My blog has moved and is now integrated with my Web site. Please visit and comment.

Corporate Culture: Your Customers Shall Reap What You Sow

Corporate cultures are all very different and make all the difference in customers’ experience and loyalty. About 1.3 miles from our front door, a new mixed-use, “Town Center” has opened its first few stores. My partner and I are at the grocery store and the gym just about every day now. There couldn’t be a wider gap between their corporate cultures.

The grocery store, Wegman’s, is renowned for its fair treatment of its employees. They’re well paid, have excellent benefits and receive in-depth training in their specific specialties. The people behind the cheese counter, for example, all have been to multiple cheese-making regions and countries, at company expense, to learn the fineries of fromage. Tipping is not allowed in its pub. There’s a cadre of “Helping Hands” by the checkouts. I stopped by one morning to pick up sandwiches for a client meeting and discovered that the kitchen wouldn’t begin to make the ones I coveted until hours later. I explained my dilemma to a counter person, who brought out the executive chef. Not only did the chef drop everything and make those three sandwiches, she insisted on reviewing my “luncheon menu” to be sure I had a salt, a sweet and a fruit. Then she took the grapes I had selected for my "fruit course" into the kitchen, washed and towel-dried them.

Last evening, after a late dinner at P.F. Chang’s new outlet (replete with plastic replicas of the desserts -- another blog), we stopped at Wegman’s for a few things. Even after 9:00 p.m., there was still a guy in the produce section to give us a ten-minute lesson on the origins and uses of the $999/pound (there is not a decimal point missing) black truffles. Guess where we shop now, exclusively.

That brings us to the gym, LA | Fitness, where commissioned twenty-something employees hover around the front door, waiting to ensnare potential new members. It’s no accident that the most prominent feature of the place is a row of desks with computer monitors, at which these desperados ply their trade.

Don’t get me wrong: we think the facility is first rate and we’ve recommended it to many people, several of whom have become members. Thus demonstrating the LA | Fitness culture.

We joined the club months months before it was built, paying an “initiation fee,” (we’re betting that’s the commission payment) and agreeing to a monthly fee we were told we’d never see so low again. After opening, we delivered a friend directly into the clutches of a salesman, who promised her “the same great rate your friends are getting.” She reported the next day that, in fact, she paid a smaller initiation fee and a monthly fee that’s 15% lower than ours.

In pursuit of fair treatment, we made an appointment with the manager, who didn’t remember the appointment when we arrived. He fussed with his computer screen for 15 minutes, while mumbling platitudes about “getting this fixed for you.” He ended by handing us his business card, with the handwritten name and number name of someone “at corporate” on the back who would assure that we were treated fairly. He made quite a flourish of demonstrating his sincerity by giving us his cell phone number, adding it to his card, in red — with a rubber stamp.

After leaving two messages over four days, “corporate” answered my third call. (Of course he was “just about to call.” (Imagine the coincidence!) That’s when the Machiavellian drama began.

We had agreed to our contract price, he told us; we signed a contract. The company has to right to run sales. We were free to quit and rejoin during a sale and pay a new initiation fee. Or we could “take advantage” of three differently priced “buy-down plans,” the gist of which we were to pay more money (from $150 - $350) to lower our monthly rate. Incredulous, I asked “Do you mean to tell me that you consider it to be fair and ethical treatment to make that offer to a customer who has brought you several new customers, all of whom all received better deals, a customer who gave you capital, at no interest for months, to help build your facility?” Well, as a matter of fact, he thought that was perfectly reasonable. And, despite his claim that he was the only person in the entire company with the authority to change a member’s rate, he couldn’t just change the rate because “the computer system” wouldn’t allow him to exercise this Pyrrhic power.

As of this writing, we’re back dealing with the manager again, who has promised to “make the case” to someone else in the interest of being “ethical and building a good reputation in the community.” We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for the second time. But he probably has a nice bridge he can sell me, too.

We still work out virtually daily at our new LA | Fitness. But the corporate culture there has guaranteed that we won’t be referring any more customers.

