anchors and reporters. Increasing emphasis on the dramatic is the result, which leads to pitting glib guests with contrasting agendas against each other rather than having civilized conversations with subject matter experts.

As a strategic communication practitioner I often experienced celebrity reporters using the best of what I said as their introductory comments, and then showing me in a very short edited video clip selected out-of-context.

So in this new media world will anything restore news credibility? I submit that it will require a predominance of experienced anchors and reporters taking the time to sound and look authoritative at less than warp speed, selecting their interviewees based on established expertise. And oh yes, they will also let these highly qualified guests fully answer their carefully crafted questions.

Happily, I am noticing that many fast-talking anchors today are turning over quickly.  They are young and attractive, but under too much pressure to look like experts far too soon. And even if this emphasis on drama and style worked for a while, has it really served the public interest, or has it merely put the interests of the organization first… frustrating the public more and more each day?

Many of us are now observing that social media is beginning to take on a much more balanced perspective in our lives. If this is so, isn’t it time for 24/7 news to follow?

Read Full Post »

Lesson 182 Avoid the Defensive

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on September 14, 2013| 1 Comment »

The digital media revolution has created an entirely new set of communication realities. There was a time when news and information moved much slower. Criticisms and public attacks aimed at you or your institution could usually be ignored for a while… and many of them would just fade away.

But when you find yourself in an ideological conflict or a crisis in this 24/7 breaking news obsessed world, it can be extremely damaging to find yourself on the defensive.  And it can be even be down right deadly to find yourself on the defensive twice in a row.

Actually this might be how we professional communicators came to describe our profession as “strategic communication.” When issues get hot, getting to the public first with a well thought-out initiative, and immediately thinking ahead to a second and even third follow-up initiative, has become essential to achieving and keeping credibility in a wildly competitive and rapidly changing media circus.

Obama may have been the first to suggest to Russian President Putin that removing all poison gas from Syria could stop a military strike. But Putin picked a moment to take it public as if it originally was his idea. And Obama’s response, no matter what it was, was now going to sound defensive.

And when only several days later Mr. Putin put an Op Ed article in the New York Times  bold enough to make additional news headlines, he managed to seize the offensive yet a second time! And what’s more, the article actually espoused democratic ideals and connected with criticisms currently being levied inside the U.S. by some  Americans!

The arrogance of a former KGB spy and devout communist party leader preaching democracy to a nation of free people certainly will not ultimately win the ideology war. But the strategic initiative taken twice has put the U.S. president into a defensive and damaging loss of credibility situation.

Lesson learned: You must think quickly and strategically in this rapidly changing new media world. You must then seize the high ground by making your first public statement quickly, and you must hold the offensive by being prepared to do it again very soon.

If you have not read the Putin Op Ed, do it now! It will make you mad. But then, hard lessons always do.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 181 Obama on Syria

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on September 8, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Crisis communication 101 teaches that you determine exactly what happened very quickly, develop a statement on what your organization is already doing about it, and then you contact as directly as you can the most affected parties. The news media would usually be third or fourth on an affected party list.

But what happens most often, however, is that the news media is the first to inform you about something horrible that just happened, and then you are under enormous pressure to assess the situation very quickly and make a public statement that you will very likely have to revise as you find out more.

But this kind of pressure filled situation is today’s professional strategic communicator’s reality. In a 24/7 news environment it is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on top of the most volatile issues and events. And Syria certainly is one of those “all but impossible” situations.

By taking so long to go public with a firm statement on the use of poisoned gas, and then not following the statement they finally made with immediate action, the Obama administration enabled leaks about disagreements among the staff to confuse the public. And when asking for Congressional support appeared to be an afterthought, all of this obviously robbed the president of much-needed leadership credibility.

And what is additionally troublesome to me is that from healthcare reform, to the budget, to education initiatives, to the deficit, and now Syria, it is not apparent that there has been a steady influential professional strategic communication voice involved during the planning and implementation processes.

My take as an outside observer is that while the president eventually comes up with a feasible solution (whether or not you agree with it), all too often by the time he is ready to act the climate has already been poisoned with leaks about internal conflicts.  And such leaks inevitably lead to losses of credibility… and even doubts about basic competence.

One thing is certain: The road ahead regarding Syria will be bumpy, and it has been made even more bumpy in recent days. As a result, the effectiveness of Obama’s entire presidency will rest on whether or not he can somehow regain his credibility with this issue, as well as with those that lie ahead. And the only way to do that in this 24/7 media world, I believe, is with a strong professional, and fully integrated, strategic communication team completely engaged every day.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 180 Too Many Choices?

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on August 31, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Each week I try to watch Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS: Global Public Square. Over time, I find that his topics and guests achieve a level of context on complex foreign policy issues rarely found on television. Two guests on a recent program have had me thinking ever since. Their topic was simply…”making choices.”

Kent Greenfield is the author of The Myth of Choice, and Sheena Iyergar is the author of The Art of Choosing. A common theme that emerged in their conversation was that people actually prefer limited choices. While conventional wisdom might be that we all have come to prefer endless choices, Greenfield and Iyergar presented evidence that too many choices can confuse and cause many of us to make no choice at all.

