Netflix and the Myth of Transparency in the Modern Age

A few days ago, Netflix announced that it would not, after all, split the company in two. You know the story -- recognizing its future is in streaming media, Netflix set out to create separate companies for its DVD and Streaming businesses.

When the company met with a very bad reaction from customers (and a lot of other constituencies), it retracted the plan. Some press described Reed Hastings a "chastened", among other words.

There are probably a number of lessons here. But, I believe the lesson in this episode is that transparency in the new media age is a myth. Netflix was attempting to be the ultimate in transparent: acknowledging to the market that its future was not in DVDs and a new company needed to be formed. It wasn't hiding that fact or playing games. Just taking steps and moving ahead.

A lot of people say that in today's world of 24/7 communications, the market figures everything out and you might as well just admit what you are doing and not try to manage your communications. Netflix did just that and was roundly punished for it.

The reality is it's critical to be a bit cagey in today's world. Or alternatively, do what you want to do but don't acknowledge or admit it. We have seen Facebook, Amazon, Google and many other companies do that repeatedly in recent years. And despite exclamations to the contrary, some of these moves might be a just a little evil.

Netflix was actually trying to not be evil. And it was vilified.

Hashtag Movements: Whither big ideas and social media?

One of the most puzzling communications issues today is how to introduce new ideas in the current environment that is dominated by social media and often calls for 140 character ideas. This is a question I think about regularly because we often represent companies that aren't just an evolutionary step from something that exists already, but often call for people to think about new and different issues.

I was reminded of this puzzle in reading today's Reuters story about the current anti-Wall Street movement.

What can we learn from this movement, called "Occupy Wall Street" and which has been described as a "hashtag movement"? I think there's one big lesson: social media works to generate interest when you can sum up your new idea with a simple, short tagline. I am not trying to be caustic or cynical here. Just observant.

Does that work for all communications problems? I am going to have to keep thinking about it. Over the years, as we have worked with companies with big, new ideas, I have come to understand that to help them succeed we need to come up with a way to systematically lead the market to believe it needs what the company has. In "the old" world where people relied on somewhat extended stories, we could develop an educational program designed to raise questions, answer them and gently ease perception in the direction we wanted. This could be systematic and allowed for explanation and clarification along the way.

But how do you do this when 140 characters is the norm? This is a really big challenge for new ideas.

There's clearly an opportunity within the social media space to address this issue. In the meantime, is the answer a series of progressive "hashtag movements" to get a market from here to there?

No, Cisco Didn't Flip Out; A good, Fast Lesson for Start Ups

When I first read about Cisco's decision to shut down its Flip division, I was stunned. This technology/product seemed like a no brainer. Even though the capability is quickly being built into multi-purpose, networked devices, surely Flip cameras would be needed or could be repurposed.

I don't know if there is a case to be made for that argument, but Cisco has just taught start ups a really important lesson:

if you have piece of your business that doesn't focus on your core capabilities, don't let it sink slowly. Kill it quickly.

It's hard for any company to do that, but it's really hard for a big business to do it. Because they often have the resources to support the ship in hopes of finding a solution. But with start ups, where every penny matters, that option is not available. Make these decisions quickly.

Of course, this depends on understanding clearly what your core essence is. Because you don't want to kill businesses that are key to that essence. That's what makes the fast decision so hard.

But Cisco's lesson is really important; they know their essence and saw that the Flip wasn't part of it.

Set Some Priorities; What is the Goal and How do we Get There? Well, maybe it's not that easy

We work with start ups, primarily. And I can't help being aghast at the current government shutdown debate (which may be resolved by the time you read this). When you work with young companies that are trying to make a difference, every day involves setting priorities.

Based on having worked with with nearly 100 new and growing companies, there is actually one question that underpins the determination of priorities:

*What is our company's goal and how do we optimize getting there?

