The High Concept

Netflix and the Myth of Transparency in the Modern Age

2011-10-11T15:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-10-05T12:50:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-13T09:21:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-21T08:48:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-04-19T15:13:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-06T17:31:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-01-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

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"

2010-01-05T08:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-22T06:18:00.000-08:00

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"

2009-10-18T18:03:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-09-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-14T08:20:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-08-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-13T06:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-29T09:06:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-10T06:20:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-07-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-06-01T10:57:00.000-07:00

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.

What exactly is a "seedling"?

2009-05-15T13:22:00.000-07:00

A lot of the VC's I have spoken with recently are increasingly interested in funding "seed" stage companies. Of course, that has to do with the seemingly attractive economics of these companies. Valuations are quite low now so a large piece of the company can be acquired for less.

That is, of course, what venture capital is all about: funding companies (that often might not get off the ground without them) and having everyone end up ahead of where they would be alone. I am a huge believer in venture capital and its role in promoting innovation. It is (or should be) one of the great sources of long term growth we have.

But there's a problem with what I am also hearing from some of these same VCs: they give their seedlings a few months and then they have to have a clear path to "monetizing" (I use that word because it is such an important piece of the industry jargon).

That's what worries me: We have a seedling lemon tree in our front yard. According to all the experts, each time you see a bit of new growth in this seedling, you are supposed to pinch it off; this is so that growing the new shoot doesn't completely sap the whole tree. And you are supposed to do this for a few years.

The approach to the lemon tree is the way I have traditionally thought about seed funding: plant a seed and then nurture it till it realizes its potential (within reason). We have a few clients that are great examples of this: Canesta, today the leader in 3-D vision sensors, has been nurtured and is today hitting the ball out of the park. And cPacket, with a revolutionary approach to chip design has the most efficient approach to "complete packet inspection" (a networking and IT concept that is just coming into its own) is in just the right position today to be capturing that market. And I just learned about a friend's company, ZettaCore, that is doing some really important stuff in materials science and has investors who believe in this nurturing approach to building winners in the long term.

It's not clear, however, the most investors have that "lemon tree" approach to investing. They give lip service to seedlings and then are apparently willing to only give them a little time to turn their big idea into big business.

Sure. Everyone is under a lot of pressure today and needs to see "positive momentum" to keep funding companies. But, has the definition of "positive momentum" become too limited among most VCs? And does this mean that many of the seeds that have the potential to grow into important trees may be killed before they have a chance to blossom?

Is Too Much Attention being Paid to the First 100 Days?

2009-04-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

I'm torn about the tremendous attention being focused on the President's first 100 days. On one side, it seems like kowtowing to a media event and creating a lot of hype around a false stake in the ground; on the other hand, we live in a time where clear communication is key.

Ok, I admit it: at the end of the day, it seems like there is too much "pomp and circumstance" being put on this date on the calendar. While the President couldn't and wouldn't stop the press from covering this milestone and should communicate clearly, the planned prime time press conference feels like a bit much.

So what the relationship between this hoopla and technology start ups?

1. First, running a company is a marathon not a sprint. It's fine to set goals and meet them (in 10 days, 100 days or 6 months). But that's not the end in itself.

2. Hype kills. Yes. This is a familiar refrain for this blog. But we cannot say it too often. At the end of the day, spinning up too many things to create too much buzz can (nearly) always lead to disappointment among most constituents. . (Admittedly, the President has, thus far, avoided this pitfall. But...)

So, what should the President be doing now? Probably clear and concise communications to keep the discussion and understanding progressing. But without the prime time focus.

The same goes for most companies.

"When all else fails, try the Truth"

2009-04-21T14:03:00.000-07:00

I saw a wonderful film the other day called "The Audition" . It was about contestants in the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions. At the end of the film, when asked for the most important advice for young opera singers, one veteran star said "Say what you mean and mean what you say".

I thought it was ironic that an opera singer would provide the same coaching advice as we do in the communications realm. Our version is a little more tongue-in-cheek: "When all else fails, try the truth."

Of course, what we really mean is "start with the truth". But that's not as provocative. Either way, its an important perspective. We are in the business of managing perceptions and have always believed that the market always figures out the truth. This is ever more the case today, when all communications are "transparent" and the data is available easily.

This, of course, does not mean that you just spit stuff out. As we have said many times, start with a clear idea of your goals and messages and provide information both within this context and clearly explained.

But, at the end of the day, the truth wins out. So, start there!

Speeding Along in the Real-Time World

2009-04-05T10:27:00.000-07:00

David Brooks wrote a very interesting piece in yesterday's New York Times called "Greed and Stupidity" about the current financial crisis. I won't comment here on the specifics of his view of the crisis. But he had a very interesting comment in the article that got me thinking:

"To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. You’d think that with thousands of ideas flowing at light speed around the world, you’d get a diversity of viewpoints and expectations that would balance one another out. Instead, global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogeneous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time."

We have all been made increasingly aware over the last decade of the implications of the world being flat. But i don't know that it was quite so clearly articulated that one of the side effects is, in fact, increased "lemminghood" (my term for Brooks' more polite "unconscious conformity"). But it is certainly the case. I have been concerned about it when reading poll numbers -- they reflect the perceived direction of the moment (sometimes this is valuable and sometimes it can be misleading); it's certainly impacted and been impacted by the news media and what's popular and what we read about; the speed with which 'fashions' come and go; and there are many other unintended consequences of real time communications.

So what is the impact on technology start-ups?

*First, now more than ever, young companies cannot afford to be slow in their decision making. This has been true for as long as I can remember. In small companies, there has never been room for misdirected use of resources for long.

*On the one hand, it is important to listen to the market and ferret out what can be learned from the constant access to information and opinions and real-time responses. This is a very powerful tool.

*But, on the other hand, it's critical now to be clear on your goals and have the "intestinal fortitude" to stick to them. We have always believed that "looking over your shoulder" is a very distracting activity for any company, especially start ups.

*The real time world is one in which entrepreneurs need to have a well-honed sense of balance between their fundamental views and outside input -- both of which are key, when you have an instinct about which to heed when.

Welcome to the Time of Opportunity

2009-03-29T08:56:00.000-07:00

It may not feel like it, but we are living in an era of tremendous opportunity. While this blog made this point before, I was reminded of it in reading a very interesting article called "Coke? Oreos? That's so last year" on MSN Money. The message of the article is that in these lean economic times, consumers are rethinking their values and often choose generic brands over "name-brands". The article gives examples of how this has been an opportunity for small, lesser known consumer-products companies that provide value rather than fancy packaging.

The consumer-products opportunity here is along one primary axis: cost. We believe that while the cost axis presents an opportunity for technology companies, there may also be other axes along which new opportunity can be seized in more sophisticated markets.

Simply put, we are living through a time of great market disruption. In the case of consumer markets, this means that brand names no longer necessarily mean success. For technology start-ups, we believe that within this great disruption, target markets may be willing to challenge their traditional ways of doing things along several axes: not only will they be looking for cost savings; but they may, in fact, be willing to change the way they do things more fundamentally to achieve even broader benefits.

Let me give you a few examples:

-We have all read about the success of SalesForce.com. This is not just because of lower costs. Today's market is leading customers to need to try new ways to doing things in order to make their businesses work.

Moreover, we are working with a few companies that are finding tremendous momentum in today's market:

-One of our clients is providing an entirely new way to deploy web applications in the cloud. While there are some cost benefits to its approach, the savings enabled by this company are as importantly in time and complexity as well. They have acquired 25,000 new applications in a matter of a few months.

-Another of our clients has a very low cost 3-D sensor. This means that computers and entertainment devices are able to do much more than make existing capabilities faster or cheaper. They can actually create new user experiences that will bring in entirely new markets and revenue streams.

We can all think of more examples of how companies are able to capture significant new opportunity in this market. We believe it's important to keep your eyes open for these and seize the moment.

A Return to Passion

2009-03-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

In his piece in yesterday's New York Times, George Anders talked about "The Secrets of the Talent Scouts". It reminded me of the need/opportunity to return to passion in the world of start ups.

Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital was quoted in the piece: "The only people who want to start a company in a time like this are the ones with the greatest conviction.”

That's exciting. Because over the last few years, the fever of money-making has, to a large degree, overtaken the passion to "change the world" that has driven start ups for a long time. For those of us who started in technology awhile ago, this passion has been a sentiment that we found missing. It reached a pinnacle (or nadir, perhaps) for me when, a few years ago, I met a very young entrepreneur who, when asked to tell the story of the founding of the company, answered with the following: "Do you want to hear the real story or the one that sounds better?" Ugh.

But now, I suspect such raw ambition without a foundation of passion wouldn't succeed in getting funded. (Yes. There are a lot of venture capitalists who aren't funding those companies either, but that's another story.)

At Roeder-Johnson, we are fortunate to represent multiple companies that have built and maintained their companies on sheer dint of will and the passion to make their visions happen. Turns out they are feeling the impact of today's economy less than a lot of other start ups.

So, what does this have to do with communications? A lot.

We believe that today, more than any time in the last few years, communications strategy and messages need to combine BOTH that passion and vision as well as the basic business case. That is, whether the founders of the company want to make cloud computing instant, a chip that does many high speed communications functions better than any network or general purpose processor, next generation multi-touch and gestural controls, or breakthrough fuel cell materials, the story that the company tells should combine four key elements:

*The inspiration for the basic idea;

*What is possible when this basic idea is realized (and, in its small way, how it might change the world);

*The business opportunities that are opened because of this breakthrough; and
*The passion that will lead to success -- through thick and thin.

It's no longer good enough to have a clever, opportunistic gimmick to make it through the challenging times we face. We have to believe that the change will really happen.

Communicating in "The Great Disruption"

2009-03-08T08:51:00.000-07:00

This morning, Thomas Friedman wrote a very interesting column about "The Great Disruption.". One of the key points he makes is:

"So am I [an optimist]. People are already using this economic slowdown to retool and reorient economies."

I am an optimist too. This great disruption is a chance for all of us to rethink the way we do things and refine them to meet today's realities. And, while Friedman is thinking about macroeconomic issues, I think about how all of this impacts the way we communicate. Having written here and elsewhere about the great opportunity that is presented to some special companies that can come out way ahead in this economy, I want to spend a few minutes thinking about the other, good companies that will definitely continue to progress in this economy, whether or not they leap bounds ahead.

So, let me paint the scene: imagine you are a company that is managing to build its new products and slowly but surely is increasing its revenues, in spite of the state of the market. You have reason to believe that a measured, systematic approach to business will keep you on the path of progress.

So, what should YOUR communications plan be in this environment? You don't really fit either of the two models that have been widely discussed: either go all in; or just shut down all communications to save all of your resources.

Thee is a third plan. It's probably the one that is suited to most companies that are continuing to move ahead in this market:

Communicate clearly and steadily. Perhaps less than you have been used to doing in the past (but definitely more than no communications at all).

In a general sense, such a plan could look as follows:

-Spend a month to six weeks really clarifying your goals and messages and what you want to accomplish;
-Periodically (every four to six weeks) make sure you are proactively communicating with the market (through news, blogs, web site updates, and other means). If you can do a little more, fine. But don't make it a crisis.
-Use Twitter and other social media, as appropriate;
-Be responsive to opportunities that present themselves. By this, I mean, for example, two types of situations: one in which something is going on in the market to which you can respond; and the other situation is when something happens (positive or negative) to your company which presents the chance to use communications outreach to further your fortunes.

It's clear that this is a generic formula and that every company faces a different day to day environment. The real point of the great disruption is that we are all being invited and forced to rethink many of our ways of succeeding in the world. As they say, since necessity is the mother of invention; therefore it is clear that the right communications plan for each company needs to be developed in real time by the team that is thinking about how to optimize each moment.

Living in a World of Knobs

2009-03-01T10:02:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh is said to have fired up the troops at a major conservative conference. This, combined with a recent dinner with a friend who absolutely believes that the right answer to ALL of today's economic woes is to let the free market solve the problems, caused me to think about whether we live today in a world of many knobs rather than one big switch.