Actual behavior observation revealed that when choices were limited many consumers were much more likely to act. For example, in a supermarket when a few brand choices were arranged and given a separate location, actual purchases increased. When there were too many choices confusion increased to where the ability to act was disrupted.

Insights like this always seem to apply to other situations. For example, I found myself actually relating this one to our local World Affairs Council schedule of events. Email notices promoting endless programs and events stream my way almost every day. As a result I am finding making choices very difficult. In the days when there were fewer choices I must admit each one seemed more compelling.

Also, I am now wondering to what degree this insight about choice applies to  communicating U.S. foreign policy. Are there just too many different message choices  flowing from too many places in government for any central idea, or objective, to make it through the clutter?  Or worse, can communicating more messages, even when they are positive, actually add to clutter and confusion?

Maybe significantly limiting the receiver’s choices of message points would have a better chance of breaking through this clutter. In other words, while constant 24/7 breaking news presenting opposing points of view each day almost insures widespread  confusion, should communication from the state department be simply one regularly repeated statement of our objective for each situation. And should that statement  be coordinated so all segments of government are consistently making the same one?

I certainly understand that focusing one simple message on each crisis situation will not achieve total world understanding. But would not such a coordinated effort at least limit negative perceptions a little, and in so doing enhance our credibility with some local and other opinion leaders who might then help us spread the word?

Read Full Post »

Lesson 179 Communicating U.S. Haiti Policy?

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on August 24, 2013| 1 Comment »

Each fall TCU students identify a common reading for the entire university community. The idea is that everyone will read it and discussions will take place in classes and other groups. This year’s choice is about a Haitian family.

Brother I’m Dying, by Edwidge Danticate, is a story of two brothers and a daughter’s love of them both. It is also a story about the split between family members still struggling in Haiti, and those that have come to the U.S. for greater opportunity.

Underlying this emotion filled family story is also an account of a confused up and down relationship between the two countries.

Haiti’s story is one of a steady succession of unsuccessful leaders. Many were ruthless. And mixed in with this sometimes violent turmoil has been weather events that literally devastated cities, raped the countryside, and wrecked the economy.

For a time after 1915 the U.S. became occupiers. At other times U.S. administrations varied in levels of interest and types of response. As a consequence, many Haitians developed negative attitudes about America. But others still dreamed of immigrating to the US for a better life. Many of these eventually became citizens, but now live with confused personal identities and families emotionally divided between the U.S. and their homeland.

This book leaves the reader thinking: Is it not time that we in the U.S. finally send out a clear message about what Haiti ultimately means to us? Do we share a common ideology? Is there a national security concern? Is it an important trading partner? Or do we just continue to help clean it up when it comes apart?

We are a nation of immigrants, and are proud of that fact. Yet we have prison-like holding centers for thousands of good family people waiting for visa and entry decisions. Indeed, the situation is complex.  But can’t we somehow find a simple policy message that gives guidance to practical solutions?

Read Brother I’m Dying and you will come to a deeper understanding of the human  consequences of a confused foreign policy, and the devastating impact it can have on  traditional American family values.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 178 Foreign Policy Begins at Home

Posted in Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on August 17, 2013| 1 Comment »

After reviewing my notes from last week’s stimulating Chautauqua lectures on foreign policy, I noted that Richard Haas’s new book, Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order, was mentioned several times.

Haas, a former diplomat and current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues simply that fixing our own economy and the current dysfunction and polarization of our political system is a prerequisite to formulating a credible way of approaching the rest of the world. This seems obvious, but no one in Congress seems to be listening.

When you think about it this is not rocket science. Most thinking Americans were embarrassed to watch the Republican primary’s so-called debates! The incredible extreme statements and disrespectful personal attacks undermined any hope of our appearing to be a rational thinking society. And the current polarization in Congress has done nothing to improve the situation. How can any society that cannot find rational compromises in crisis situations expect admiration or even respect from other societies? How can we think we are a model of democracy for the rest of the world when we cannot not even get our own house in order?

A major lesson from a life in the communication business is that you have nothing if you do not have credibility. It’s a fact that the credibility of the source of a message  either reinforces its truth, or cancels out everything. Communication from sources without credibility not only fails, it stimulates counter communication and even hostile responses. Indeed, it can cause negative ripple effects that reverberate on and on indefinitely.

Haas’s point is certainly well taken. It clearly got the attention of Chautauqua speakers. And it really is a “no brainer:” How can we expect to influence other countries when our system at home appears so broken?

Read Full Post »

Lesson 177 Communicating Foreign Policy

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Strategic Communication on August 11, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Chautauqua Institution is a one-of-a-kind summer casual resort where individuals and families go to participate in lectures, concerts, films, sports, swimming, boating, bicycling, religious services and study… and to reflect on the issues of the day. Each week features a different theme, and this week’s theme was foreign policy.