Though this may be a simple question, it's pretty hard to answer. We suggest a recipe:

1. Understand -- at your core -- what is your essence as a company -- what is it you are really trying to do?
2. How will you realize this essence and truly optimize next steps as a company?
3. How do these next steps fit into your company architecture? That is, based on your goal, how do you set priorities so that you don't compromise critical path items in favor of short term issues.
4. Keep reassessing.

These questions impact communications strategy directly. So we are often right in the middle of this discussion. Sometime there's instinct involved in finding the right answer. But, at the same time, the key is having a clear vision and continuously moving in that direction.

Let's not Forget to Talk to Each Other

We ran into friends after a movie last night and sat down for a cup of coffee. I hike with the husband, but hadn't met his wife (I'll call her Brenda) and just learned what she does: she helps people figure out the best elder care solutions for their family members. Because Brenda has such a personal profession, she mentioned that she finds it's VERY important to talk with her clients, rather than just email.

This was a great reminder. Brenda mentioned that phone and in-person conversations are so important because she gets so much out of the nuance of people's voices and even how they phrase questions and answers. This gives her a far better opportunity to truly provide the best counsel.

This is a great reminder. Because working in technology, we all know that it's very easy to communicate electronically with short phrases to get a lot of our day to day work done. There's no question that this is a great enhancement in efficiency. But, sometimes, how much is lost in translation?

This reminder is particularly important when building a communications strategy. We need to know how to use all of these instant, quick communications tools/media; And we need to know how to emulate the nuances of emotion and intent through these instant approaches -- that is, how do you get nuance and emotion into 140 characters? That's a fun puzzle, which we find very interesting to try to solve.

At the same time, we encourage clients to remember to find ways to communicate verbally where possible. In-person and on the phone communications are more time-consuming, but they might can work wonders to cement a relationship or impart the essence of what you are trying to communicate.

And by the way, in today's world in which there are so many new ways to communicate instantly, there are also lots of new ways to ensure that we are able to talk to each other.

How Supporting a Relay Race can Lead to Big Thinking about Communications!

I had a great weekend! Along with my husband, I was part of a team of people supporting the Coast Guard Team for the Baker to Davis Run. There were a few things about it that were terrific:

1. It was fascinating to be a part of such an intricate puzzle of logistics. There were 23 runners (20 main and 3 alternates) running a 120 mile course who needed to be delivered to starting points, followed for safety, and picked up. There were 7 support vans, a communications team, medical teams, and miscellaneous other volunteers (a total of about 50). And all of these needed to be coordinated in split seconds so that none of the team's advantage was lost to logistics. See the Team 1790 blog to read some of the highlights of each leg of the race. It was a great learning process and a little hint of what our armed services face on a daily basis.

2. The active duty and reserve Coast Guard personnel participating on the team were terrific. They were energetic, focused, and cared deeply about their mission. And it was really fascinating to hear about their day-to-day lives in the Coast Guard or as Reservists (one of the reservists is the head of City Planning for a city in California; another is a Las Vegas police officer; and I didn't get to hear about the rest).

3. Having been exposed to the Coast Guard through my husband's participation in the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I have become aware of how unheralded the Coast Guard is as a critical armed service. It is the oldest service and is responsible today for homeland security at every port and on every body of water in the U.S. as well as having numerous responsibilities in international missions. But it seems that, compared to the other armed services, most of us hardly know about the Coast Guard, in spite of its importance. It turns out that the one of the team members whom I met this weekend will soon be a member of the headquarters communications team for the Coast Guard. It got me to thinking about how interesting it could be to take on the mission to raise the awareness of the important role the Coast Guard plays in our Nation. Just as with any organization -- like a start-up company or large corporation -- the Coast Guard could be positioned strategically to accomplish certain key goals. And even though security is a necessary element of its mission, it would be highly possible to create a set of key messages and implement a consistent series of campaigns that could, over time, create a new understanding of the important role of the Coast Guard.

I never would have thought that a weekend of helping support a relay race could have such broad impact!

Flight of the Dove: The Story of a Great, Consistent Communications Program

For some reason, I have been thinking a lot recently about Dove . For those of you who might not know (might be nearly all of you), Dove launched a fascinating marketing campaign a few years ago: "the campaign for real beauty."

I have probably been thinking about Dove because over a period of several years, with many brand extensions and new communications tools, they have been able to build a tremendously consistent positioning, branding, marketing, and communications effort. That's really hard to do. They continue to introduce products that are focused on "real beauty"; they have launched multiple programs focused on self-esteem; and have all sorts of social media activities focused on real beauty/self esteem.

Dove shows us that as communications become both more universally accessible through social media, it has also become more complex. That is, having a very clear and consistent message is all the more important when there are so many ways that the customer and influencer are touched.

Of course, at Roeder-Johnson we work technology start ups, most of whom are business-to-business companies rather than being consumer-oriented. But the same perspective is important with these companies. And, in fact, it probably is more manageable. Though unfortunately in this era of constrained resources, companies often forget that they can get MORE leverage by being thoughtful and consistent about their marketing and communications.

But imagine if a company had a clear "high concept" (like "the campaign for real beauty"), was able to develop products that reinforced this, AND developed marketing programs and communications through traditional and new tools that reinforced and built understanding of that core high concept? One theme, lots of leverage, and ultimately a lot of efficiency in building a unified brand.

Social Media Might have Value, After all -- If you Understand How to Use it

As a skeptic about the value of social media for most entities, I am now prepared to disagree to some extent with the perspective expressed by many entrepreneurs in the today's article in the Wall Street Journal called "Entrepreneurs Question the Value of Social Media". In the article entrepreneurs have been disappointed in the cost/benefit of social media campaigns. They thought they could accomplish the same kind of impact an expensive ad campaign.

The misunderstanding about social media that leads to this disappointment is that many believe they can emulate the impact of a big, expensive ad campaign by using social media. There are always exceptions to every rule, but we at Roeder-Johnson believe this is the wrong way to look at social media. Once in awhile a company will be able to mount a relatively inexpensive social media campaign that gets them much more attention than they would get for the equal amount of ad spending. But most of the time, that kind of thing doesn't happen.

So what is the value of social media?

The Value of a Blog
===================

There are certainly some blogs that have become the "modern day press". That is, they include headlines and journalistic (or not) articles that a lot of people read and provide news that is broadly disseminated. Some examples of that in the technology world are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, GigaOm, and others. There are also some in the general press that serve that purpose.

That's not what we are talking about here. For most entities a blog can fall into one of two categories:

*For most organizations, a blog is what we call a "living brochure". It provides customers, audiences, influencers, etc. an ongoing perspective on the views, facts, experiences, questions, etc. of an entity. As such, reading the blog can give interested parties a much greater and more timely understanding than a document or two that are created once a year.

*Some of these blogs can also serve a slightly broader role of helping to educate key constituents about issues of broader interest. These are blogs that might influence a well-informed special interest group, but wouldn't necessarily get really broadbased attention.

The Value of Twitter (or microblogging) is as a replacement for the "Trade Press."
=========================================================================

A lot of people I know are VERY skeptical about Twitter. I am too, mostly. However, the real point about microblogging is that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the impact that Ashton Kutcher accomplished.

*But we believe that the real value of microblogging for small businesses and other emerging entities is as a replacement for what has been traditionally known as "trade press". Because of the fundamental breakdown of most media economics, it has become harder than ever to get to special interest groups. We believe this is where an important piece of microblogging is going. And when coupled with a helpful blog and/or an effective web site, it is likely that it can create a pretty effective way to influence key audiences. By the way, we don't suggest that Tweets should be meaningless blather. But rather should be 140 character calling cards to provoke new and interesting ideas and appeal to key targets. A well implemented Twitter strategy is just as strategic as any other kind of communications.

Admittedly, this is an education in progress. We will keep you posted as we think we learn more.

Do this Week's Key Political Events Signal the Real Growth of the Long Tail in American Politics?

This week, two interesting things happened in the political world that made me realize that the fundamental restructuring of communications may be having a profound impact on our political system. These are: the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts (lots of articles reference this); and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow corporations to spend whatever they want in support of candidates (one article about this from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp).

In the U.S., we are, of course, based on a two-party system. There are a lot of reasons for that, which I won't describe here. (There is always a lot of debate on the subject; I also won't address that here.) The events of this week, however, call into question whether that system can continue to be the de facto foundation of our system.

Why?

-In the Massachusetts election, though many are simplistically arguing that it represents a clear referendum on the current government approach (that is, the electorate has come out clearly and said no to what they see happening in Washington). But, I have heard a number of people talking about different issues about which they cared that ultimately influenced their votes. The result may have been a seemingly binary decision. But, in reality, as a result of widely accessible real time communications, I would argue that this election doesn't signal binary decision at all. Rather, it says that people will vote on their issues -- not the candidate or party.

-The Supreme Court decision will add to this non-binary evolution of American politics. If many entities can spend what they want advocating their own individual positions, the weight of one party vs. the other will be reduced. It is likely that many individuals will vote very specifically on their own issues rather than on the compilation of issues.

Surprisingly, when I looked up "the long tail" and politics, there is relatively little written about it. But, just as today's ability to communicate easily about multiple issues surrounding a product or service has led to a long tail in markets, it is likely to have the same impact on politics.

I am not sure I know what all this means, but I hope that some thoughtful political scientists will think hard about it.

Lessons of the Incas: Necessity is the Mother of "Innovation"

I just returned from Peru. It was a wonderful trip. And, as so often happens when I travel, I came away with some sort of "aha". While these trip-related insights may not be earth-shattering realizations in the grand scheme of things, they are always a great reminder of some basic lesson.

The Lesson of the Incas was a reminder that necessity is the mother of "innovation" (Yes. The wording is slightly changed over the common expression.) It was amazing to observe how advanced the Incas were so many centuries ago. This was particularly obvious in the very sophisticated techniques they had for agriculture. They planted in terraces to optimize the use of their land and then created an irrigation system to fit the demands of these terraces. And there are theories that the Incas created a deep circular terraced crater at Moray in order to provide different micro climates for various crops that were important to their survival. This is just an amazing idea!

I am not an expert on the Incas and won't try to defend these innovations or explain them deeply. It's just that the whole experience reminded me that some of the most effective innovations come in direct response to fundamental needs.

The question this raises for technology start-ups is how can this lesson be applied to optimize innovation today. For the most part, there is no survival issue driving much of technology development, whether it's building a better iPhone, social networking site, or whatever. (That's quite a bit less true of green tech and medical technology.)

We could have a long discussion here about "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" and recognize that today much of the technology work is past basic survival and have moved up the hierarchy. But the drivers are no less important. I just don't think that's true.

So, the question I took away from the Incas was: how do we fuel really important innovation in an environment where our basic survival doesn't depend on this innovation?

The Message is More Important than Ever

Unfortunately, this month has brought layoffs of some of the most seasoned journalists in the world. I won't go into the causes, except to say this is one more sign that the media world is going through a wholesale change (a bit of understatement). This will continue to have a major impact on everything from politics and government to companies and their businesses to the lives of each of the people effected.

However, I want to focus on what is means to start-ups. In short, it means the "press" is more scarce than ever and that clear and (as my friend Seth Godin calls it) "remarkable" messaging in everything you do is more important than it has ever been.

To illustrate the scarcity of the press, I will share an anecdote about a friend who is a former CEO turned author whom I recently helped to get word of his latest book out. We worked together to craft his messaging -- creating a high concept that was leverageable in several media. But then, because at Roeder-Johnson we were swamped, my friend did the press outreach himself. He was quite successful but needed to work pretty hard at it. He reached a number of his target journalists who were quite cordial, but for the most part explained that they found the story interesting, but really were very busy and couldn't focus on this story because it "wasn't required reading." Ultimately my friend has been quite successful, given the context of the times. But there's nothing like a little direct experience for him to see clearly the impact of the reduced presence of traditional media: he learned that if you want a presence in the press, your story has to trully rise above all of its competition. That's always been true. But today, the competition for the scarce space is more intense than ever.

But, the good news is that, more than ever, communications are transparent. That is, there are lots of ways of getting your story and message out to interested parties. It's not restricted to the press any more. As we have said before in this blog, that means that your message and its consistency matters more than ever: because anything you say is seen by everyone interested. Therefore, being clear, differentiated, tight, and consistent is critical.

At Roeder-Johnson, that message-clarity is what we have always focused on. This is not a battle of quantity. It's a battle of being "remarkable" and consistent and regularly reinforcing those.

So, even if traditional media isn't as high a priority in the communications mix, it's more important today to focus on the message.

"When all else fails, try the Truth - Redux"

This afternoon, it was confirmed that the "balloon boy" incident was a hoax. The most amazing thing to me was that anyone ever thought otherwise. Having done communications and public relations for my whole career, I have found that it's pretty easy to tell when someone wants attention for their own benefit rather than for a "greater good." The surprising thing about the hoax was that it wasn't obvious to just about everybody that this family had a long history of attention-seeking.

The sad thing is that we "have made our own bed". The combination of the 24-7 news cycle and the general interest in drama and sensation have led to people like this family who exploit the system. Moreover, I suspect that ultimately they will benefit somehow from this great amount of attention, even if they have to wade through some mud to reach their goal.

It's ironic that I am concerned about this. After all, at Roeder-Johnson, we are in the business of helping companies get noticed. But, for better or worse, we believe there is a certain standard. I often joke about the fact that my motto is "when all else fails, try the truth." But it's actually not a joke. We believe that you start with the truth. The market ALWAYS figures it out. And companies are better off managing their perceptions based on the truth rather than apologizing or correcting themselves later.

So how do we rationalize communicating within this drama-driven world and staying with the truth. They are not mutually exclusive. Most companies have stories that are full of drama on several levels and, over time, can garner attention. And in the meantime, by communicating who they REALLY are, they are getting to the constituents they need to influence.

So, I am hoping that the sensation of the balloon boy doesn't encourage more such hoaxs. But, unfortunately, I am afraid it will.

"Find the Language"

I met recently with a wonderful man and superb entrepreneur, James Currier, who founded (or co-founded) Tickle (acquired by Monster), Ooga Labs, Wonderhill and others. He is supremely thoughtful and has been through several rounds of entrepreneurial education, so he has a pretty clear vision of really happens in start-ups and lots of credibility.

After his years of founding and running companies, James shared with me that he sees his primary job as CEO and founder to be to "find the language" that clearly articulates what his companies are trying to accomplish. He believes this because finding the language is at the heart of understanding what a company truly is.

Boy, do we agree! As you know if you have read this blog in the past, we believe that "words matter". The process of coming up with the simple, "High Concept" that fundamentally explains why a company is important is critical to the process of creating a successful business.

I was excited when James expressed his viewpoint. In addition to being very strategic, his years of experience have also led James to be very practical: there's no point in having a company that represents an elegant concept if it isn't a good business (I am putting words in his mouth but I think this explains his viewpoint).

This perspective is important to us because we see WAY too many companies that believe they need to choose EITHER thoughtful positioning OR a good business. We believe that good positioning is all about how you can be most successful.

When we met, James further explained that the process of finding the right language can be stage-related: the first stage is find the right specific thing that a company does well right now; and then, over the longer term, broaden that out as the vision and mission of the company broadens. More of James' practical view of the world.

Thank you, James, for helping us think clearly as well!

Be Provocative -- But Don't Mistake it with Bad Behavior

We are big advocates of being provocative as part of a well-conceived communications strategy. Sometimes, the best way to get people to wake up to a need for change is to challenge conventional wisdom. Ask questions, throw down the gauntlet to established forces, change things up.

That said, in the past few days, we have all been exposed to bad behavior that has gotten a lot of attention: A member of Congress calling the President a liar in the middle of an important speech to the joint members of both Houses; and (admittedly, at a much more mundane level) a singer rudely interrupting an acceptance speech at an award show to advocate for one of the other contestants.

Don't get me wrong. In both cases, the parties in question completely have the right to comment loudly to express their beliefs; That's what makes this a great country. What bothers me about these two episodes is that both of them resulted in front page news. And, in turn, that could encourage acts of rudeness and bad behavior rather than constructive discussion. I am not sure of a solution, but feel compelled to raise the question.

So, what are some ways to provoke debate as part of a communications strategy?

-Present your products in a way that clearly explains the shortcomings of current approaches and asks the market to question the status quo;
-Make speeches that ask the right questions about conventional wisdom;
-Do point-of-view editorials and press releases raising these interesting questions;
-Embark on educational programs that cause people to wonder if current approaches are the right ones;
-Use social media to lead the market to ask the questions; and
-Lots of other ideas.

Please, just don't count on bad behavior to accomplish your goals.

Faster Innovation and the "Google-ization of Business"

The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating piece yesterday call "The New, Faster Face of Innovation". MIT scholars Michael Schrage and Erik Bryn Jolfsson have traced the implications of the faster and more iterative approach to innovation that we are seeing from companies in today's market.

We have referred to this trend in past blog posts as "the Google-ization of business". Yesterday's article does a great job of describing the trend and cites excellent examples of its implications.

We think about the implications of faster innovation specifically from the perspective of what does it means to communications in today's world; when you combine this rapid pace of innovation and change with an "architectural" view of communications which we have discussed at other places in this blog, it has vast implications. To keep things simple, following are two of the key changes.

1. While having an idea of what image you are trying to create and a hypothesis of how you will get there is more important than ever (because of the transparency of communications), today it is no longer necessary to feel that your first communications stake-in-the-ground is indelible.

2. This new iterative approach to innovation means that you can communicate more frequently and with more trial balloons to help educate the market. Ultimately, when used well, it is likely to enable reaching your communications goals both more effectively and perhaps even more efficiently.

This new flexibility is quite liberating. When communicating, you no longer have to worry about whether every point is the "perfect" point. And you can learn along the way in order to make your communications better.

Please don't misinterpret this flexibility as a recommendation to just throw material into the communications chain and pay no attention. As referenced above, we still feel it's very important to have a clear hypothesis of what you want to communicate over the long term and how you think you might get there (this is what we call the "communications architecture").

The big difference now is that you can course-correct much more easily.

At the end of the day, we believe this new world means you should communicate more than ever before.


*

A Sad Day for Progress

Today, a wonderful client of ours, PolyFuel, Inc., announced that it is ceasing operations. This is a refrain we have all heard too often these days and it is certainly tough on the people involved with the company. We are thinking of them.

But, with this news, there is a greater concern to be focused on as well: PolyFuel has been a leader in developing important next generation fuel cell technology. With this shut down, as a result of the poor economy, the research and development that has happened to date will just go fallow.

This is a shocking outcome. While PolyFuel had forces working against it and it didn't get to commercialization soon enough to survive, the most distressing thing is that all of the work it has done will essentially be lost. And we are not talking about a company in the entertainment space or other market where progress may mean more fun but . . .

And, sadly, PolyFuel is not the only company with truly meaningful development that is being shut down as a result of the economy. I have spoken with a number of my friends who invest in life science venture capital and they each have stories to tell about important companies on the road to commercializing life-saving treatments that have had to shut down. This is bad.

I don't really know the solution to this tremendous problem. But it seems somehow we need to find a way to support companies that are just at the wrong stage of the cycle during this economic downturn.

The Art of Start Ups: Doing what it Takes

It's a hard time for start-ups. We all know that. But on a positive note, I was watching the NBC Evening News (yes I still do -- but on the TiVo) and saw a story that reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday that made me smile. The NBC story was about a company in Peoria, Illinois that has made its way through the recession by having employees who can do many jobs. They are flexible.

The conversation I had yesterday was with a new guy with one of our clients who said, when asked what his job was said (something like) "Whatever helps the company succeed." This made me smile because, after working with nearly 100 start ups through the years, we have seen that the best people in start ups are those that have that attitude. If pushing the broom is what it takes to get there from here, that's what they will do.

And mind you, this is a guy with substantial credentials and a track record of experience across several disciplines. He could claim specialization but instead is just focusing on being a meaningful part of the team and using all of his strengths to accomplish that.

Of course, not everybody can do everything: if you aren't a developer, you probably shouldn't try to write code. And more than that, we at Roeder-Johnson, try to keep focused on what we do well -- hoping to execute in our discipline when needed but always looking at the bigger question: of "how can we help the company succeed."

And, by the way, if pushing the broom is what we can do, then hand us the broom.

Leadership and the Importance of Press Releases

Who knew? The last post on "What about Leadership (Redux)" led to a fair amount of dialog. It also led me to believe that I should probably advocate an unpopular subject: the importance press releases.

In short, we believe that a well-crafted press release is a big opportunity to clearly and effectively tell a company's story. And that's true whether the news hook is mundane or earth-shattering. Along with the many other means of communications available today, press releases are part of the entire communications architecture.

This is, to some, a fairly radical view. Many "modern" communicators think that whispers, blogs, and tweets are the right way to get a story told. We believe all of these are a valuable part of the mix. But we also believe that it's critical to lay out the story clearly and simply in a few places that are broadly available. Therefore, more than ever, we think press releases are a tremendously important communications tool.

In thinking about this position, you may be interested to know that, in years past, I have been very conservative about press releases: when they were just a tool for communicating to a very limited audience, it was key to make sure you didn't flood people with paper. But today, the press release plays a different and more important role:

1. It is a tool, at the appropriate time, to tell a company's story to the appropriate audiences. It should be written clearly and without hyperbole.
2. It can have a viral benefit.
3. In this environment, many constituencies look for and read press releases (not just press and analysts) and this can be helpful to companies on many levels.
4. It can be very helpful in reinforcing leadership messaging and communications architecture.
5. There are lots of other comments -- let me know if you want to discuss them.

This odd topic arose because I have recently seen a few companies that may be squandering their opportunities to help the market understand who they are and how they fit into the world. Hence, these companies may be leaving their market leadership position unsupported and unexplained -- leaving it to chance that the market will figure it out. And, on the flip side, we have seen when we are working with companies who are leaders, the ongoing explanation about important news and nuances of their stories helps the leadership positioning emerge over time.

A few thoughts/caveats about this viewpoint.

1. A press release should always have added value. That is, it should be interesting and provocative.
2. We are not talking here about press release that have two paragraphs (one with the lead and the second with some innocuous quote.) If you are going to bother, explain enough to be meaningful.
3. The purpose of a press release today is not always just to get "ink". It should be viewed as an important part of the toolset to create leadership in the long term.
4. Of course, press releases alone are not the whole communications mix. They should be built into the plan along with thoughts about the Web site, blogs, tweets, conferences, one on one communications, etc.
5. Some press releases are tactical in their nature. That's fine. But never squander an opportunity to tell the story well.
6. Keep the bar high. Don't tell people "what the CEO had for lunch."
7. A press release should be objective and educational; the more boastful, the less believable.
8. Yes. Some recipients might be skeptical of a press release. Sometimes that means you shouldn't do it. And sometimes if means you just have to move ahead and keep the long term in mind.
9. A well-conceived press release takes a lot of work -- to understand what the news is, why it is important, and how to explain this clearly.

Remember, the goal is leadership. (Oh yeah. I already said that.)

But what about leadership? (Redux)

Ugh! Over the past few days there has been a lot of communications about an article in the New York Times about PR in the Silicon Valley. First, there was the original story, then there were a variety of follow-up pieces commenting on it. Not surprisingly, though pretty amazingly, this discussion was really about "publicity" and none of the discussion (that I have seen) has focused on what we at Roeder-Johnson believe is the key issue: the question isn't publicity, "ink" or "buzz"; it's about LEADERSHIP.

At Roeder-Johnson, we believe that the goal of our strategic communications and public relations efforts is to help position clients as market leaders. That's really different from short term "buzz" or publicity. We can all think of companies that have gotten plenty of attention (either in the press or in the "buzzosphere") and ultimately didn't attain leadership in the long term.

What are the benefits of leadership? The most basic benefit is to enable a company to define its environment, rather than following others that do the defining. And resulting from that core benefit are some fundamental business benefits: companies that lead can:

-Charge higher prices
-Enter into better partnerships
-Hire better employees; and ultimately,
-Lower the cost of capital of the company.

So you probably wonder how leadership is attained if it doesn't come from buzz. We believe there are a few key steps needed:

-First, there is the decision by the company that it wants to be a leader and in what way.
-If the choice is made to target leadership positioning, we believe a basic architecture needs to be defined for how the company wants to be perceived in the long term.
-That architecture includes many dimensions -- from business and product strategy to thought leadership and communications strategy.
-In the communications realm, the first step is to put some language around the vision. We call that a High Concept(R): What is the fundamental disruption we represent and how is it simply articulated?
-Following this, it's key to understand how will we get people to understand the high concept: the need, the requirements and what it will take to accomplish the vision, why the company is in the position to accomplish it, and how it plays out for the long term.
-Then, on an ongoing basis, the communications strategy is implemented and refined to help lead the market to understand the High Concept.

This is a very short description of an alternative view to the conventional wisdom about public relations as publicity. I want to note that ink and/or buzz is certainly a part of any communications strategy. But it is NOT the end in itself.

Start Ups Need to Avoid the "Susan Boyle Effect"

I have been intrigued by the story of Susan Boyle on "Britain's Got Talent." It was hard not to be interested in this shy woman who has the potential of realizing a life-long dream by singing her heart out. And, I admit, I have followed each of her ups and downs over the past few weeks. It's not really surprising that she has "buckled" under the pressure of all the public attention that has come her way.

This "Susan Boyle Effect" is not disimilar from a phenomenon that most start-ups need to be careful of: coming out with such hoopla that they can hardly do anything but buckle under the pressure and ultimately disappoint the expectations that have risen far too high.

By nature, start-ups are somewhat like the shy woman from Scotland. They have the stuff but have not been real-world tested under the glare of Klieg lights. We can all think of a number of examples of companies that have come out with too much attention and then because of the market interest and expectations, they ultimately were unable to meet the demands were placed on them. And they became exhausted in the process of trying. Or worse, the first impressions they made on people were unsatisfactory and they couldn't get customers and influencers to come back for a second look.

There are a few companies that have defied the odds of lots of attention. Google comes to mind and was amazingly able to withstand the pressure of vast relatively early attention. We are all living through the pressures that Twitter is under and the jury is still out on whether they will hold up (though in spite of some technical problems they have done amazingly well). But in general, we recommend a modulated plan for emerging from under the radar.

How should a company do this? Of course, it's different for each company. However, in general, we recommend building credibility and infrastructure and consistently raising visibility. This process enables a company to accomplish its business needs steadily while at the same time building up the strength to support market demands.

I hope Susan Boyle bounces back. Regardless of the next step, she will undoubtedly be wiser.