Let me explain.

If you imagine a dashboard for running the world (or the country, if you want a "smaller" picture), the image that would be conveyed to describe Limbaugh's world would be one with a gigantic switch whose two settings are: on one side is "government intervention"; and on the other side is "let the market take care of it". Limbaugh is essentially saying that the latter is the solution.

Alternatively, another dashboard might exist: one with multiple knobs, perhaps divided up by industry or discipline with varying degrees of government and private sector support represented around each knob. This latter is more of what is being used by today's U.S. government.

So what does this have to do with communications? A lot. It's obvious that in the former scenario, communicating the mission and vision is relatively easy. It's simple and clean.

But in the latter scenario, communicating is much tougher. There are nuances that are being implemented that can complicate the story.

However, we believe that even in a world of knobs -- which is likely the world in which most technology start ups live -- it is possible to develop as clean a communications strategy. It's what we at Roeder-Johnson call a "high concept". It requires stepping up above the individual knobs and seeing the single common vision that unifies all of them.

It may not be easy to define the "high concept"; but it is very important to do -- at any time of the market, especially now. We are living through a time of tremendous complexity, where everyone has many knobs they have to deal with every day. This means, for a company to raise itself above all of that fog of knobs, it needs to simplify its message.

Whether you agree with those who represent the "switch" vision of the world, there may be a lesson to take from them.

I Don't Usually Kiss 'n Tell, but. . .

2009-02-15T10:24:00.000-08:00

If you know me, you know that I am not the type to Kiss 'n Tell. But, this time, I just have to. After a recent acceleration of Facebook use and connections, I have just succeeded in my first true Facebook "hookup." Over the past year, I have reconnected with old friends and learned so much more about what is important to many of my Facebook friends; but just this week, directly as a result of Facebook, I successfully introduced a guy to a company and he is joining!

Maybe that doesn't sound that exciting. Undoubtedly, a lot of people have found jobs through Facebook connections. But the amazing thing is that this guy wasn't looking for a job! We had never discussed anything like this.

Here's the general scheme of things (without saying to much in order protect peoples' privacy).

First, my friend and I have kept in touch for the 10 years or so that we have known each other. But, as a result of Facebook, we have been "chatting" so much more. After about 2 months of chats, "cross-commenting", and "wall-talking" my friend suggested we have lunch. Then, the night before our lunch, I had an epiphany: this guy who was happily living his life and not in any way looking for a new job, might be uniquely qualified to fill a nearly-unfillable role at the company of another friend.

So, we had lunch and the question was posed; the worst that happened was that the guy said no. But it turned out that he didn't say no. He got excited about the idea and the introduction was made. The rest is history.

This is so exciting because it happened by leaps of creativity. Facebook didn't do that, but the proximity of the people, the reconnections, etc. triggered the creativity.

It never occured to me that Facebook would become a part of the creative process. But it did. And, by the way, over the past year, I have had other "creative" experiences with Facebook as well (though they are somewhat less dramatic). Interestingly, it's not clear that LinkIn or Plaxo would create the same kind of creativity. Because the dialog is more stilted (or maybe I haven't figured them out yet -- which says something in itself).

Of course, this blog is about communications -- and this is a perfect example of how communications is changing and perhaps how we are all potentially more creative because of them.

"Yes" is the New "No"

2009-02-09T15:42:00.000-08:00

Each day I watch President Obama with continued fascination. There are certainly a lot of things to find fascinating in today's world. But, as a communications professional, it is clear that all of us have a lot to learn from our new President.

There are layers of nuances in the way the President communicates. But the single biggest lesson that we can all take away is one the nearly all of us know already and just don't practice. Rule number 1 of communicating is: be inclusive; if you can keep people listening, you have a much better chance of getting your message across.

Let's look at a few recent examples:

1. The big one recently was when Tom Daschle removed himself from consideration as Health and Human Services Secretary. Instead of being defensive, President Obama quickly said "yes, I screwed up." The issue nearly became a non-story and we could move back to the big issues at hand.
2. We are also seeing this technique in the President's dealings with Iran and the Arab world. He has expressed toughness but at the same time went first to an Arab TV station and has openly said we will talk.
3. And with the Labor Unions, which will undoubtedly need to make concessions to help keep the economy progressing, Obama said "We will work with you." Rather than "get with it and lower your expectations." They will become part of the solution through this, rather than part of the resistance.

Daily we see more examples of this very astute communications approach -- it is clearly innate to the President's view of the world. It underscores that, in addition to the other rather wholesale changes happening today, we are returning to a time of candor and what I hope is a "win-win" approach to communicating.

What does this mean to technology start ups? Here are a few takeaways:

1. Start ups are often trying to do what President Obama has been trying to do: change the way people think. Communicating early and often is most effective.
2. Be inclusive in your communications; rather than negative. Try to find a way to get everyone to be a part of the transition/solution.
3. In response to criticism and challenges, acknowledge them and move forward rather than fighting against them.
4. Always remember, "Yes is the new No."

When Does "The President as Rock Star" Start to Work Against the Goal?

2009-02-02T09:26:00.000-08:00

I watch the Obama camp daily with fascination. As a communications professional, there are lots of things to learn from their example. I have never been aware of a communications team that was so effective and am certain that the instinct and guidance comes from the top. The President has amazing communications skills.

I do worry, however, about two things:

1. The longer the Presidential team is in office, the more isolated/insulated they will get. Will this influence the quality of their instincts?
2. They are very active communicators. To all appearances their approach is be open, transparent, and proactive. But, having seen what happens to companies when they communication TOO much, the question is: should the President hang back for awhile now?

There are certainly no rules about this. And it's clear that the President is trying to keep the electorate informed to allay concerns, build confidence (there's nothing so scary as no information), and educate the entire nation about the new realities we all face. And of course, he is politicking -- trying to get his measures through -- working to use the persuasiveness of the electorate to sway disagreeing politicians.

But at what point does the "President as Rock Star" work against the goal? By that I mean either: when do expectations get so spun up so high that there is no result other than disappointment; and/or when do listeners become innoculated to the message?

Is there a way to keep the lines of communications open without proactively appearing in the press all the time? In this day and age, there must be.

I hope the team is thinking about this. What are your thoughts?

What's good for GM. . .

2009-01-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

Let me just be clear. As a former owner of an EV1 electric car that GM subsequently took back and destroyed, I am not a fan of GM. They have made their bed.

That said, GM (along with the other US auto companies) is currently doing some PR that we can all take a lesson from. In short, because they are trying to convince Congress that their futures are worth betting on, the auto companies are currently very proactively showcasing their advanced technology. For the first time, reporters are seeing a lot of auto advancements that are upcoming in ways they have never been allowed to before.

Obviously, these are emergency measures and who knows if these guys will be proactive technology leaders when their lives don't depend on it. But, here's the lesson:

Don't wait till you are fighting for your survival to showcase your breakthroughs and leadership. It should be an integral part of your ongoing positioning strategy and will have broad benefits in the near, medium and long term.

Those of us with a heritage of working with technology start up companies know that technology is often one of the great differentiators for a young company with very tight resources. This means that initially it captures attention of customers, partners, and influencers, over the mid- and long-term it helps you move forward with customers and partners who need to look to tomorrow, and in all cases, when used right, has the potential to lower the cost of capital.

Of course, technology won't get you all the way over the line. You have to show that the technology leads to advantages that customers want. But it's a really powerful tool.

And by the way, I would contend that in this current economic environment it is MORE important today than in the past few years when "the rising tide lifted (almost) all boats".

How to Communicate in Today's Tough Market

2008-11-15T16:58:00.000-08:00

In response to many inquiries about how to communicate in today's tough market, we wrote an article for GigaOm.com. If you are interested, see the article titled: "7 Ways to Talk Your Way to the Top in A Down Market".Of course, please be in touch if you want to discuss this further.

What Technology Companies can Learn about Communications from the Recent Campaigns

2008-11-05T12:07:00.000-08:00

Along with many of you, I have been watching this week's historic Presidential election very closely. In addition to its transformational nature in the story of the United States, the communications strategies of the Obama and McCain campaigns have differed dramatically and can provide some good lessons for start-up technology companies.

In short, the Obama campaign was an excellent example of "high concept" communications; while the McCain campaign followed a much more exclusively tactical path.

If you have read this blog in the past, you know that key elements of high concept communications are developing a simple and clear leadership vision and message which is the guidepost of a long-term communications strategy. With the creation of the "Change" high concept, the Obama campaign built the foundation of its entire communications architecture. And more than that, the campaign was quite disciplined about staying with this architecture – through thick and thin.

But it's also interesting to note that, at the same time as the Obama campaign defined and stuck with a clear architecture, it didn't forego any tactical advantage. A tremendous amount has been and will be written about the campaign's organization, on-the-ground tactics, and ground-breaking use of the Internet. The great communications strategy was not a substitute for those basics of great execution.

Juxtapose this very clear and consistent strategy with the McCain approach. To an outside observer, it didn't look like the campaign ever defined a unifying, overriding high concept that would inform an entire architecture. The communications seemed to change throughout the campaign with new slogans and approaches. Mind you, the campaign faced a number of "near death experiences" and needed to be fleet-of-foot to survive them; but it appears the campaign allowed that survival instinct to exclusively drive communications rather than finding a way to marry survival with a long-term strategy.

As part of this short-term, survival view of communications, the McCain campaign used "gimmicks" several times. (We believe Governor Palin and "Joe the Plumber" are good examples of this.) They appear to have generally offered short term benefit that ultimately became a deficit and backfired.

So, what are the lessons to be learned from these Presidential campaigns that can be applied to technology start-ups. First, let me explain that our view is that many start-ups share the core characteristic of Presidential campaigns in that they have the potential to “change the world” in some way but also live in a fast changing world where vision and survival are often at odds.

With this perspective the there are multiple lessons:

1. High concept communications works.

2. High concept communications both requires and enables a long-term view of the communications strategy. This means you want to be thoughtful up front about creating that strategy.

3. High concept communications does not argue against near term, practical execution decisions.

4. Gimmicks and hype are very risky.

5. Sometimes high concept communications takes both the will to be consistent and the creativity to marry it with the need for survival.

6. High concept communications are as important to a company as great products, technology, marketing, and business strategy. No single one of these can replace any the others.

Undoubtedly there are both more lessons and room for debate about these ideas. Please share them.

When Times are Tough, Keep Talking and Differentiate

2008-10-28T15:04:00.000-07:00

We recently underscored the importance of continuing to communicate during this current down market. To reiterate, there are two fundamental reasons:

• In the near-term, you want your constituencies to know you are out there, active and understand how you can benefit them; and
• In the long-term, there’s ground to capture and if you succeed, you come out the winner and leading the market.

However, as is always our way, we don’t recommend quantity instead of quality. It is critical in a market like this to stand out by being clear about who you are and why anyone should care, especially when resources are at a premium.

This means that before you talk, step back and clearly define the following:

1. Within the world as it is and is coming to be, why are you important?
2. How are you different and why is that difference important to your target audiences?
3. How do you explain and reinforce this clearly and repeatedly?

Since the current market difficulties are still pretty new, let’s find an example that worked. I heard the story the other day of the refrigerator company that advertised heavily during the Great Depression. They knew that this was an opportunity for them. Their thrust was: in a time when money is tight, you need to preserve your food for as long as possible; buy a refrigerator because it will stretch your budget.

Yes, I know that this may be simplistic. But they focused clearly on their differentiation and benefit. Imagine how that might look today in the world of transparent communications. For example, think about the elements of the Web Site (and then you can extrapolate to the broad spectrum of communications):

• Theme: Save more with a refrigerator.
o Company description: We are committed to bringing down total costs with our products that help preserve food long
o Technology:
• We have invented a number of unique technologies that create a long lasting cool storage place for perishables.
o Markets:
• Everyone keeps perishables and everyone needs to preserve their investment by saving these as long as possible.

o We serve the following markets:
• Homes
• Restaurants
• Industrial applications

o Products:
• Home version
• Restaurant version
• Industrial version

o Case Studies:
• Family
• Restaurant
• Factory

o News:
• Launch of First Refrigerator that Stays cool forever
• Family keeps food for a week
• Restaurant profits increase because of less food loss
• New Technology Extends the Life of Food

Well, you probably get it. We used the example of the web site because in today’s world, it serves as a great example of nearly all of the types of communications that you may need to use and how you can be clear and differentiate at each turn. Moreover, this example exemplifies why you need to be quite clear about what you are trying to say at all levels.

Sequoia’s Right: Just Make Sure You Know All of what they Said about Communications

2008-10-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

There is much being made these days about Sequoia Capital’s meeting with portfolio companies where they said “RIP: Good Times.” In short, they have told portfolio companies to tighten their belts, be realistic about their businesses, and hunker down for the long term. Turns out, Sequoia hasn’t been alone in these warnings. We are hearing that most investors are giving their portfolio companies similar messages.

But Sequoia also said some very interesting things about communications. According to GigaOm, Doug Leone made a number of key points:

• Go on the offensive and pound on your competitors’ shortcomings.
• Be aggressive with your messaging and be out there. In a downturn, aggressive PR and communications strategy is key.

This is certainly a version of the old adage: “He who wins in a down market wins.” Therefore, our advice is:

• Take the advice of your investors – most of whom are going to tell you to lengthen your runway as much as possible; and
• Seize the moment by capturing undefended ground during this downturn.

So how does a company use communications to do this?

• Be clear, articulate, and consistent about your differentiation;
• Be clear, articulate, and consistent about your benefits – near term and long term;
• Speak often to your key markets and influencers;
• Be specific and real. Help your customers and their influencers understand how you are better and the benefits you bring;
• Use the transparency of communications today to make sure this communications gets to all of your audiences.
• Don’t stop talking!

We know that you may be wondering how you can both extend your runway and increase your communications.

We intend to create a series of blog posts to address the issues enumerated above. But, if you want to discuss these, call us.

Cartoon Controversy

2008-07-24T12:23:00.000-07:00

As I was listening this morning to an analysis of the controversy surrounding the recent New Yorker magazine cover illustration about Barack Obama, I was reminded of the power of "editorial" or "political" cartoons. Ironically, in an era where we have easy access to almost any medium (video, audio, prose, photos, etc.), it turns out that cartoons -- one of the oldest of these options -- have been among the most catalyzing in recent years. The New Yorker cover has spurred many conversations and controversies; and within the last few years, it was a Danish political cartoon that served as one of the most incendiary communications in the Islamic world. And many of us were taught from an early age that political cartoons were among the most powerful forms of communications in the American Revolutionary War; and beyond this, we can each think of more examples. (For a history of editorial or political cartoons see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon .)

At Roeder-Johnson, we believe that sometimes the most powerful way to make a point clearly and succinctly is through an editorial cartoon. Not only is a "picture worth 1000 words", but, all in one glance, a political cartoon can capture vision, frustration, solution, and explanation at the same time. This contrasts with video or prose, each of which usually take more time to build a case and then for the audience to take it in. And photograph can be very powerful, but it's very difficult to capture a multiple, nuanced points in one photo.

Most of the issues facing technology start ups are not nearly as lofty as presidential elections, the future of religion, or revolutionary wars, so you might wonder how an editorial cartoon can be used to good effect for a technology company. Here are a few examples:

• For one client in the enterprise software business, we captured in a cartoon the challenges and frustration faced by companies trying to keep track of and manage all of their resources;
• For a client in the alternative energy business, we underscored the need to get on the "boat" of a coming technology before it was too late;
• For a client in mobile business intelligence, we showed many possibilities that would result from trully having access to real-time enterprise intelligence on a mobile device.
• And many more ...

Each of these, in its own way, has catalyzed a movement that was important to the company it was serving.

This is all just a good reminder that sometimes the best communication is the simplest and most accessble.

Sometimes when you climb a mountain, a flip flop is the right decision

2008-07-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

I recently was on a hike in British Columbia and, at the end of 6 hours and about 4500 feet with at least as much to go (without much food or drink, or any flashlights or warm clothes), our entire group of hikers decided that we would not make it to the designated end of the hike and we would have to change our plan. Not only was this the right thing to do, but as I think about the situation, I am reminded that sometimes, given new data, changing the plan is the right thing to do.

Interestingly, changing course is an increasingly common 21st Century business move. It seems to have become more accepted in our world today -- when companies like Google (and lots of others) can introduce a product or make a business move and, if it doesn't work (for whatever reason), they quietly change things.

It's not clear that the press (at least the part that covers politics) has yet recognized that this kind of flexibility is both acceptable, and probably also necessary, in our time. In politics, this behavior is called a "flip flop" and candidates seem to be accused of flip flops on a regular basis these days.

But two fundamental questions arise here:

1.) Are flip flops inherently OK or are they a sign of weakness or unclear thinking?
2.) If flip flops are ok, what kinds of guidelines can be used to help understand when a decision represents good judgment or equivocation?

The answer to the first question seems relatively clear: of course flip flops are ok. We live in a real-time world and when new data comes along that leads to new insight and possibly a change of opinion, then, by all means, flip flop if it's the right thing to do.

Of course, the second question is the hard one: where does flexibility end and poor judgment or a weak value system begin? It's certainly a lot easier to be doctrinaire about opinions and inflexible about plans (this lends a certain clarity to life). But it doesn't seem a practical or sensible way to live in today's world. Yet, when do you change your course?

In reality, I don't know the specific answer to this question. And it's certainly one that start-up companies should constantly be looking at (both in business in general and certainly in their communications strategy): when do they stay the course -- even if it's hard; and when do they change directions? In general, it feels like good guidelines are:

• If your original plan was based on a well-thought-out rationale, then the default position should be to stay the course; but
• If, in spite of this default predisposition, new evidence leads you to conclude a change in course is necessary, then do it.

We live in a world today when flip flops -- with the right foundation -- are ok.

The Continuing Case Against Hype

2008-06-04T15:14:00.000-07:00

I got a call recently from a friend who wanted to understand why I had counseled his partner to be very careful about doing lots of pre-launch press releases about a service they are launching. This company is representative of a lot of young companies we see these days: it is launching something very interesting, and important, into a market that has been inundated with promises but little delivery. Moreover, as with other start-ups we have seen, it is launching into a category where market trust is critical.

Our point about this company was not "do nothing". Rather, it was: be very careful that you don't do things to meet short term goals that compromise your long term leadership. Make announcements with substance behind them, rather than fluff.

This is one more example of our continuing case about hype. In addition to having your communications architecture in mind, make sure you have the key foundation elements of your business in place before you start getting people all spun up about what you can deliver. We have said before "hype kills." So once again, I will underscore that our experience is that when companies over-promise before they have a foundation in place -- they usually live to regret it.

The advice I gave my friend was simple and generalizable to most companies launching in today's transparent communications environment:

(1) First, be clear about what image you want to create in the long term. In this case, trust is such a critical component of this image that it must be at the heart of all communications from the beginning; and
(2)Make sure there is meat behind what you are saying before you say it.

If you can follow those two guidelines, then there are undoubtedly some communications you can do effectively to accomplish your near term goals and position you well for the long term.

And all without hype!

Welcome, PR 2.0! But Where Is “Leadership” in the Formula?

2008-05-26T21:16:00.000-07:00

Welcome, PR 2.0! But Where Is “Leadership” in the Formula?

We are so pleased that a “high concept” called “PR 2.0” is attracting so much attention of late. After the hysteria of the last decade or so about “ink” and “publicity”, it’s excellent that young entrepreneurs are being educated about the real facts of life in effective public relations. We have always tried to practice this on a one on one basis and are glad for the help reminding people of some important fundamentals about public relations, including the benefits of:

• Having a clear vision
• Articulating it clearly as a “high concept”
• Understanding how your market is shaped and influencing the influencers through the appropriate media
• Relationship-building; and
• Leadership

Leadership is the thing that we believe is missing from the broadly articulated version of PR 2.0. It’s good to have the tactical execution in hand as being explained by PR 2.0. But we think the broad explanation forgets to remind entrepreneurs that they need to define the market – not follow it (you can read about this a lot in this blog (http://thehighconcept.blogspot.com/2008/05/walk-before-you-run-to-win-leadership.html).

We hope that with the increased attention to professional PR execution the quality of services provided will go up. Moreover, we hope even more fervently that a few of the entrepreneurs will go the extra mile and really work to lead and challenge the market with provocative and interesting perspectives.

Building a Path to Leadership

2008-05-18T08:59:00.000-07:00

I recently was watching a report on CNN's "Reliable Sources" (which is a fascinating review of the media) and was reminded that Presidential candidates are more than ever media-focused and media-sensitive. It made me realize that as a natural consequence of living in a world with 24-7 media coverage, we are all more aware of the media and its importance. And this is particularly notable with younger entrepreneurs with whom we are working: there's more sensitivity than ever to playing to the media ("media" is defined in the broadest way here). That is, before lots of basic company blocking and tackling is thought through, getting attention in the near term is attended to.

Yes, this is the world we live in. But it's worrisome for a few reasons. First, the most basic: it's hard to build a company and it takes lots of time and energy to understand how to build it. Too much distraction with externals can be costly.

Moreover, in addition to this basic concern, so much of the attention paid by these (usually) young entrepreneurs is to the near-term and not the long-term image of their companies. And that is the bigger problem. Just because a young company has a good idea that captures initial attention, how will the company seize the high ground and really define a leading company? Initial hype is not the same thing as leadership.

This is an interesting conundrum. After all, we at Roeder-Johnson often talk about needing to be aware of the perceptual environment. And more than that, it can be maddening to work with more traditional executives who are oblivious to how their companies are seen and really believe that building a better mousetrap will win the game. But, what's the right balance?

Well, of course, the real answer depends on each individual situation. But we believe the answer can be found in clearly thinking through the "path to leadership." That is, what are all the pieces and parts that need to be put in place in order attain long term leadership. A few of the questions to find this path are:

• What needs to change?
• What are you doing and how will it change the market?
• Why is this important?
• Who needs to understand the needed market changes and when?
• Who needs to understand what you are doing, why it’s different and important, and when?
• How will you reach these important constituencies?
• How will you continue to build your credibility?
• How will you continue to build your leadership?
• And more.

There are certainly no hard and fast answers to these questions, but our experience is that it’s important to think them through initially and then refresh them every six months or so – based on the realities that have emerged along the way.

Walk before you Run to Win the Leadership Race

2008-05-11T09:24:00.000-07:00

For some reason, the last few weeks have been very exciting for me. I'm not sure why, but it has felt like a particularly rich time to add value to companies by combining experience with new ways of looking at the world and communications.

As I have said before, one of the most energizing things going on today is that with the Internet, you can try lots of new things: the rules are different today. Yes. It's important to remember that human behavior is still the same. But you can reach people so much more easily and in so many different ways.

Our whole goal for clients is helping them achieve leadership. But leadership does not have a hard and fast definition. It means that a company is shaping its market, rather than having the market shaped for it. Beyond that general guidepost, achieving leadership can differ dramatically from company to company.

But, at its core, leadership comes from systematically thinking about how the market will be influenced and then helping each of those influencer groups to move forward. So often, we see that while having high profile attention can have lots of benefits to companies; focusing exclusively on that kind of attention can be very damaging to a company truly looking to achieve leadership. Sometimes, the core constituency that is going to lay the foundation for leadership, will actually be offended by too much high level attention too soon.

That's where experience comes in. It's important to figure out the "layers" of the market and build credibility. And, by the way, no two companies or markets are the same: A company in the "material science" business needs adoption by scientists if they are are doing provocative and transformative things; a company in the software business needs to be adopted by developers before the big business impact can happen; a company in the communications chip business needs to be accepted by systems designers before changing things; a company in the advertising business needs to influences both the infrastructure developers and the "clients" to get their idea accepted. And so on.

The real message here is that understanding how to achieve that lofty leadership goal takes some thought based on a combination of instinct, execution, experience, and new thinking. It's valuable energy to invest for a young company to have a chance to define its own destiny.

Yes, my dear, Technology Does Matter

2008-04-01T11:51:00.000-07:00

I just read a post by Alex Haislip of PE Hub that bothers me. The phrase that most struck me was "I feel like most VCs I write about repeated the 'defensible technology is all that matters' mantra until it blinded them to any other opportunities."

Where are these VC's? My concern today is that so many VCs lose sight of the need for barriers to entry and just focus on clever business models. And, worse, technology breakthroughs are looked upon with skepticism that they will be too expensive, or worse, never become commercial.

We certainly understand that a viable business model is needed to make a successful company. But what about transformational technology? Yes; it is possible to put too much emphasis on technology, but there are too *few* start ups today with that critical technology breakthrough.

And if that happens, where will tomorrow's new business opportunities come from?

Words Matter

2008-02-19T13:53:00.000-08:00

There's been a hullabaloo about words in the ongoing presidential race. The substance of the debate is that "words matter". I won't get into a political discussion here since that's not the point of this post. But I do want to underscore that we at Roeder-Johnson feel strongly that "words matter."

We have described in previous posts the idea of a "high concept" behind communications. That is, boiling a set of messages to its most resonant and simple context (there's been some of that in this campaign as well). Certainly words matter in that exercise. We have had numerous instances in our history when the choice of the right words to describe the essence of a company was at the heart of our communications -- and often of the company's success.

But even in some less lofty circumstances, words and their choice matter. Just this past weekend, we worked with two separate clients to craft communications that would clearly explain the significance of the companies, and why their particular news should be paid attention to (I can't tell you the details, since that would breach confidences). And last week, we did the same for another client -- as we will do for someone next week and the week after that.

The real point here is that in today's world where communications are boiled down to "sound-bites" -- in text, audio, or video -- making the point quickly and simply matters more than ever.

Holy Mackerel, The Times They are A-Changing!

2008-01-27T07:05:00.000-08:00

Over the past few weeks, I have had a sense that we are living in the middle of a time that will look like a critical transition in modern history, when historians look back on it. It's not just the U.S. Presidential race that prompts me to believe this (though I have to admit the "Change" positioning of one candidate seems to be catching on), but rather a series of events that have been more personal.

I really started thinking about this because, among others, two friends in the press have taken major leaps in their careers because of their focus on things international:

Steve Hamm of BusinessWeek, who is one of the most seasoned, thoughtful technology journalists around -- having written on many topics from chips to software to the business of outsourcing and many others -- with authority over the years, clearly became an important "influencer" because of the publication his book Bangalore Tiger a year or so ago.

And just last week, it was announced that Stephanie Mehta of Fortune, who has covered telecommunications and many other technology subjects with substance and insight for a decade or so was named the "Global Editor" of Fortune.

These are people who are steeped in long success and who have seen that the dynamic and balance of the world is changing pretty fundamentally (and fortunately for them, they are at the front of the curve).But of course, the real point here is not to talk about Presidential Elections or congratulate friends for their successes.

The real message is that even those of us with experience and great track records have to throw off the shackles of "how it's always been done" and see the world in new ways. We like to think about client challenges this way: there is merit to past models; but we now live in a world where new ways work as well. This is, of course, a delicate balance, because the point isn't to say: everything done the established way is bad and everything done the new way is good.

I like to give it a different name: creativity. It's fun to thread the needle in looking at start-up company communications strategies and find ways to accomplish their goals by combining new, old, international, domestic, and other perspectives to find just the right balance that will optimize success.

Here's to our changing times.

Could 2008 be the Year to Return to Substance?

2008-01-03T14:13:00.000-08:00

I looked around as New Years Day approached and wondered what to say about trends to expect in 2008. It didn't make sense, after all, to list the same 10 things that everyone else has written about. So, though it may be indulging in a little wishful thinking: Could 2008 be the year that we see a return to substance in technology communications?

What could possibly be the case for this return to substance this year:

-The "cleantech" hype curve has peaked: Lots of people -- no longer just us at Roeder-Johnson -- have started talking about the fact that we have now passed the top of the "hype curve" relating to "cleantech". This means that a "cleantech" company can no longer get attention just because of its mere existence. It actually has to have something special (and by the way, the bar is even a bit higher than that). So could this trend demanding substance leak over to other areas of technology?

-"It's the economy, stupid" (please don't take offense, this is just quoting someone else): You don't need us to tell you that the U.S. economy is under pressure. The gleeful exuberance that any new idea can be successful is likely to be brought into question. And new companies and ideas are going to have to prove themselves quickly in this environment.

-"How do you spell relief: GigaOm": In an earlier post, I cited Om Malik's new, added focus on infrastructure, the underpinnings of technology, and their implications. While maybe this is smoking something, Om's decision to do this is also a sign that substance matters as we move into the new year.

There are undoubtedly more arguments in favor of the hope that we are moving toward substance in technology communications.

But when I shared this idea of a return to substance with my partner, he scoffed. Not because of some clear trend in technology or the economy. He simply said: "How can 2008 be a return to substance? It's a Presidential election year."

I fear my partner might be right -- but maybe we can use his point to build the case for a return to substance: as a response to the fluff and puffery of presidential politics, we will see technology demand more substance and not just hype.

Well, we can always hope. . .

How do you spell Relief: GigaOm

2007-12-08T17:01:00.000-08:00

I have known Om Malik since something like 1997 when we first met outside of a client that was changing the basic network infrastructure. Om, along with only a few of the very gifted journalists I have met, has always been able to understand the story that's on the surface, and the long term implications of what he is hearing. This has been particularly relevant for infrastructure plays and young companies that are developing "enabling technologies." Because with these companies you need to get below the surface to see how important they actually might mean. It's the role of the public relations to help with this, but it also takes the right perspective in the journalist (and of course the presenter).

GigaOm.com has to date done a tremendous job of looking at the new world as it is coming to be. I am now excited that Om announced on Friday that GigaOm is going to start looking at infrastructure issues and their implications. If there's anyone around who can do it, it's Om and his team!

Moreover, I hope that with Om's influence, more people will return to exploring, understanding, and perhaps even celebrating some of the foundational technology companies and what they could mean. Because it's not just the top layer of applications that are evolving and changing the way we live but also the next generations of technologies are evolving as well!

Don't Look in a Cookbook to Launch a Start-Up

2007-10-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

A friend asked me recently to help him think through the positioning and launch of his alternative energy-related company. He specifically asked how such a launch would be different from a launch of a company in the "IT" space.

I had an immediate reaction to this question: the launch of every company must be based on the specific assets of the company -- not the rules in a cookbook for launches. What does this mean for such a company in the alternative energy space? Like any other significant start up, the ultimate questions that need to be answered for the launch are:

What are the key sustaining (unique) assets of the company?
What is the long term communications goal of the company?
What is the right communications architecture for the company to achieve this goal?
How should the company be positioned?
What is the right starting point, based on today's perceptual environment?

There is an inherent perspective that underlies this view of communications: think about communications as a long-term tool.

What might this mean for my friend's company?

There's a lot of hype around alternative energy today. While this could be a near-term tactical asset, being engulfed by this hype is not the end in itself (as a matter of fact, we would contend that it's critical not to be too tightly coupled to it: "what goes up must come down").
A lot of companies in this sector are based on significant scientific breakthroughs. Most likely, a long-term sustainable position will be based on fundamental acceptance by the scientists who may often be called upon (at least in the early days) to vet the breakthrough.
As in any new market, the odds are good that the company's business model will evolve over time. This means that the long-term communications architecture should be based on a foundation which will survive changes in the business model. That is, why is this company significant, regardless of its current revenue sources.
We believe that communications is best used to create leadership in the market. What are the activities that will enable this company to lead and define its market -- rather than to follow it?
All of the tactics of communications should be used to reinforce this leadership. If any "events" go by and they are not leveraged, that's ashame.
This way of looking at communications can sometimes demand forward-thinking on the part of the management of the company. For example, eschewing short-term hype in favor of long-term leadership can be a hard choice to make.
The company management needs to commit to helping the entire company and its stakeholders to understand the communications goals and how to support them best.

We are sure there will be lots of customized activities for the launch my friend's alternative energy company; its success will be based on clearly understanding its uniqueness and importance and launching a program that helps the market understand this over time.

Changing the World One Step at a Time

2007-09-27T10:53:00.000-07:00

Every day, we have the opportunity to work with technology companies that, in some way, are changing the world. And, in fact, when we work with them, we really try to focus on how (in their small way) the companies are changing the world. This is very exciting job!

As I have watched the coverage of the Myanmar (formerly Burma) protests against long-standing oppression, I am moved by the fact that the reason we know what's going on is because of the confluence of many small technology advances through the years: the citizens of Myanmar have been able to transmit images and news to the rest of the world because of cell phones and the Internet. It's awe-inspiring to realize that these communications breakthroughs are the result of small steps and contributions from many companies like those we have represented through the years. In this case, it all means that because of many inventions -- often arcane and unheralded -- democracy is being given a chance to emerge (we hope!).

What is the message here? (Of course, there are many messages about the actual political situation in question -- but that is not my focus.) The point I want to make is "think big". When looking at your invention and its place in the world:

Be realistic; but
Draw the line between your small breakthrough and what it could mean in the long term.

The resulting perspective, in addition to having the potential to make a good story, is likely to provide insight into your positioning and long-term vision.

After all, with all but a few exceptions, most of the really big changes we have seen in the world because of technology have come because of small things that change the world one step at a time.

A Tale of Two Responses: Apple and Southwest Airlines

2007-09-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

This has been a fascinating week for those of us who communicate for a living. Two companies, Apple and Southwest Airlines, both of whom are famous for nurturing their customer loyalty, were called upon to issue public responses to actions they each took. Apple handled it very well; Southwest failed.

This is ironic (though I imagine not particularly unique) because, of the two companies, Apple has had a long history of being less flexible and closed in its strategy; alternatively, Southwest makes a business of being flexible in the way they deal with customers.

Here’s a version of the situations as I understand them:

Apple announced a price reduction of the iPhone to $200; loyal Apple customers who had bought the iPhone at the original much-higher price balked at such a deep price cut so soon after the product’s launch; Steve Jobs initially brushed this customer response off; and later -- within the same day -- Apple issued a fairly comprehensive apology to its loyal customers and offered them a rebate. (Here’s one news story.)
Southwest Airlines pulled aside a woman who, it claimed, was too provocatively dressed to travel. The woman took her embarrassment public, including showing the outfit, which few people found offensive (though many note that the top is tight and the skirt short – like lots of other travelers these days).(Here’s one news story.). Southwest Airlines' repeated response to press inquiries has been one version or another of “we were right.” Here’s Southwest’s own Blog response.

It seems that though both companies are superb at building and maintaining customer loyalty, Apple has shown superb communications skills (as they have often for a long time) and Southwest failed to use some pretty basic communications skills effectively.

One of the first tenets of “crisis” communications is acknowledge the problem/mistake quickly and take action to repair things. But, while Apple did just that and turned a potentially customer-loyalty-damaging situation into a win (both perceptually and financially), Southwest took a situation that could have been minor and turned a molehill into a mountain.

Yes, I know that you might argue that Southwest is taking a “family friendly” position and broadcasting it; and hence, seizing a big opportunity. Maybe that’s the correct way to view their actions, though I am a frequent Southwest traveler and I don’t get the impression that their customer loyalty approach is as much about family values as it is about flexibility.

It will be quite interesting to see how these two sets of actions play out over time.