My wife and I spent last week immersed in this wonderful place. From the world-class symphony, to sessions with acclaimed authors, to incredible arts exhibitions, and more, Chautauqua is nothing short of amazing.

But I must say that I also came away from the lectures even more troubled about how hopelessly complicated our world has become. Virtually every major speaker reinforced in great detail how each country in the Middle East and elsewhere has a different set of circumstances requiring a completely different set of strategic initiatives.

Some aspire at least partially to American basic values, while others are only strategically critical to our national security. And our inconsistency in explaining and dealing with all this has strengthened anti-American sentiments, making the task of diplomacy even more difficult.

There seems to be no one doctrine or policy statement that can cover all of these bewildering situations. Aaron David Miller, former diplomat and scholar in residence at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said in a presentation this week that, “these problems are generational in character, bi-partisan in nature, and yield to only approximate solutions at best.”

As I listened to these lectures, I naturally found myself reflecting on the communication challenges and realities of making America understood in this volatile international climate. Reluctantly, I had to agree that there is no simple central message or statement that will adequately explain U.S. foreign policy initiatives. But I have been  thinking lately that there might be a set of communication “objectives” that could  explain Miller’s observation about the need to settle for “approximate solutions.”

Previous to Chautauqua I had already developed a hypothesis from periodic Washington interviews and conversations. What is missing, I thought, is the existence of one central executive branch strategic communication planner charged with involving every agency and department in an integrated planning process before anything happens. My impression was that only general guidelines are shaped, and then are carried out as each agency sees fit… essentially creating independent “silos” which end up adding to widespread confusion and clutter.

Would it not be possible for a central plan to focus on communicating two clear U.S  objectives: one objective for countries that support U.S. values, and another for those that are only strategically important to national interests? Then, as in all institutional strategic communication, key points that advance these two objectives can be repeated relentlessly through a variety of old and new media… all aimed to cut through the clutter of confusing daily news reports.

The weeks and months ahead for me will largely focus on assessing the effectiveness of strategic communication in U.S. foreign policy more systematically, and on exploring ways expanded public diplomacy initiatives and the internationalization of higher education can help improve world understanding. I invite you to follow my journey.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 176 What Money Can’t Buy

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Strategic Communication on August 4, 2013| 1 Comment »

The 2012 book “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” by Michael Sandel, Harvard Professor of government reminded me once again about the essential responsiblity communicators have to provide full context on important social issues.

My understanding of Sandel simply is that when financial market values dominate all other values, society is losing its moral compass. When money goes beyond buying a higher standard of living to buying political outcomes and virtually everything else, serious moral issues arise. Greed widens the distance between rich and poor, and eventually produces dangerous hostilities. When market economics trumps all other social values, everyone eventually suffers.

So what is the responsibility of journalists and communicators to provide context for possible social consequences such as this? Can this be accomplished without taking a political sides? I suggest that it can. I believe it’s not only possible to explain the various potential consequences of social and political trends with an observer’s detachment, but as professional communicators I believe making the good faith effort is our imperative.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 175 The Helen Thomas Legend

Posted in Internal Politics, Leadership, Lessons Learned on July 27, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Helen Thomas was the very first female reporter to cover the White House. She was an aggressive questioner, sometimes abrasive, always direct and insistent, and yet loved by most who knew her. Indeed, she became a legend.

Sadly, Helen passed away this past week, and as I watched long time journalists reflect on their years of working with her, I could not help but think, “How did she pull it off? Aggressively and overtly persistent…and still loved!”

I am sure most of us have met aggressively persistent people in our work. In my world  most of them wind up disliked, or at least not admired. But then there are the occasional Helen Thomas’s who can be very argumentative, even rudely interrupting, and yet still end up loved and remembered as absolutely wonderful people and treasured colleagues.

Helen would challenge White House spokesmen and presidents alike.  She would press relentlessly for answers they did not want to give. Then, follow-up and press again. She was always insisting on more transparency and was determined in her search for the real inside explanation. And still, she was loved by everyone, including the presidents. In short, Helen was a true leader in her world.

Leadership is a topic that fascinates me. I like to identify the various styles that emerge in different types of organizations and situations at different times. I try to analyze what it takes to lead in each setting? Some persistent people I find actually become self-destructive.  Some simply fail. But others are surprisingly effective.

I have found that the most successful leadership styles emerge in natural ways from  each person’s total personality characteristics. In other words, they appear comfortable in their own skin. But in addition, their total personality also seems to fit acceptably within the organization’s overall nature and culture.

Helen seemed to be able to find appropriate spaces and times in each work day for being direct and insistent. And she always came off as self-confident, informed, and  single-mindedly focused on getting her reporter’s work done successfully. Equally, she found places where she was able to laugh, make jokes, collaborate with colleagues, and even occasionally receive and give hugs. In the end, her sincere and genuine humanity always came through.

I say, “Bravo Helen Thomas. I admire what you achieved. You were a true pioneer.” But to my colleagues I also say: ” You better fully understand all that made her successful before you try her style! It will take all of Helen’s many qualities to make it work!”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »