Prime Group

General Motors has recently taken a bold and enlightened step into the brave new world of online engagement with www.gmnext.com.  The site has a blog that encourages interaction between the company, its customers, the broader public and even company critics.  It also offers a wiki that allows the public to help “build” the 100-year history of the company complete with personal and even emotional first-person accounts.  There are photos, videos, podcasts, and personal stories from current and past customers.

But recently, most of the attention – on and off the site – is going to the blog where environmental activists are harassing company executives who gamely try to defend the company’s green initiatives (http://thecycle.prweekblogs.com/?s=gmnext).  For the moment, GM has shut down the public comment space and “taken back control” of the site.  It raises an interesting question and one we encounter every time we encourage a client to go interactive.  When is enough enough?  The purpose of these exercises is to give the public – including critics – a chance to be heard and, in turn, to hear from the company on issues that matter to both the public and the company.  But, too often, they become nothing more than a soap box for activists (and occasionally bores) who just want to repeat a point of view often enough and loudly enough to drown out everyone else on the subject.  We’ve all seen the non-digital version of this at political town hall meetings when, eventually, a heckler needs to be removed from the event.  Of course, it is possible to digitally remove these online hecklers – by blocking them from the site but, increasingly, they are sophisticated enough to work around such measures and/or recruit enough like-minded folks to overwhelm the site.  At those times, companies may have little choice but to do what GM has done and “take a breather.”

Too bad.  Companies, their customers, and the broader public can all benefit from an open and honest give-and-take on relevant issues and GM exhibited what seemed to me, at least, a sincere effort to engage in a conversation even when it stung a little…or a lot.  But no company can be expected to allow their assets – in this case their blog – to be used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon them endlessly and boringly until they cry “uncle.”  Web 2.0, as a “society,” is still in its infancy and the rules of engagement are far from clear yet.   Maybe the solution, eventually, will be for other blog participants, interested in the original intent of the site, to step in and help shut up (or down) the loudmouths.  Such social opprobrium has long been effective in the “real” world.  Might be worth a try in the digital world.

Saturday’s New York Times carried a front page, above the fold story with an accompanying college photo of Barack Obama and the headline: “Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life.” I wonder how many readers, like myself, reached the fifth paragraph before discovering that the three letter word in the headline was “BIT” and not “BIG.” More importantly, I wonder how many readers never got that far in the story and will forever believe that Obama was a serious drug abuser as a youth.

There is plenty of research on reading, cognition, and comprehension that suggests that readers “fill in the blanks” with what they think they already know. If you’re quickly scanning headlines, there are likely to be a lot of “blanks.” Before carefully reading the full NYT headline, the information I have is: 1) NYT; 2) Front Page; 3) Politician/Candidate; 4) Drugs; 5) Dated Picture; 6) African-American. Given only that information and asked whether the accompanying story is more likely about the candidate’s abuse of drugs or the fact that he did NOT abuse drugs, how many readers would choose the latter?

Here’s what Dr. Gerald Grow, a journalism professor at Florida A&M University, has to say about reading and cognition:

“When faced with a new text, readers do not begin by “reading” in the sense of starting at the first word and moving sequentially toward the last word, they first predict what the passage will mean. Prediction, which plays a key role in Frank Smith’s cogent account of reading, can be understood as “the prior elimination of unlikely alternatives” or “questions we ask the world.” …Such predictions may be simultaneous with the first decoding of the letters on the page, and, since a reader can be led to know what to expect by illustrations, the nature of the publication, or other contextual cues, such predictions may even precede reading. Most of this activity is unconscious and appears to be part of the way we orient ourselves in the world. (Read more http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/StrategicReader/StratModel.html)

I am not big on conspiracy theories – whether they be “vast right-wing” conspiracies or “liberal media” conspiracies. So, I suspect this was just a failure to notice that the entire meaning and import of the headline hung on a single letter. But for Senator Obama or anyone concerned with their reputation or brand, it is worth remembering that what people THINK was said about you is just as important – and potentially harmful – as what was actually said.

The National Football League knows a thing or two about branding. Forty-two years ago they created one of the most successful, high-profile, hyped events in the history of branding – the Super Bowl. Ads running during this extravaganza are the most expensive on television. Around the U.S. and the world friends gather in bars and restaurants, at home Super Bowl parties and anywhere else there may be a television to watch the spectacle, cheer on their favored team and celebrate professional football – and, yes, the NFL makes it all possible. Well, now we learn that some of those gatherings over the years have been taking place in, of all places, churches. “It takes people who are not coming frequently, or have fallen away, and shows them that the church can still have some fun,” said one pastor. God and football. God and Tom Brady. Who could ask for more? Well, the NFL, that’s who. The league has let it be known that, this year, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. If pastors want to entertain their flocks in front of a big screen TV in the church basement and munch Doritos and talk football and, maybe, a little religion they will now run the risk of being sued by the NFL who, as anyone who has ever watched an NFL game through to the final moments knows, says that “use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.” And, that includes you, God. Now, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is a smart guy. He’s the son of a U.S. Senator so there’s some politics in that DNA. And, he came up through the ranks of the League office starting in, of all things, public relations. So how could he allow such a bone-headed move? Are the pastor-pirates really threatening the livelihood of the league? Does he worry about the camel’s nose under the tent and that, if we let the pastors get away with this, Vegas will be next? (In fact, Vegas and other similar sites – including your local sports bar – have an exemption and can show the game on the big screen for their customers.) Does he not think that the faithful of the world will rise up to smite this decision? And, what if God, Himself, should get involved – is the NFL really powerful enough to take Him on? I predict the policy will be rescinded – possibly before this post even makes it to our site. Most, but not all, dumb moves by smart brands are short-lived. Furthermore, I hope to learn that Goodell knew nothing of it and quashed it as soon as it came to his attention. And, although irrelevant to this post, I hope the Giants beat New England and do it fair and square. I ,for one, will be watching…but not in my parish church (wherever that is).