Vertical Integration and Communications

2007-09-05T08:32:00.000-07:00

I had the wonderful opportunity to tour the Carver Boat factory in Pulaski, WI last week. It was fascinating for a variety of reasons. But what struck me most was that our host repeatedly went to great effort to reinforce the benefits of being vertically integrated (predictability, reliability, and quality assurance). This was such a different perspective from what we in technology companies have come to value; and it was quite provocative. As you know, the "Dell" model, outsourcing, fabless semiconductor companies, etc. are today the rule, rather than the exception, in the technology world. And if you choose to make an exception to that rule, you will raise a lot of eyebrows.

But, this very interesting and unusual perspective sparked some thinking about a conversation I had last week with a large company that is working to remake its image. It's not that this company is or is not vertically integrated; rather, I was struck with the fact that at Roeder-Johnson our view is that most companies (particularly large companies) fail to understand the tremendous importance of "vertically integrated messages".

If you have read this blog before, you probably can guess what I mean by the new term "vertically integrated messages". In short, it is a phrase that implies that messages need to be consistent throughout an organization rather than piecemeal. And that vertical integration stems from a clear understanding of the "essence" of an organization, how it manifests in each of its parts and the whole, and how this essence can be communicated in such a way that the language stands separately or together for each of the parts as well as the whole.

I know, some of you are probably saying that this is not a realistic view in today's transparent communication environment. But we disagree. Sure, today you certainly can't control every word ever mentioned about your company; but if you have a clear vision of who you are, and then proceed to manifest it throughout the company -- not just in some superficial messages -- the market will figure it out. As a matter of fact, we contend that if you really do have a clear understanding of your vision and you execute it well (including in your communications), the market will do a better job of understanding you clearly than when we just had to rely on the far more limited distribution of a few short words to get the message out.

What does this mean practically?

From what I can tell, the Carver Boat Corporation has done a great job of this: they know who they are, implement it through their execution, instill that vision clearly through the organization in lots of ways, and then they communicate it clearly.
The large organization I referenced must really work to understand the essence (or "high concept") that it has built through the years, manifest it in all they do, and then talk about it clearly. (By the way, I felt the company understood this.)
If any organization tries to just posit a position that is not based in reality, the market will figure it out.

I would never have guessed that a visit to a solid, midwestern company where boats are built would so clearly underscore one of the key tenets of communications!

Learning from Dancing with the Stars and Mark Cuban

2007-08-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

Today, Kara Swisher in her All Things D column complimented Mark Cuban for being thought provoking about the Internet being Dead and Boring. As always, Cuban, with his aggressive personality and potential "Dancing with the Stars" gig can teach a lot of communicators a thing or two. Ok. He can be abrasive and loud. But he's also provocative. He takes what most people think and turns it on its ear.

Aside from being interesting, this is also a very effective way to be heard. People don't want to talk about what they already know and think. They like to talk about, debate, rant about, new ideas. And, by the way, that's true about most markets.

Of course, not everyone has something provocative to say that will be thought-provoking to the mass audience (nor do they have access to the world media). But, even so, if a company is communicating with a specialized (or vertical) market, it can take advantage of this technique. Particularly if it is setting out to be a leader: Why not raise questions and challenge conventional wisdom? Get people to think differently.

Yes. I know there are some arguments against this approach: for conservative markets will you alienate your constituencies; or do you have the potential of sounding like a know-it-all; etc. Of course you have to use discretion when using this approach. It's always critical to understand your markets and leverage that understanding. But, there's always a way to accomplish your goals if you think about them clearly within the right context.

Look where it's gotten Mark Cuban!

The Snack Algorithm and Leadership

2007-08-26T10:36:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was sharing with a group of entrepreneurs that we at Roeder-Johnson have a rough internal algorithm for snacks in start-ups. We have learned through working with more than 80 start-ups over the years that you can learn a lot about the mood of the company by going into the kitchen and seeing the state of snacks. The algorithm roughly goes like this:

Phase I: Garage or the equivalent. Very particular to the founders.
Phase II: Early development (some seed money). A rough assortment of "developers' snacks"
Phase III: First institutional investment (still on the honeymoon). The piles of developers' snacks grow. Software needs to be programmed; products need to be developed. It's critical to keep those key developers fueled.
Phase IV: First product launched. Hope runs eternal. Developers snacks have bloomed to more exotic fare. A variety of sodas, some special juices and coffee drinks (and back in the Netscape days, fancy espresso machines in every kitchen);
Phase V: Reality sets in. People need food, but the company should be helped in paying for the more exotic fare. There should probably machines that require some subsidy to dispense the snack.
Phase VI: (Hopefully not every company gets here.) Coffee and tea bags only. The rest is on the employees.

Note: These phases can differ by the industry segment, investors involved, temperament of the management, and other factors. But anecdotal evidence supports this general scheme. (Also note that you can learn a lot about the cleanliness and other conditions of the kitchen, but I won't dwell on this.)

It's in phases V and VI where you actually see the mettle of the CEO and other senior management. As reality sets in and everyone starts to find out that the grand vision is still grand but a lot harder to accomplish than originally thought that you see the leaders come out.

I have observed CEO's of all sorts of young companies over the years. And it's pretty spectacular to watch the great ones lead their teams through the ebbs and flows of company challenges. The great ones are really heroes in my book. To keep the team going through development and customer challenges, and through the vicissitudes of the snack algorithm is terrific to see.

It's easy to think that being the CEO of one of these great technology start-ups is very glamorous. It might be. But it's also hard, sometimes lonely, and rarely is there a cookbook for the snacks or any of the other challenges the company may face.

No Hype

2007-08-19T11:09:00.000-07:00

This morning, I was reading an interesting analysis of Katie Couric and Meredith Viera with their respective 1-year anniversaries upcoming. It was yet another reminder of why hype usually hurts those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. In essence, the point was that Meredith Viera has had the chance to grow into her role on the Today Show (as has Charles Gibson on ABC) while Katie Couric was under such a microscope on her and faced huge expectations, it would be nearly impossible for her to succeed.

You will notice, if you have read this blog before, that our view of the world is that hype is a bad thing in communications -- particularly in the world of young, start-up companies. This is an important reminder today when young entrepreneurs see Google and Facebook and believe they, too, can benefit from lots of attention. Some do; most don't. Here are some of the reasons why:

With lots of hype, comes lots of expectations. Even the most established companies are challenged by meeting expectations that have been magnified by a unidimensional view of a company's strategy and plans;
With hype comes lots of scrutiny. Have you heard the expression "you can only know the dynamics of a relationship if you are in it"? The same goes for start-up companies. It's easy to second-guess a company unless you really understand what's going on inside and all of the pressures the company and executives face on a daily basis.
In a fast-changing world (and even sometimes when things are not moving so fast), it's good to be in a position to learn and refine your strategy and execution as you move along.
Every company needs to learn about their product. Particularly when you are first coming to market, it's important to learn from what the market is saying to improve the product. It's hard to do that when everyone is watching and the slightest change leads to big questions.
The simplifications that result from (and sometimes contribute to) hype lead to long-term misunderstanding.
There are more.

To be fair, I really should enumerate the benefits:

A lot of attention can lead to quick visibility which can lead to quick consumer product adoption, if the product is really good. (See 4, above. Also, as a note, I have often thought that one of the great sources of Starbucks' success is that they combine great marketing with great products.)
If you are interested in doing a quick-flip financial transaction, hype can certainly create an opportunity to achieve a higher valuation in the near term (but there are other ways to do that, as well).
Anyone want to suggest some more benefits?

So, what should a young company do, if they aren't supposed to hype themselves?

Create a strong perceptual goal and a plan to help the market understand it.
Create a good, substantial, and easy to understand story that can form the foundation of long term communications.
Build strong relationships and understanding among influencers in the market.
Develop an ongoing flow of news that helps people understand who you are, where you are going, and why you are important.
Be prepared to learn from what you are hearing from the market and refine as you move forward.
Be patient and plan to work hard. Very few people get something for nothing.

But, don't get me wrong. Attention for a company is not a bad thing --when handled in the right ways. It just leads to an important reminder: Most of all, build a great company!

Rattlesnakes, Cell Towers and One Step at a Time

2007-07-23T10:43:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I took a hike in Will Rogers State Park in the Los Angeles area. Much to our surprise, about a quarter mile into the hike, the trail turned into wilderness -- with masses of brush, rattlesnakes, and wild animals. Clearly we had taken a wrong turn. Cross country hiking was fun at first -- meeting the challenge with each step. Then, as our path clearly didn't return to the formal trail, we realized we were going to have to gut it out and find our way back to "civilization."

Since this isn't a blog about hiking, or even about my life in general, I will share with you some of the most interesting things I thought about during the hike:

First, there was a clear cell signal throughout the hike. This provided a lot of comfort, but it also was a reminder that such mass communications have only been around for a few years. What did everyone do before?
Second, and probably much more important than the first, the key to success was taking one step at a time, putting one foot in front of the other till we reached our goal.

This second lesson, was , of course, the essential one. And, as I was putting one foot in front of the other and not worrying about the longer term, I realized that the lesson applies all over life. At Roeder-Johnson, we work with Start-Ups, and often every day is about survival for them. Therefore, this one step at a time perspective seems to be critical for the technology world. It's imperative that young companies constantly challenge themselves to understand which next step will take them closer to the goal. And, to make the challenge even greater, all along the way, this one step at a time perspective needs to be integrated with the long-term goal -- while still remembering that without each individual step, the long term won't happen.

Who knew when we set out on Saturday morning, it would prove to be such an important few hours?

The Power of Propaganda

2007-07-10T14:20:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a trip to Russia. In short, it was fascinating! Every time I travel internationally, it reminds me of The Power of Propaganda. The first time I realized the power of propaganda throughout history was when I traveled to Egypt about 15 years ago: the pyramids were just as legitimate a form of propaganda as any we see today.

In Russia, the power of propaganda is hugely evident. Since I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know what kind of propaganda is being disseminated today. This is really a reaction to the residual impact that propaganda has on people over time. The most stunning thing I heard in Russia was that many adults -- over 35 or 40 -- are quite equivocal about the benefits of their new-found freedom since the fall of the Soviet government.

Undoubtedly, this uncertainty about the benefits of freedom vs. the Soviet state is a result of a complex combination of factors -- history, economics, AND propaganda. I won't try to unravel the clearly complex Russian psyche or understand the economic hardships the country has faced over time. But it was quite clear to me that if you grow up hearing every day that the State is doing good for you and all the countries in the West -- with all their freedom -- are not, you will very likely retain some of that perspective for your entire life. That's propaganda.

But an interesting question emerges about propaganda: is the speed of communications today changing the way propaganda takes hold and even how it needs to be created? With transparent communications today, can propaganda really exist? Is there enough longevity to any ideas that they can really take hold?

The answer is probably yes: with a big enough campaign and mass repetition and reinforcement, new, big ideas can be promulgated. Today, we see it with some big advertisers and religions. But with direct communications increasingly penetrating every inch of the world, how will propaganda be created in the future? The creation and maintenance of a propaganda machine is clearly more complex than it ever was before.

Or maybe the answer is in the march of small ideas, that ultimately grow into a big idea -- but this takes a pretty well conceived architecture. Over the next few decades, it will be very interesting to see how propaganda will evolve.

Tell me what you think.

Blogging Evaluated

2007-05-15T10:14:00.000-07:00

It's just about a year since I started writing this blog. I began the process to gain experience about blogging, its benefits, and opportunities. Here are a few lessons:

We have begun to recommend to most of our clients that they start blogs. They can serve many valuable purposes for a company that wants to communicate clearly with its constituencies;
The value of most blogs is to have a simple place to share a point of view and insights;
Most of us won't become famous with a blog (though we did find that marketing our blog had some benefit. Moreover, we followed our own advice a time or two and were provocative and picked on big guys. It helped.);
We have found that our blog serves its best purpose as a "living brochure." That is, for visitors to our site, it gives a real opportunity to understand at a deeper level who we are and what we stand for. Our blog has definitely helped prospective clients get a feel for Roeder-Johnson;
This means that a blog should definitely represent a viewpoint and have specific goals. Even if the style is rambling; the objective shouldn't be;
Blogs may or may not be a part of the PR mix of a company; they definitely are part of the marketing and strategic communications.

If you have thoughts you want to add or debates about any of these points, please share them.

The Power to Change

2007-04-13T10:30:00.000-07:00

I had lunch the other day with my old friend Shel Israel, who embodies one of the traits I admire most in people and companies: The power to change. Shel has made a number of major transitions throughout his career, recently discovering the implications of Blogs before most people knew what they were and now recognizing the’s happening in Global Neighborhoods because of the world wide web.

A few other people I have met also embody this wonderful trait. The one I have noticed the most and for years is Bob Metcalfe, whom I am sure you know because he defined "Metcalfe's Law" before moving on to several more very interesting careers.

What's the lesson to be learned here for companies: pay attention and learn and then evolve with the forces in the market. I like to say "we make our own luck". Every bit of feedback a company receives, good or bad, is an opportunity to learn and figure out how to evolve with the market. We work with a company, PolyFuel, today the leader in membranes for portable fuel cells. Way back at the beginning of the company's life, it made a decision not to go into the fuel cell systems business, but to become the key enabler for the new generation of fuel cells. This takes courage and tenacity. And our client Canesta, which has this fabulous, low-cost technology that enable machines to "see" by following objects in three-dimensions in real time, started out focusing on one market and today is the leading provider of its technology for the automotive industry.

It turns out that in all of the examples I have cited here (both people and companies), it is eminently possible to draw a thread through all of their transitions. That's what we try to do in helping companies define and evolve their communications strategies: to have a robust enough foundation that as the natural viscisitudes of the market happen, evolution can be systematic and coherent. That's what really gives you the Power to Change.

What's a Good Story?

2007-03-03T06:01:00.000-08:00

I realize we talk a lot in this this blog about "the message" and "communications architecture." But since we are actually a public relations and strategic communications firm, we think a lot about what makes a good story. Because, at the end of the day, all the good strategy in the world makes little difference if you can't get people to listen.

While there are no hard and fast rules and regulations about what makes a good story, there are a couple of things that are usually pretty high on the list. In particular:

Drama/tension
Controversy

There are a lot of ways to accomplish these; but we at Roeder-Johnson generally like to try to accomplish them by trying to be provocative, and challenging conventional wisdom. This can manifest in a number of ways. It could mean:

Challenging what people commonly believe about a topic; or
Challenging what a high profile person or company thinks about a topic; or
Turning a market on its ear through economics, technology, or business model; or
Shocking people on a personal level (although we don't use this tactic ourselves);
etc.

The art here, for a firm like ours, is to find that provocative angle in a company or venture firm's story. And then, using that angle while still positioning the company or firm. And finally, in getting the executive team comfortable with the idea of talking about that alternative view of the world. This is not an impossible combination, but it requires some thought and patience. Moreover, it often takes executives with "intestinal fortitude". That is, it is often more comfortable to do things the way others have done it than to beat your own path. Most of the time, that iconoclastic view of the world will take time and energy to get people to listen (though not always).

But, in the long term, finding the good story pays off.

The Message is More than the Medium

2007-02-18T10:31:00.000-08:00

When Marshall Mcluhan wrote the "medium is the message" nearly four decades ago, he was presaging a world he certainly couldn't imagine: one with so many media options that it can be mind-boggling. Very few of us really understand the implications of the multi-media world we live in today and what is to come.

More than most, Seth Godin is quite rare in his ability to "grok" the implications of all these media. (For those of you who are interested, Seth has always had that ability, dating as far back as being the producer of the first -- or nearly the first, I'm not sure -- Interactive Novel using computers).

It is noteworthy that Seth, with all of his nuanced understanding of this complex world in which we live, believes in the combination of clever use of media and a "remarkable" message. This is as opposed to so many people today who think that simply by using a new medium, they are doing something different. In fact, as we have said before in this blog, in a world where communications transparency is easy, knowing who you are and communicating effectively are even more important than ever before.

Therefore, I beg to differ with Mr. McLuhan: the message is more than the medium.

What does this mean for a start up? We see so many young companies that:

Speak in mumbo-jumbo about what they do; and/or
Think a better mousetrap will be sufficient to win the ballgame; and/or
Think "hype" will replace thoughtful approaches to communications; and/or
Think that just putting any old words out there is sufficient (or you might call this the "quantity vs. quality approach").

We believe in the current communications environment a simple prescription is appropriate for start ups:

Develop a clear, straightforward message that reflects who you are now and who you want to be;
Use multiple media. Use press releases *and* blogs *and* other media to communicate;
Communicate your message consistently throughout your media;
Neither hype nor assume a better mousetrap will do the trick. Be modest, thoughtful, educational, and a leader;
Take a long-term view of communicating: Very few organizations get their point across without consistent repetition;
Listen to the market: While remaining true to your goals, refine your messages *and* your media as you get feedback.

Starting with a Blank Sheet of Paper

2007-02-04T12:13:00.000-08:00

There has been quite a bit of dialog about the most recent post on this blog called "Did Microsoft Use A 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista ???"Much of the discussion was to agree with the point that Microsoft seemed to hype Vista, rather than letting the market create a foundation for it and then talking about it. That was *part* of the point of that last post.

But, there was another point that was more subtle and that I want to emphasize: what really was distressing about the launch was that in promoting a product that *should* completely change the playing field and not just be trapped by legacy, Microsoft ended up using a legacy approach for the launch, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and saying "What's the right way, in the 21st Century, to launch this critically important product?"

Those of us who work with start ups and other young companies are faced daily with the need to "start with a blank sheet of paper." The combination of limited resources, ground breaking products and/or ideas, and a new era of communications demand it.

What does "starting with a blank sheet of paper" mean? In short: don't start with preconceived notions of the right way to launch/announce/talk about something. But rather, truly step back and think about the full context of the announcement/company/idea. The result of such thinking should be some combination of brand new (and hopefully clever) ideas and activities that result from past experience, but applied to today's context.

I want to be clear about something. I am not saying "Throw out everything you have done before in communications." As a matter of fact, I think that some communicators don't step back and think about some basics of communications before they develop a plan in today's environment. We have talked about this before in this blog, but will reiterate: your objectives are important; your message is important; your communications architecture is important; your goals are important; etc.

We are convinced that the best communications programs are those that are a "hybrid" approach: that is, they use the benefit of experience, but throw away inflexible assumptions about communicating. This is a very interesting era in which to communicate: a lot of the rules have changed, which allows programs to be developed that are interesting and creative but still meet key goals.

Did Microsoft Use a 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista????

2007-01-30T18:06:00.000-08:00

I prefer not to pick on big companies -- they know something about making money and running big and complex businesses which is often easier said than done. And you can certainly say that about Microsoft. However, in recent months, I have truly wondered if they are just missing the ability to refocus their prism to enter the new age. After all, they have a cash cow legacy business and will need to take some serious risks to move into this new world. ButI think I will leave those lofty business strategy questions to people more equipped than I to address them.

But the launch of Vista has caused me the question fundamentally Microsoft's communications strategy, as well. Clearly it was very well executed, with all of the pieces and parts running smoothly to ensure the launch and hype all coincided. But, did they use a 20th century methodology for the launch of a product that should be the essence of the 21st Century? Should Microsoft have delivered first and hyped later? Was it necessary -- or even wise -- for Bill Gates to be on every newscast in the world AND The Daily Show? What was the point? They got a lot of attention, but at the end of the day, to what end?

Believe me, I understand that Microsoft could certainly not launch their most important product without some amount of positioning and messaging. Would it have made more sense for them to do this launch a bit more quietly and let the market absorb the product. Then, in 6 or 8 months, when they start to have proof that what they thought would happen is in fact happening, talk about it loudly. They could have pulled it off. Everyone wants to talk to Bill Gates.

Certainly there were hundreds of strategy meetings over an extended time period about this launch, but I just wonder if anyone attending the meetings was a part of the "modern world" or just a part of Microsoft's world?

The Long Tail, PR and Relationships

2007-01-24T17:30:00.000-08:00

Chris Anderson, who is one of the smartest and nicest guys I know, has a very interesting post on his Long Tail blog on public relations in today's world. There is a lot to learn from what he says.

The post has, in addition, caused me to start thinking about some public relations fundamentals -- which most companies in today's environment seem to have forgotten. Public relations should not be about "ink". It is about building relationships. In fact, I believe that Chris is saying as much in his recommendations. But, I would like to underscore that too many companies have become enamored of press releases and coverage rather than focusing on real understanding. That should be the role of well-trained, top-tier PR professionals. Contacting the various constituencies is very important. But what you say is important also.

I suppose there are some who would accuse me of advocating "spinning" all constituencies. Au contraire. We advocate that a company understand who it is at its core and make sure that all of its "spokespeople" (both formal and informal) understand this essence. This is a very hard goal to accomplish. But it's not impossible. And that's what great PR is all about.

In some ways, the long tail is taking us back to the fundamentals of human communication: used to be before media and then mass media that the only way to get the word out about anything was word of mouth. And because that was an evolutionary thing and people didn't spend a lot of time trying to hype, more often than not, the true essence of an entity just emerged in the market.

Does the High Concept Matter in 2007?

2007-01-17T13:50:00.000-08:00

This blog is called "The High Concept". The background behind that name is that at Roeder-Johnson (our firm), we have always believed that communications around a high concept that can serve as the umbrella for an organization is important. When a friend (one of the best VC's I know) asked me to write a short, simple "manifesto” (that's his word), I thought it was a good time to reexamine our view of the world as it has come to be.

Therefore, the core question is: Does the High Concept Matter in 2007? In a word: yes. The high concept matters now more than ever.

Why? With so much communication and clutter of ideas, having thoughtful, distinctive communications is critical You can't possibly expect journalists or your other audiences to remember all the details of what you are saying.

When people ask me for an example of this being done well in recent years I almost always point to Salesforce.com (not our client --choosing one of our clients feels like it would be cheating). "Software is dead": you remember that and the basic idea, even if you don't remember or care about the minutia of the story.

But, don't get me wrong. We are fully aware that for each constituency, there is almost always more detail needed to tell the whole story. But, at the end of the day, it's important to make remembering the details simple.

I am sure there are some doubters. For example, what about some of the companies that have done it without a fancy "high concept"? Are you thinking of YouTube, Google, or MySpace? Each of them embodies their High Concept.

And what about arguments like Peter Rip's that start ups can "double their valuation" by being focused and not being too theoretical? Well, a high concept doesn’t need to be theoretical. It just needs to be simple and absorbable.

And finally, what is the benefit? If you make it easy for people to put a basic construct around you, you are likely to enjoy the benefits of leadership:

o higher product prices
o better partners
o better employees
o lower cost of capital

And what executive doesn’t want all of those things?

A Communications Strategy is Necessary but Not Sufficient

2006-12-10T18:50:00.000-08:00

I read with interest Peter Rip's "Early Stage VC" blog today. He talks about a trend he sees among early stage entrepreneurs that is worrisome: companies that think of bloggers as the target of their business rather than as an indirect channel for reaching their market targets.

This point underscores a trend we see every couple of years: young companies thinking that PR (that is, speaking to the media or their current incarnation) is the whole ballgame in terms of creating a market and marketing strategy. While having a sophisticated communications strategy can be very valuable to a young company, it is NOT a substitute for a balanced business strategy. For young companies, excellent communications can help to influence important markets. But we, as does Peter apparently, worry when we hear companies thinking that bloggers are the target in and of themselves.

All of that said, don't get me wrong: influencing influencers has been a critical part of a strategic communications program for as long as I can remember. While today some of the influencers are bloggers (among others) and therefore important in a communications strategy, they are just a part of well-crafted strategy.