PS: We are not alone! ConsumerAffairs.com has plenty to say about the company’s culture.

PR research is like buying low and selling high: almost nobody does it.

A look at the future of PR research.

I started in the PR business when the height of communication technology was the IBM Selectric typewriter with, omigosh, correction tape built right in! I remember gathering with my colleagues around a different mechanical behemoth, agog that we were now able to send documents to clients electronically, over the telephone! It required encasing a single page in a plastic sleeve and clamping it to a rotating drum. Then in only 30 minutes of so, that whole page would someone appear magically on a matching machine anywhere in the world. My first cell phone had a 15-pound shoulder-mounted battery pack. So when the Philadelphia Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America asked me in October to join several other "seasoned" practitioners on a panel about the future of PR, I felt better prepared to discuss the past. I had to give some thought to the future regarding my assigned topic, the future of PR research. In my blog this month, I reprise my conversation with a roomful of my peers on a subject of intense concern among public relations practitioners. Summary: the past is prologue to the future. This issue of my Update also includes links to a couple of other authors' thoughts on the subject.

In 1983, the year after I was accredited in Public Relations, James Grunig complained about the lack of research in PR practice:

"Although considerable lip service is paid to the importance for program evaluation in public relations, the rhetorical line is much more enthusiastic than actual utilization. I have begun to feel more and more like a fundamentalist minister railing against sin; the difference being that I have railed for evaluation in public relations practice. Just as everyone is against sin, so most public relations people I talk to are for evaluation. People keep on sinning … and PR people continue not to do evaluation research."

A study conducted by Judy Van Slyke at Syracuse University compared public relations to a certain "model of an immature and ineffective science" and concluded that "public relations fits the model."

Dr. Walt Lindemann, with whom I worked at Ketchum PR, did a landmark study in 1988, which concluded that "most public relations research was casual and informal rather than scientific and precise" and that "most public relations research is done by individuals trained in public relations rather than by individuals trained as researchers."

Under any other circumstances, I wouldn't even consider pointing to comments and studies that are 20 or more years old. But in this case, it's perfectly safe — because nothing much has changed. And I don't need a study to say that with confidence; I see it every day. Everyone agrees that research for planning, monitoring and evaluating the success of PR programs is very important. But in practice, it's like buying low and selling high in the stock market —hardly anyone does it. These are the reasons I hear most frequently:

• They don't know that they're supposed to.
  
• They don't have the time.
  
• They don't have the budget.
  
• They don't know how.
  

The truth is that even if most practitioners had the time and money, they wouldn't know how to do either formative or evaluative research. Here's a fair description of what passes of research in public relations in the vast majority of situations:

Formative research is the fact-finding in which we seek to understand the dynamics of our problem, how people relate to it, what motivates then to take the kind of action we want them to take and so forth. In the real world, it usually consists of some combination of unsubstantiated assertions about the way things are, preceded by some form of the phrase: "The boss wants this."

Objectives are set in terms that can't be measured. These are common: "Educate the public," "generate enthusiasm" and "get the word out."

Strategies are skipped or given lip service in phrases such as:"Position the client as a leading provider of end-to-end solutions in the (insert name of industry here) space." Don't get me started on the use of "position" as a verb.

Tactics consist of whatever they always do and have the capabilities to produce.

Results are measured by trumping-up whatever random evidence they see and tying it to the aforementioned objectives such as generating enthusiasm and educating the public. Or they just default to how many clips they got and dollar value if it had been paid advertising.

So what's in my crystal ball about the future of PR research? Well, I don't mean to be a curmudgeon or a pessimist — this turned out to be a big laugh line in my presentation to the PRSA meeting — but in more than 30 years of practice, in all sorts of economic conditions, I haven't seen much change.

However for those who do get this message and put it into practice, there's very good news on the horizon: the tools for conducting research at every stage of a program are better, cheaper — or free —and becoming more plentiful and sophisticated every day.

It's not just the capability of the Internet to supercharge secondary literature research; you can do very sophisticated primary research through polls on forums and Web sites and by using cheap or free survey tools like Survey Monkey. You can discover trends, test messaging and monitor results with tools we couldn't have even imagined 30 years ago such as TweetDeck and Hoot Suite that let you analyze popularity of Tweets; Google Analytics for Web sites; Google alerts; and on and on and on.

This will never change: It will always be true that those practitioners who use research properly to design, monitor and evaluate their programs will sit at the table with the big boys and girls. Those who don't, won't and will forever be doomed to "getting the word out there."

Happy Birthday to Me

It's time for equal protection for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states. It's easy to see why my 9th great-grandfather took-up on Billy Penn's offer to settle near here around 1711; this part of the country has the same rolling landscape and changing seasons that were so familiar to him and other German/Swiss settlers in Pennsylvania. It's especially beautiful here this time of year, as summer gently yields to fall, "The Wood Man" delivers a full cord of Cyprus and I can cut-back on lawn-mowing chores.

October 11, my birthday, is always a special date to me. Around my birthday each year, I sit down and do the requisite soul-searching. I ask myself whether I've made a difference on the planet, if I've been a loyal friend and partner, an honorable businessman and a good citizen.

This year my ruminations have special significance to me: On October 11 my partner of 20 years and I will be joining tens of thousands of people who will descend on Washington DC for The National Equality March. We marchers share one single demand of our Federal government: equal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, people like Randy and me, who are legally married, lose out on 1,049 Federal marriage-related benefits that our neighbors receive the minute they say "I do." These are simple, basic things like inheritance rights, joint ownership of property and the right not to testify in court against your spouse. We've spent thousands of dollars on legal fees to create an inferior collection of documents that barely approximate the benefits that "traditional" married couples receive without question.

A Federal law, the legally enshrined discrimination against a single class of citizens known as the "Defense of Marriage Act," forbids the Federal government from recognizing our marriage and extending those 1,049 rights to us. Despite President Obama's repeated promises, abolishing the demeaning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy has been back-burnered because he "has too much on his plate." I agree with Jon Stewart who remarked: "Get a bigger plate!"

October 11 is also National Coming Out Day. This annual event has a simple premise: by "coming out" and letting people know just how many LGBT people are in their lives, more people will experience for themselves that we're not so very different than they are. So here I am, here we are. And we're as mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore.

There's a stirring song that has become an anthem in our community, Something Inside So Strong, that expresses our collective resolve succinctly:

The more you refuse to hear my voice
The louder I will sing.
You hide behind walls of Jericho
Your lies will come tumbling.
Deny my place in time
You squander wealth that's mine
My light will shine so brightly
It will blind you.

If you plan to squander my wealth, I suggest very, very dark sunglasses.

From Emergence To Emergency: Don’t Be Caught With Your Tweets Down

This blog is a supplement to my September 2009 Update Newsletter. (To subscribe to my newsletter, enter your E-mail address.)

Using social media is key to effective issues management. I used the recent holiday weekend to labor over long put-off chores around the house. These included tackling that eye-level stack of boxes that contain the paper record my career since 1976. (My grand scheme is to digitize anything of enduring importance and take advantage of my financial adviser's annual Shredder Day at the end of this month.) When I came across my well-worn presentation, How to Manage Issues before They Manage You: the Lifecycle of an Issue, I marveled at the key change that has occurred since the early 90's when I first began delivering this talk: the speed with which issues emerge and turn into full-blown crises. Then, I'd say that an issue can go from emergence to emergency in a matter of months. Today, the same cycle occurs in hours.

It all changed in 1992 when the U.S. government began pulling out of network management and allowed commercial entities to provide Internet access to the rest of us. At one time, corporate executives and managers charged with issues management could build their opinion-leader networks and databases, and prepare their position papers and communication plans in a timeframe that now seems leisurely. Today, that pace would be deadly. When I started delivering that talk, I would shock the audience members into realizing how behind the times they were by describing how I developed the lifecycle of an issue charts in one program and then converted it into another! Those were the days in which executives wrote on yellow legal pads and had secretaries who "typed it up."

Today, while some companies are still struggling with whether or not to blog, micro blogging has eclipsed blogging to become a critical tool in both issues and crisis management, not to mention marketing. While some PR folks are debating over the perfect CEO quote for a good-news release that will start with "We are pleased …," others have come to realize that news releases are fast becoming a search engine optimization tool, not a reliable method for attracting news or blog coverage.

As I say in every presentation to peers of my generation of college-educated communication professionals, we have to break the habit of "writing it up and sending it out" en masse, on paper. Along with the crazy idea that there is such a thing as "the general public" that needs to be "educated," this kind of thinking and behavior and dinosaurs have much in common.

Take a look at the requirements and baked-in assumptions of a PR course at Georgia Southern University. Here's the age-old assignment to interview a professional in the business — "and then write about it at your blog." Or this one, "Creating a profile in LinkedIn is a requirement in my PR Practicum class and is recommended for ALL my PR students." Or read this advice from the Philadelphia Inquirer's OpEd page on how to communicate with college freshman: "warm up your thumbs and start texting." Or ponder the fact that, in May, America's paper of record, the New York Times, appointed a social media editor, whose first acts included a 100-character introductory Tweet. The newspaper's Twitter feed (@nytimes) now was 1.7 million followers.

If you're a professional communicator and you want to provide wise and useful counsel to your employer or clients, you simply can't afford to be heard in public saying any these phrases:

"I just don't get Twitter. Who wants to hear about what people had for lunch?"

"There's no good reason for our organization to have a Facebook page."

"I don't participate in social networks because our IT department has all of that stuff blocked."

"Video, schmideo. YouTube is for stupid pet tricks."

Any organization can be damaged by a poorly managed issue that explodes, in minutes or hours into a full-blown crisis. Don't be caught with your Tweets down.

Sue Me, Sue Me, Go On and Sue Me.

This blog is a supplement to my August 2009 Update Newsletter. (To subscribe to my newsletter, enter your E-mail address.)

When Nathan Detroit's relationship with Miss Adelaide's starts to fall apart in the Broadway chestnut, Guys & Dolls, they resort to threats of lawsuits. That doesn't seem so remarkable to American audiences. But try to explain to Europeans how a litigious society like ours works and they're left mystified. I recently had occasion to speak with the CEO of a startup company in Germany that is planning to open an American HQ. As I learned more about his plans, it was patently clear to me as a born-and-bred American that his first purchase needed to be a Directors and Officers insurance policy. He couldn't get his mind around the concept and asked me, "Who would sue whom for what reason?" The answer, of course, was "anyone, anyone else, anything." So I did my best to explain it to him in an E-mail.

Here's how I explained it:

"The problem with the American litigation society is that there is neither rhyme nor reason for many lawsuits — except that people feel entitled to be compensated for every single bump in the road of life. [My CEO friend had heard of the case in which a McDonald's customer sued the restaurant because she spilled coffee on herself that was — heaven forefend — hot!] As a result, our society changes to reflect that. For example, the safety warnings and precautions that are required everywhere are ridiculous: yesterday at the gym, I saw a warning label on a small bucket of sanitary wipes that read, "Warning! Children may fall into this bucket and drown even in a small amount of liquid. Keep away from children! Injury or death may occur." On a bucket! Another: property owners are required to give advance warning even to trespassers of any potential hazards on their properties. But how you give that warning could come back and bite you in a lawsuit. So if you have a dog that might jump on or bite people and you put up a sign that says, "Beware of Dog," that sign will be used as evidence in court that you've admitted to having a vicious animal! So as a consequence, you must put up a sign that says simply "Dog in Yard."