If the Democrats wake up on November 8 having seized control of one or both houses of Congress, it will be for one reason – they had the better message. This is ironic, since throughout the campaign Democrats have been accused of having no message. That is wrong. Their message is: “We’re not them.”

What their critics really mean is that the Democrats have no program, which is true enough. But, in politics, if you’re the “out” party, you don’t need a program to have a message.

Politics in this country is a binary system – all zeros and ones, and voters get to pick one or the other. This keeps it easy – a good thing because voters have more interesting things on their minds – like their kids’ soccer games or who’s getting thrown off the island next week.

It has become a political cliché to say that elections are about the future. Not really. Elections are about the past – did you like it enough to continue it, or are you willing to risk the unknown? In that sense, voters in this midterm election face a dilemma. Most like their own congressman or senator enough to return him or her to office. But most are sufficiently disgusted with the status quo to want a new Congress – which can only happen with new congressmen.

Democrats understand this dilemma and have crafted their message accordingly. They’re not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff. Forget that none of those folks is on a ballot. If you don’t want more of the same, vote for something different. Vote Democratic. This may be remembered as the “election of ‘49″ – not 1949, but ‘94 in reverse. In 1994, after 40 years of control of the House, the Democrats were tossed out resoundingly by the voters who had finally had enough. Newt Gingrich got a lot of credit for this because he had crafted the Republican “Contract with America,” which helped galvanize his party’s case. But, in all likelihood, the “revolution of ’94″ would have occurred with or without Newt’s contract.

This year, the Democrats have offered no such clear-cut alternative policy. But they have understood the importance – in politics, as in business or life – of a clear, simple, unified message. And, they’ve had the courage of their non-convictions – refusing to be bullied into taking unnecessary stands by frustrated Republicans or high-minded media.

Is a “throw the bums out” election good for the country It is tempting to say the country is voting for a “pig in a poke,” but the fact is that voters seldom know in advance what a new President will do, much less a new Congress.

Will a Democratic Congress end the war in Iraq, refocus the war on terror, repeal tax cuts for the wealthy, and rid the Congress of sexual predators? Probably not. But it would restore political balance and accountability in Washington, and that’s no small matter. That’s why “we’re not them” is not only an effective message, it’s an important one.

Starbucks’ chairman Howard Schultz recently told his top executives that they may be “watering down the Starbucks experience [and] soul.”? If the Starbucks “experience”? and “soul”? have anything to do with coffee, Schultz may be right that books, CDs, movies, stuffed animals, and egg, bacon, and cheese sandwiches distract from that soulful experience. What’s fascinating to me is how Starbucks has managed to display this diffused branding in the most public of places – on its coffee cups.

Starbucks’ cups, of course, were never just containers. They are also large, sorry, grande billboards. On one side is the ubiquitous Starbucks’ logo – the wavy-haired, large-breasted woman in the green circle. But the real branding begins round back where, on my particular cup today, a musician named Dan Zanes envisions in “The Way I See It #193″? a “21st Century America where families, friends, and neighbors gather together at the end of each day… to tell stories and jokes, to sing and dance with wild abandon.”?

This is a branding hat trick. First, Starbucks endorses open speech and wants to connect their customers with the trendsetters of today. Second, there’s Zanes, who is, presumably, cool (which I have to take on faith because he exists only in the world of Starbucks, not iTunes). Third, if you do want to hear Zanes’ music, you are told to go to “Starbucks Hear Music”? on XM Satellite Radio. More cool. By now, Starbucks is already way too cool for me.

But, wait, this cup overflows with even more branding. The cup also tells us that it is “made with 10% post-consumer recycled fiber.”? I’m not sure what that means. Post-consumer is a little scary, even apocalyptic sounding. The fiber part is, hopefully, not nutritional information. Anyway, this reminds us that Starbucks is not only cool, but also responsible. Cool and responsible is a little oxymoronic, but the company seems to pull it off. So, at this point, Starbucks has done as much branding as can be done on a single cup – even a grande one.

Now, it’s the lawyers’ turn. Lest anyone think that Starbucks’ actually endorses Zanes’ zany vision, we are told that “this is the author’s opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks.”? Are there really lawyers in Seattle who think I’d sue the company just for endorsing a silly, utopian idea? I know our judicial system is messed up, but I can’t imagine that suit would go very far, even in “21st Century America.”? However, if while reading Zanes’ world view I spill scalding coffee on my crotch, I damn well would sue. But that’s covered, too. The cup warns, “Careful, the beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot.”? In other words, you won’t enjoy it in your lap.

You’ve got to hand it to Starbucks. It has carefully parceled out the real estate on its cups to the branding department, the music promotion department, the legal department, and the department of silly ideas. Cool, very cool.