And then, there is the corollary question: When should the communications strategy be put in place? We believe (as we have said elsewhere in this blog) that a communications architecture is important from the beginning of a company. Mind you, that doesn't mean that all companies should necessarily distract themselves to get "ink" too early in their lives. They just need to know how they want to be perceived and systematically move the needle in that direction.

There is no cookbook that applies to every young company. That's why having thoughtful communicators as team members or partners can be very valuable to a young company.

The Rules are Changing - A Little

2006-11-29T11:48:00.000-08:00

It used to be that "you have one chance at a first impression 'period''. Over the past few years, we have had the impression that the rules on that are changing somewhat. It's not that you can just fool around and keep changing how you come off -- hoping that people will permanently give you a pass. But, because we live in the world where introducing products is easy, there is much more tolerance for experimentation today than ever before; even when the experiment ultimately fails.

That is underscored with Google's announcement that it is killing Google Answers. This, apparently, was an experiment that didn't work as hoped.

So what is the lesson here? Today, experimentation is ok. Especially when, like Google, you have an established track record of succeeding often enough. This is a good thing. Because, with experimentation comes innovation.

But, we contend that it's important to understand the parameters of where you can experiment and where you need to look solid, decisive, and consistent. This is particularly true with young, untested companies that need to enter the market and gain credibility. Following are some guidelines that we have established over time:

Before you proactively introduce yourself to the market, have a pretty good idea of who you are and where you believe you are going. (We have referenced a "communications architecture" elsewhere in this blog.)
Educate, don't hype. Help the market understand your vision and its direction rather than just your products and their specs.
Experiment if you can demonstrate consistency and decisiveness as the experiment refines.
Always be professional: even if things might change (well, that's a certainty), having presence and an air of dependability can go a long way.

This kind of rule-changing in the world of communications is one of the very interesting things going on in the market. It means that it's important to always think carefully about how you are communication and, in the future, how you plan to communicate.

And then, once you have done the thinking, move ahead.

Titans; Not Wallflowers

2006-10-15T17:24:00.000-07:00

This morning’s New York Times (and its syndicate) had an article about the founder of Friendster, characterizing him as a “Wallflower at the Web Party” and describing how Friendster went awry. Whether or not that’s true, what is true is that there’s no shame in trying. Most companies aren’t Google, YouTube, MySpace, or the like. The ones that succeed, albeit in smaller ways, have as much or more to be proud of; and the ones that try and struggle, but ultimately don’t make it may have even more to be proud of. It’s all part of the natural lifecycle of start-up companies. And, for the most part, even the ones that don’t make it ultimately move the “state of the art” forward.

There is one school of thought that says that entrepreneurs with a number of failures under their belts are better executives. That certainly has been my experience. Imagine how much you learn when you have to fight for every victory – however small.

Just this week, I thought of this three times: a very good friend of mine is one of the best entrepreneurs I (and many VCs) know. He has started three companies and is always at the front end of knowing where the world is going. He has put together companies that have done well, but . . . And, by the way, the challenges of each of these companies were harder than YouTube and MySpace.

And then there’s another friend, a CEO who has always been one of the nicest guys I know. He has been with the same company for four years – during which time he has had to slog along selling a complex product to resistant customers. Today, they are finally making some headway. And he is the first to admit that he’s far more effective today than he was when he started. And he got that way because it’s just plain been really hard.

And finally, there’s the executive who founded and built a company a few years ago – only to watch it go up in flames surrounded by VC politics. The next company has had zero dollars in venture capital and may be the most successful bootstrapped company I have seen in the Silicon Valley.

It’s ok to try. And, in fact, you’re not a wallflower at all. You’re really a titan!

On Being an Iconoclast

2006-09-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

At Roeder-Johnson, we like to work with companies that are not in the mainstream. That’s because quite often it’s the companies that don’t follow conventional wisdom and the evolutionary path that actually make the most dramatic changes. And we like to work with companies that are truly redefining markets or industries.

But, in addition to the proverbial “arrows in the back” admonition that is the price of redefining (or being first in) a market, there are a few other costs.

Cost #1: You’re not in fashion.

If you choose to challenge conventional wisdom, you are de facto asking the market to look at the world in a new way. That means the approach you take is not (yet) in fashion. And in a world where being in fashion sells, it can be very difficult to capture mindshare if you are not in fashion.

Cost #2: People don’t always know how to fit you into their existing models of the market and the way things should be done.

If you choose to do things in a new way, you are likely going to need to talk first with visionaries who can either (1) see the big picture and understand how to fit you into the world as it is coming to be; or (2) talk with people who are willing to be flexible and have their minds changed about how they do things.

Cost #3: You might not be in the “club”.

Particularly in the Silicon Valley, being in the club matters: It’s easier to raise money and convince influencers that you know what you are doing. There are some "club members" who can see the big picture, and believe in challenging convention; but not all of them. And for those who don’t see the big picture, if you are not a member of the club, how do they know you are legitimate?

Cost #4: The press may not care.

This is really an offshoot of points 1, 2, and 3. But it is a real price of being an iconoclast and therefore you need to have “intestinal fortitude” to evangelize your story, even when the majority aren’t willing to accept it. There are, of course, some forward thinkers who not only understand new and different stories but also relish them. Moreover, along with being an iconoclast comes a certain amount of drama or conflict which, if you care to mine it, can make for a very interesting story.

Last week I was reminded of these facts of life about being unconventional several times:

Once when a company with a good announcement had to work really hard to get attention because: (a) the names of the partners involved were significant but not particularly chic; and (b) the subject matter was important, but not user-generated-video or other Web 2.0 mania.
A second time when I spoke with a company that has deliberately not allowed itself to become a member of “the club” and will potentially pay a price for it.
And a third time when I read a positive review of a new book called "Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win". I am looking forward to learning more.

Daily, I see reminders of the price of being an iconoclast. But as much as it might cost, I still remained convinced that often it’s the way real change happens.

To Blog or Not To Blog (or What I Learned in Iceland)

2006-09-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

I have been on vacation for the past week roaming around Iceland and hardly thinking about the Internet. But when I saw Matt Marshall's announcement of the launch of VentureBeat, I was reminded of a question I have pondered over the past months: what is the value of a blog for mere mortals? I don't mean for people like Matt and Om Malik. I mean for people like me.

Here are the facts:

It has given me a chance to be introduced to the world of blogging -- quite important to our clients.
The simple fact of writing regularly causes me to think about things in ways I might not otherwise.
In one case, blogging had direct impact on business when a new-business prospect commented that he could get a feel for our approach and for me by reading "The High Concept."
As a follow-on to this experience, I realized that a blog has the potential to be a "living brochure". That is, it can provide an ongoing glimpse into the thinking of our firm. (I have shared this insight with several people who have subsequently started their own blogs for this purpose.)
As such, it makes me realize this is one more example of the newly dynamic nature of communications. There is no limit to how often you can present yourself and by whom it will potentially be seen (unlike the "olden" days). But, in sticking with my ongoing refrain, it is more important than ever to have a clear sense of the messages you want to communicate and maintain consistency.

On balance, while I am not Matt or Om (or Seth or Robert and Shel, etc), it's a worthwhile effort.

But I bet no one in Iceland is reading "The High Concept".

Do You Need PR Even if you Don't Need "Ink"?

2006-08-08T17:53:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, who is a very seasoned executive, recently wondered aloud if a company we know in common in fact needs PR. I understood why he would raise the question, since given the market space of the company, the nature of its customers, and a number of other factors, it is an easy case to make that the company doesn't need "ink." In spite of this perspective, with which I agree, I wholeheartedly responded: yes the company needs PR.

Of course, I don't think the company needs mindless press releases that put miscellaneous facts on paper hoping for some continuity. But this company, like most companies, will benefit from an integrated communications program that delivers consistent messages to its key constituents. Moreover, in this era of the "transparency" of communications over the Internet, virtually every company can benefit from the viral nature of communications today.

Thus, we encourage clients and prospective clients to think clearly about the messages they need to send and the conduits that are available in this day and age. And, in addition to thinking about delivering those messages, to think clearly about the architecture of how they will communicate. The flip side of a nearly transparent communications channel is that a company needs to see clearly how its messages will be received throughout the market and to architect their delivery carefully.

I guess the real point here is that what we used to call "ink" is a limited definition. There's lots of "ink" out there. It's just important make sure where it's going to end up.

On Being a Cheerleader

2006-07-24T15:05:00.000-07:00

Early in my career, Ben Rosen, a founder of Sevin Rosen Funds, told me that I was essentially a cheerleader for my clients. Because I was young and wanted to feel more important than I perceived a cheerleader to be, I was quite taken aback. But, it turns out, he was right.

Of course, at our firm, we work to add more value in client relationships than merely as cheerleaders (as a matter of fact, on the road to "creating the cheer" we often need to ask a lot of hard questions). But, hopefully, we always work with companies in whom we believe and about whom we can speak positively.

Recently, we had a client ask us to attend its strategic offsite. It was hugely valuable. Of course, understanding a company at its core is a benefit to our efforts. In addition, it added a sense of "esprit de corp" that will prove tremendously beneficial to our client. That sense of commitment and belonging can be gained through great chemistry as well by attending offsites; the key is that working with a client is like a marriage and we all need to like and respect each other. While I know there are other communications firms that feel differently, we try to avoid relationships with clients where we are perceived as simply as a "vendor". If we are going to work with a company to find the best way to communicate its uniqueness and leadership and represent that view to the outside world, we hope to be part of the essential team. And if that enables us to get out our pom poms on our clients' behalf, then it's a good thing.

Your Attention Please, The Prequel

2006-07-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

BusinessWeek Online (Rob Hof and Heather Green, July 24, 2006) has done a very important story entitled "Your Attention Please". It encapsulates the changing ways people receive information and how various companies are coming up with approaches to get their attention. Here's an edited excerpt that summarizes the goal of the piece:

"It's not just that media is splintering, as it has been for decades. The difference now is that the Internet is thrusting that trend into overdrive. . . . The result: a serious case of attention deficit for every business that depends on traditional mass media to reach customers."

The story goes on to look at this issue. This story is not only at the heart of media and communications changes happening today -- and thus impacts us rather dramatically -- but it raises a corollary question: "Are there certain inalienable truths about communications that apply, no matter what the medium and its pace?"

I think there are, including:

Good communications are about building relationships with the audience. That's why "looking your audience in the eye" literally or virtually is so important.
Often that translates to making the communications personal: "why is this important to me?"; and/or making a person the focus of communications.
Experience has shown that people need to hear a message three or four times before they start to internalize it.
Drama can help tell the story.

And, last, but by no means least:

THE MESSAGE MATTERS. Quality is as important as quantity (maybe more so).

There are probably a few more inalienable truths. We can add to these later.

One of the side effects of these truths is that it's possible that some of the older communications tools can have a new life in today's world. In addition to blogs, podcasts, short videos, etc., which communications vehicles from the past can be used in "modern" ways to enhance effectiveness of communications? That's the subject for a future post.

Back to Basics

2006-07-04T16:13:00.000-07:00

A friend recently ran into me and said he wanted to get together with me soon because I had been right about a number of things he would experience when he launched his company (one outside our area of expertise). And he just wanted to hear a bit more. This prompted me to step back and realize that this might be the right time to share some basics about communications on this blog. (I have avoided this since the goal of "The High Concept" is not to be promotional but provocative or at least thoughtful.) So, here are some basic lessons we have learned about communications after several decades and working with over 80 companies over the years.