By the same token, over-zealous safety precautions are everywhere such as railings, guard rails, anti-slip materials and so forth. By comparison, I remember being on the glacier outside the observatory at the top of the Jungfrau in Germany [a 14,000-foot mountain in the Swiss Alps.] The only barrier to falling off into the void was a single rope strung between ski poles stuck in the ice with a sign that essentially said, "Don't go past this rope." In Europe, people expect to take responsibility for their own behavior. A person stupid enough to go beyond the rope and get injured would not get any sympathy in court. Not so here.

So how could you be sued? Someone else had your idea first. Your office address is in the U.S. but you're really in Germany. Your business plan will be seen as "restraint of trade" or "unfair competition." Or someone believes that have a legal right to [your intellectual property.] And on. And on. That's why having adequate D&O (Directors and Officers) insurance is so important in an American enterprise."

Sadly, I think the guy has a great idea, that his business plan is solid that he could have a great success here. I wish him the best. But I hope he finds an excellent insurance agent first.

Rants, Not Raves

Expressions That Make My Blood Boil

This blog is a supplement to my July 2009 Update Newsletter. (To subscribe to my newsletter, enter your E-mail address.) If you read the original, click here to skip to the new rants.

Finishing up a call with AT&T wireless, the call center rep summarized my transaction by saying that she had "educated" me about several topics. I know she was saying what her script required, but it made my blood boil. Public Relations programs, too, often set out to "educate the public." Why does this phrase send me running for the blood pressure cuff? Because it demonstrates sloppy thinking and arrogance of the highest order. First, there is no such thing as "the public," one great huddled mass yearning to be set free by our corporate wisdom. Any professional communicator knows that audience segmentation is one of the first steps in planning a communication program. But worse is the unspoken message of these would-be "educators." What they're really saying is "If only those uninformed and ill-informed fools hear our message, then surely they'll support our issues and buy our products." A statement like that is not only arrogant, but it also belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how ideas are bought and sold in the marketplace.

New Rants

Any phrase that includes the word "spin," as in "Spin the story this way," or "Oh, you're a spin doctor!" Using this word in the presence of a professional, ethical communicator is roughly the equivalent of calling an accountant a "lying, cheating bean counter." Spin is not a good thing. In common parlance, "to spin" means "to lie."

Being asked my telephone number/account number after I've already entered in using the keypad on my phone. (Wasn't that exercise supposed "to better assist me?") If you know that this issue exists in your fancy schmancy telephone system, cut it out! You're wasting my time and telling me that you are not paying attention to the impact your systems have on your customers.

Voice mail options that are organized around the way you are organized, not what I am trying to accomplish. When I call your business, I want to do something — get information, update my account information, complain. So when your voice mail system gives me options based on your structure ("For accounting, press one") it's clear to me that you don't know who I am.

Slavish adherence to call-center scripts. I swear I was in Oz the other day when I was trying to resolve a problem with one of my accounts. (Not my fault, by the way.) Three times I was transferred through a four-step sequence of people. On the third time, when I told the robot masquerading as a human being that she was about to transfer me to a department that I had had already been to without success, she said, "At your request, I will not transfer you. Thank you for calling." Aaaaaaarrrrgh!

People who make that damnable, high pitched "Wooooooo!" sound, which is possibly appropriate at a sports event in which people are sweating and/or bleeding but absolutely not appropriate at a Broadway show, a symphony concert or any other event that does not involve visible bodily fluids.

The phrase "comprised of."
It is never, ever, ever accurate, under any circumstances whatsoever and I may go insane if I ever hear or read it again. (I'm starting to feel much better now!)

Signs in check-out lanes that read, "10 items or less."
Didn't anyone go to Catholic school?

People who contribute to a discussion by saying, "The bottom line is …"

Retail clerks who interrupt an interaction with a live human being to answer the phone.

Out-of-control corporate jargon.
For example using "around" to mean "about" as in "Let's have a discussion around …" Or "space" to mean market segment or industry. Or "solutions" to mean "products." Or "a leading provider of …" to mean anything.

Please use the "Comments" link below to add your raves. You'll feel better. I sure do.