The Message is More Important than Ever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Find the Language"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faster Innovation and the "Google-ization of Business"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

Leadership and the Importance of Press Releases

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts/caveats about this viewpoint.

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

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

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

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"

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!

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

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.

What's good for GM. . .

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".

What Technology Companies can Learn about Communications from the Recent Campaigns

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

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.

Cartoon Controversy

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.

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

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.

Words Matter

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.

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

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.

A Tale of Two Responses: Apple and Southwest Airlines

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.

Learning from Dancing with the Stars and Mark Cuban

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

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

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:

1. 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;
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
   
5. The simplifications that result from (and sometimes contribute to) hype lead to long-term misunderstanding.
6. 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?

1. Create a strong perceptual goal and a plan to help the market understand it.
   
2. Create a good, substantial, and easy to understand story that can form the foundation of long term communications.
   
3. Build strong relationships and understanding among influencers in the market.
4. Develop an ongoing flow of news that helps people understand who you are, where you are going, and why you are important.
5. Be prepared to learn from what you are hearing from the market and refine as you move forward.
6. 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!

Blogging Evaluated

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:

1. 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;
2. The value of most blogs is to have a simple place to share a point of view and insights;
3. 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.);
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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.