Prime Group

Dems have the right message for the 2006 election – ‘not’

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.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

When it comes to wartime comms, Bush is no Lincoln

In business and in life, we all depend on role models to help shape our decisions and behavior. Countless “how-to” business books testify to this. I was reminded of this when I heard that President Bush’s summer reading list includes two books on Abraham Lincoln.

I suspect Lincoln is Bush’s presidential role model. After all, Lincoln faced a defining moment in our history – a mortal threat to our nation’s existence. Bush sees the “global war on terror” as just that. Lincoln had a singular focus – to win the war at all costs. Ditto, Bush. When others wavered, or thought the cost of war was too great, or the outcome too uncertain, Lincoln was a rock. Just like Bush. Lincoln would not be deterred by constitutional niceties like habeas corpus. Bush remains determined to adopt “all necessary means” – Lincoln’s phrase – to win the war on terror.

To those worried about the direction of Bush’s war in Iraq, the Lincoln analogue might be reassuring. But if Bush is modeling himself on Lincoln, he seems to be doing so selectively. Particularly in terms of communication with the American people, Bush would do well to study Lincoln’s example more closely.

Lincoln understood the importance of maintaining popular support for his war effort, famously assertingthat, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” He also understood the importance of language in rallying the support of the nation, and no President has been more eloquent.

Bush disdains eloquence, preferring to use language to convince the average American that he is one of us. Americans want their leaders to lead in words as well as in deeds, especially during wartime.

Lincoln also grasped the practical and non-ideological nature of the American people. Pressed by Abolitionist supporters to declare the Civil War one of emancipation, he refused, claiming that he would free all the slaves or none if either course would bring victory and preservation of the union.

Bush insists on framing his war in Iraq as one of liberation and democracy (at least since the WMD rationale evaporated).

Lincoln’s flexibility of character helped him maintain public support throughout the Civil War. He ran through five “Generals-in-Chief” before settling on the successful Ulysses Grant. Bush, however, seems determined to stand by failed appointees in order to avoid the perceived sin of his father – vacillation. And, in contrast to Bush’s “God is on our side” view of world affairs, Lincoln said, “In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party.”

Perhaps Bush should add one more book to his list: a biography of Franklin Roosevelt. The most eloquent president since Lincoln, FDR was committed to government by trial and error – always experimenting, acknowledging mistakes, correcting them, and moving on. If Bush considers Roosevelt too liberal and flexible a model, he might consider that FDR was the preferred model for a recent and, so far, more successful conservative President – Ronald Reagan.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Initiating and communicating change is corporate necessity

One of many famous quotes from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch is: “Change before you have to.” That’s sound advice, but why do so many large, proud, successful organizations have so much trouble initiating their own necessary change before being forced by others to accept the inevitable? And why do the professional and seasoned communicators within these companies so often stumble when speaking to consumers and investors about change? The front pages of newspapers have recently been full of stories of companies run by smart, savvy people doing and saying seemingly stupid things.

Take General Motors. Fortunately for our country, the saying “As goes GM, so goes the country” is no longer true. GM is on the ropes. CEO Rick Wagoner belatedly announced a “restructuring plan,” which so failed to impress his largest shareholder, billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, that Kerkorian is now pressing for an “alliance” with rivals Nissan and Renault.

Wagoner’s failure to “get it” does not stop there. While Nissan’s and Renault’s CEO (one and the same), Carlos Ghosn, expressed enthusiasm for the possible combination, Wagoner acts for all the world like an unhappy child not getting his way. GM’s market capitalization has fallen 33% in the past year.

Computer giant Dell has recently been playing out a similar story. Dell has become so large and smug that it’s begun to act as if it no longer needs customers. Last year, blogger Jeff Jarvis blasted the company for its abysmal customer service and ignited a firestorm of response from fellow sufferers in what came to be known as “Dell Hell.”

Dell also took awhile to “get it” – if, in fact, it yet does. It recently launched its own blog, but, committing the cardinal sin of the blogosphere, Dell treated it and its readers like remnants of the old PR world: “We provide the spin; you take our word for it.” Dell’s market capitalization has plummeted 46% in the past year.

These colossal miscalculations reflect an inability to anticipate, understand, and embrace change. But, just as important, they display an ineptness at public communication about change in today’s world.

While Ghosn has made no secret of his enthusiasm to explore an alliance with GM, Wagoner has repeatedly referred to the proposal as “not helpful.” With GM looking not unlike the US economy in 1933, he should have considered paraphrasing Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Take a method, and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something.” Likewise, Dell should have recognized the futility of trying to cut corners on customer service and keep it a secret in the new interconnected online world.

And, once recognizing the need to join the online discussion, Dell should have done it on its customers’ (and the blogosphere’s) terms, not its own. As thepace of change speeds up, and the means, technologies,and rules of communicating with consumerschange just as rapidly, the need for strong corporatecommunication has never been greater. I hope GMand Dell will learn this lesson before it’s too late.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

The answers many polls offer make you question their value

It is impossible to read a paper these days without encountering citations of polls, survey results, or focus-group findings. Increasingly, organizations and their PR advisers are commissioning their own research in an attempt to make a point or generate favorable notice. This is risky business and, as a recent example involving the American Medical Association (AMA) shows, it can easily backfire.