Public relations is the most strategic of communications tools for most companies. As such, it is far more powerful to focus PR efforts on establishing leadership, rather than hype or "ink."
Before you say a word publicly, it's important to have a compelling, differentiated message that is clear and explains simply why what you are doing is important to the market. By the way, coming up with this can take time. It's time well spent.
As part of your messaging process, it's valuable to have a communications "architecture" that will form the foundation of what you want to accomplish over the long term. Of course, as you progress, this will be refined, but it's important to have clear goals.
The launch of your communications is just the beginning of your leadership positioning efforts -- not the end in itself. (As a matter of fact, we believe that companies that get too much attention too early often live to regret it because they can't live up to expectations.)
Every communication is a chance to reinforce and build on your leadership. The architecture I talked about above is your foundation.
Continue to keep up a communications momentum. Systematically and regularly provide more reinforcement of your messages. By the way, it often takes three or more exposures to a message for the market to truly begin to understand them.
Keep your messages simple and consistent. As the momentum builds don't water down your messages by lack of consistency. Note, I recently heard Howard Stringer of Sony talk about the fact that one problem his company has is too many brands and messages. And as such, every time they communicate, they are not reinforcing the same key message. It's not just small, burgeoning companies that need to be focused. Large companies need to do so even more.
Good communications take effort. We believe that executives at the highest levels of companies should focus on and be concerned about them.

I think I will stop here and sometime soon go "Back to Basics" again later and discuss some corollaries to the above and second order lessons we have learned over the years.

The Road to Success

2006-06-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

This morning's Wall Street Journal has a story on the front page about YouTube trying to find the road to success. I don't know enough about the company to comment on their prospects (though certainly they are in the middle of a key trend). But it reminds me of a conversation I was having yesterday with a good friend about what it takes for a start up to succeed.

We have launched over 80 companies in our history. Some very successful; many, trying to carve out a new, untapped opportunity were more challenged. Based on a "back of the envelope" analysis of our observations, success seems to depend on a number of critical things:

1. Execution. I know that's obvious, but a lot of good ideas don't make it because start-ups think their better mousetrap will pull them through.
2. A good strategy. A clear idea of, at the core, what the fundamental disruption is in the market that the company represents. And that strategy should translate into every molecule of the business -- from marketing to product design to sales and operations. These can't be separate.
3. Fleet footedness. No matter how good the strategy, if the company isn't prepared to learn daily from the market how to translate that vision into success, success will be elusive.
4. Great engineering. Amazingly, when we did our analysis, the single greatest challenge companies seem to face is actually building commercially viable products that represent their vision. All of the rest of these criteria are worthless if the product isn't good.

(By the way, in our world, market leadership is also key to success. But even we have to admit there are a number of successful companies that are not particularly leaders.)

This set of four criteria is interesting in light of YouTube and the many companies like it which are based on User-generated content. Does this "new" strategy change any of the above criteria? Probably not.

The New Minstrels?

2006-06-20T14:12:00.000-07:00

Ever since my first post, I have been thinking about whether the advent of broadly available and viewable video makes all of us New Minstrels. That is, will we start to tell all of our stories in the form of video? If a picture is worth a thousand words what is a video worth?

Certainly, the popularity of YouTube and One True Media speaks to the fact that many of us find video an intriguing form of communication. And at the recent D: All Things Digital conference I heard Al Gore talk about the new television network Current which employs a lot of viewer-generated content to fill its airtime.

The interesting question is: will we all come to use video as a substitute for the written word? I ask the question because we at Roeder-Johnson believe in the written word a lot: it is a fast and very portable way of communicating anything from a simple to complex concept. Certainly, quite often a graphic can help in that written communication. But there's nothing like a short blurb or press release to make a short, clear point. And to be easily distributed and read.

Can video accomplish the same thing? Sometimes, I suppose, it can do even more. Rather than explaining, it can show a new idea. But, just as words can be complex to use to create pictures, a video can be hard to create and may be tough to use to communicate complex and new ideas.

Over the next few years, we will all learn how to use video. Certainly, now that the tools and distribution are so accessible -- both from a technology and cost standpoint, we can all try it out. And, presumably, when we look back five years from now, we will all have a clearer idea of where we can use video and where old-fashion written words will work better.

The Chosun* Ones

2006-06-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, a client asked us what kind of public relations should be proactively planned for the Korean market. While we have worked with clients who were concerned about Europe, Japan, and the various pieces of the Chinese market, in spite of 20-plus years of working with technology companies, I didn’t know. As a matter of fact, the question had not arisen before. Fortunately, our client has a Korean investor so we all went off and had a discussion with them to talk about the issue.

Here’s what we learned (in short):

• It appears that, for the most part, start ups do not need to do proactive PR in Korea.
• The market is quite closely knit and personal one-on-one relationships are the strongest way to get the word out.
• The partner at this Korean investment firm even commented that when a start up looks to be trying too hard to get attention in Korean papers, it might be viewed with suspicion.
• In addition to building personal relationships within the network of influencers in Korea, having a good market position in the U.S. and the U.S. press is valuable. The important information apparently makes its way to Korea.

This was a particularly interesting conversation since Korea is gaining so much prominence in the world of technology because of its leading stance in implementing advanced communications technologies. As a matter of fact, by coincidence, yesterday I attended a conference called “Kincon 2006” put on by The Korea IT Network (www.koreait.org). It was primarily attended by Koreans and people of Korean descent in the Silicon Valley. But of note was that Qualcomm sent two speakers. Qualcomm clearly thinks Korea is an important market since it is the most advanced communications market in the world.

Is Qualcomm onto something? And while we are talking about being proactive in Korea, we can’t forget that Samsung has had one of the most successful marketing programs in the world over the past few years. I know they were not only targeting Korea, but it started there.

All this leaves me wondering: in spite of the advice I cited above, should we all be thinking a little differently about marketing in Korea? If you have thoughts and opinions, please let me know.

*Chosun is a word often used to describe things Korean; it is based on an ancient Korean dynasty.

Thank You, Martha Stewart

2006-05-31T17:16:00.000-07:00

Today, I am attending the fourth annual D: All Things Digital Conference in Carlsbad, CA (http://d.wsj.com/). As always, it is a very interesting conference with a variety of speakers under the auspices of executive producers Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher of the Wall Street Journal.

The highlight of today was a Q&A session between Walt and Howard Stringer, Chairman and CEO of Sony Corporation. He was substantive and very funny.

During the audience participation portion of the session, Martha Stewart stood up and asked Stringer a question. She was holding a large shopping bag, and, one after another, pulled out power cord after power cord for all of her digital devices that she needs to carry on the road. Her question was: Why can’t we have one universal charger? Good question.

But, I will raise the greater question: why do we need chargers at all? I am sensitive to this question because my firm is fortunate to represent a company that makes the key component for fuel cells (http://www.polyfuel.com). Not only do we think about these issues every day; but, more importantly, we are shocked that more people aren’t focusing on the fundamental question: when will we have a portable power solution that solves the “runtime gap.” Do you know that, in spite of a lot of hype, you probably can’t watch a whole TV show on a cell phone without a recharge?

We are continuously looking for ways to sensitize influencers to this runtime gap problem. And, today, of all people, Martha Stewart handed us an answer! Thank you.

The World Really is Flat

2006-05-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

I am listening to some terrific Irish music performed by a group called Ciunas (http://www.ciunas.net/). I had the great opportunity of hearing them in person a few weeks ago. What's amazing about this group is that all the performers are young Americans!

Upon hearing them, I marveled that this group of performers could have learned the multi-faceted aspects of Irish music in such tremendous depth. I know this may not surprise everyone -- there are certainly a lot of similar examples. But they know the history, the euphonics, the instruments, etc. Not just well enough to play the music, but also well enough to compose pieces in the same mode.

I was really struck when I heard this group that the world really is flat. I think this is a permutation of what Thomas Friedman means (http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/worldisflat.htm), because in today's environment there is such realtime access to worldwide cultures!

This has vast implications on the way companies communicate. At Roeder-Johnson, we work with companies that simultaneously need to describe their leadership to American investors and customers as well as to Europeans, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians and many other countries. On the one hand, you can argue (as we have for decades) that communicating with each culture needs to be done by people who are native or at least intimate with that culture. But what's a small company to do when it can't afford the time or other resources to customize all of its communications to each different culture?

This is a complicated question. But I will take a shot at it:

-Be respectful of different cultures and what they consider to be important;
-Prioritize: that is, understand which are the most important cultures to which communications should be truly customized;
-Step above details of the story and try to communicate universal story that can be appreciated multiculturally;
-Educate about issues not just about specs (though don't pontificate);
-Listen and respond to specific feedback;
-Work with natives where it's necessary.

This is a new discipline -- communicating with the entire world all at once. We will all learn how it works over time. But, for now, there's going to be some trial and error along the way!

Could any of us do this as well as C.J. Craig?

2006-05-15T17:11:00.000-07:00

Last night was a sad night for fans of "The West Wing". The last show of the series aired. I won't give away the plot, since many people may still have it on their TiVo.

But, while I was reminiscing about the show today with a fellow communications professional, I was reminded that when C.J. was press secretary I used to marvel at how facile she was handling the questions fired at her all day long. And then, I would remember, she had a script!

But, it brings to mind the great challenge that we all have today -- in this world of 24/7 dialog. I am sure there are a lot of people with a lot of opinions. But here are a few of mine:

-Try to keep in mind what your core message is. It can be tough, but it's good discipline;
-Listen;
-Try to focus on substance. Not fluff or hype;
-Don't be afraid to say "I don't know";
-Start with the truth.

Those guidelines may be pretty basic, but it turns out they are quite hard to follow.

I don't really remember if C.J. followed these guidelines. But I seem to think she did!

It's a Question of AIM

2006-05-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

There's lots of focus these days on the potential for American technology companies to consider listing on the AIM (Alternative Investment Market) of the London Stock Exchange. This attention stems from a few things: the potential for an AIM listing to substitute for a mezzanine private equity financing; and the desire for companies to achieve a level of liquidity that is not available as long as the NASDAQ IPO market is so barren.

Since we work with an AIM listed company (PolyFuel -- www.polyfuel.com), we have had the tremendous opportunity to observe this burgeoning phenomenon first-hand. It would be inappropriate to comment on PolyFuel's experience. However, having launched and worked with nearly 100 technology companies through the years, the AIM appears to have great promise for the right American companies.

I just went to a luncheon sponsored by ThinkEquity (http://www.thinkequity.com/) today on AIM listing and what is involved. But I find it surprising that at this forum, along with nearly every other conversation I have about an AIM listing, there is little or no awareness of the restrictions American companies have in terms of their communications in the U.S. It boils down to a simple concept: American companies listed on AIM and not registered in certain ways with the SEC can do nothing to promote their stock in this country. The implementation of this is open to interpretation; and, of course, the restriction is not on normal activities in the course of doing business. But it does take some sophisticated, experienced communications expertise to help an AIM listed company communicate as it needs to in the U.S. without conflicting with these regulations. This doesn't mean it's not possible, it just means that some thought and consideration needs to go into it.

But communicating in the U.S. is critical for American technology companies. Of course much of their markets are here. But, as importantly, in many cases, the perceptions around the world about a company are formed based on U.S. communications.

Dancing into the Future

2006-05-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

Last night, I saw my very talented nephew in his senior dance recital at the Perpich Arts High School in Minneapolis. He was superb. But I won't brag here about a family member. I want to talk about his teachers; and how they use technology to help their students learn. Even when what they are learning is dance!

At the beginning of the program, Tom Kanthak, one of the instructors, told a story about how he had contacted a current American Classical Composer Marc Mellits and worked closely with him to ultimately enable the Perpich senior class dance students to make videos of some wonderful dances to Mr. Mellits' delightful music.

First, two side notes: I was so impressed with how lucky these students are to have Mr. Kanthak as their teacher! He was so enthusiastic and creative. Moreover, it's wonderful that Mr. Mellits spent significant time reviewing and critiquing these young dancers' work.

But the real point here is that a group of seniors in high school -- whose passion is dance, not computers or math or anything scientific -- were able to so simply use a computer to create their own movies. It was stunning to me. It's only a matter of time till we all communicate in movies and video as easily as we do in writing and voice!

I certainly am not the first to understand this; I guess YouTube and OneTrueMedia understand it on some level. It certainly means something significant about the way we share ideas. Perhaps we will really all become minstrels: developing a new kind of oral communications tradition that will last through the ages.

We will watch this play out. I am sure it will be quite a dance!