The AMA “Spring Break” survey of 644 women ages 17 to 35 produced headlines across the country, including “Girls Behaving Badly” (Louisville Courier-Journal) and “Girls Go Wild for Booze, Sex” (Boston Herald). Unfortunately, the questionable methodology of the survey led the president of the American Association of Public Opinion Research to say, “[The poll] has no scientific basis… it is silly and should never have seen the light of day.” In his Washington Post media column, Howard Kurtz reported on the flap, noting, “This poll had zero scientific validity.” Helped along by the Mystery Pollster blog, the fallout from the story continues to grow.

This was not the first time the AMA used some dubious polling results to promote a laudable cause. In 2001, it commissioned a survey on “college binge drinking” that asked if respondents agreed that “we should stop holding young people solely responsible for heavy drinking and put some of the blame where it belongs – on the alcohol industry.” (Two-thirds agreed, by the way.) However, helpful hints, such as “where it belongs,” have no place in serious polling.

On that question, and many other “agreement” items, respondents had choices of “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” or “disagree” – giving them two ways to agree (including the middle option, which is usually “neutral”) and just one to disagree.

I ran across this “research with an attitude” in a broader review of publicly available survey research on alcohol issues. (Disclosure: My firm has several alcoholic beverage clients.) Here are some other interesting, if not bizarre, findings. Just 6% of Americans admit to “drinking regularly both on weekends and during the week.” Is it a coincidence that 6% also admit they’ve “lied to [their] doctor about the amount of alcohol [they] drink”? Seventy-three percent say they do not regularly drink alcohol with dinner, while 4% drink wine, 8% drink beer, and 4% are “not sure,” suggesting they drink too much of something.

Nine out of ten adults say they are concerned about “underage alcohol abuse.” Yet 79% say it is unrealistic to expect “that a teenager will not drink alcohol until they are 21.” Ten percent of Americans admit to having driven under the influence of alcohol in the past three months. When asked, “How often do you drink alcohol and drive – constantly, frequently, occasionally, seldom, or never?” 91% say “never.” Not surprisingly, no one admitted to “constantly” drinking and driving presumably because, sooner or later, they have to stop for gas and/or more alcohol. To make matters worse, those who said they “never”drink and drive were asked a follow-up question:“Why don’t you drink and drive?”

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Blogs just a reflection of overall consumer empowerment trend

Blogs will transform PR. Blogs will democratize the marketplace. Blogs can kill your brand. Blogs will set you free. Blog… blog… blog. OK, I’m late to the blog party. Like a lot of you (you know who you are), I’ve spent more time talking about how important blogs are than I’ve spent reading them. So I decided to catch up. Here’s what I found.

First, the numbers: There are about 37 million blogs out there, 10 new ones started since you began reading this column, 75,000 new ones each day, a new one each second (like dot-com IPOs in the 1990s), half of which will be inactive within three months. About 50% of blog writers are under 30, and 57% are male – a reversal of the gender balance three years ago. The largest number (37%) are in Japanese, and about 30% are in English. Only one in five US consumers has ever read a blog, and half that many have read one in the last week. But, significantly, 67% of journalists say they read blogs at least weekly, and about half of those say they get story ideas from blogs. Next, the experience: I spent several hours romping through many of the top 100 blogs as rated by Technorati, the premier guide to the blogosphere, and here’s what I learned.

First, I just wasted several hours of my life that I’ll never get back. It’s like reading raw FBI files… no filter, no judgment, lots of inflammatory hearsay and opinion. This is why newspapers invented editors. Second, blogs aren’t for everyone. For example, they’re not for people without vast amounts of time (on average, blog readers spend 20% of their waking hours online – twice that of the non-blog reader). And they’re not for people who don’t think all opinions were created equal and that everyone is not only entitled to one, they are entitled to post it on the Web. Third, if you’re not interested in news and politics (43% of the traffic), technology, Asian languages, or weird stuff (like pictures of cats dressed in strange costumes, www.stuffonmycat.com), there is little to interest you in the top 100 blogs.

Finally, I got some feedback from two experts in this space: Pete Snyder, CEO of New Media Strategies, and Todd Zeigler, SVP of The Bivings Group. They tell me that while blogs can hurt a brand – bloggers love to tell the story of how Jeff Jarvis’ rant about Dell’s customer service sent its stock price south – they present at least as much opportunity as risk.

Surprisingly, staid old GM is taking more advantage of this than most other mega-corporations (http:// fastlane.gmblogs.com/). And, they counsel, don’t confuse the medium with the message. Blogs are just the current manifestation of a much bigger and more important trend: (technologically) assisted empowerment of the consumer. The technology will continue to evolve through RSS, video blogs, podcasting, etc., but the underlying social and consumer trends will remain the same: consumers participating in virtual communities, demanding more information, better service, and more transparency from business, and a continuing seismic shift in the balance of power between seller and buyer.

Click here to view PDF version of this article.