Sometimes, how you say what you say matters most.

The California ballot initiative to amend constitution loses support when the state Attorney General changes the wording to reflect its real intention: to take away the rights of an entire class of people.
It's a well-worn tenet
of public affairs strategists that people want to be for something rather than against something. Witness, for example, the fact that both sides of the abortion debate have claimed "for" ground: Pro Life and Pro Choice. In American public debate, fairness and individual rights also are powerful motivators of action. California's Proposition 8 originally qualified for the November ballot under the title "Limit on Marriage," with the exact proposed constitutional language reading "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But following the historic May 15 California Supreme Court decision that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is unconstitutional, the state's attorney general ruled that the proposition must be re-worded to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," accurately reflecting the legal and human impact if a majority of California voters were to approve this mean-spirited and bigoted nonsense. (Dear Ben: I promised to hold no bars here. Full disclosure: my partner, Randy and I, are about to celebrate our 20^th anniversary, are legally married in Canada and operate www.GayRites.NET as a public service.) Among the 70% of voters who were already familiar with Prop 8, the change didn't make much difference. But for the 30% who live under rocks and were not aware of Prop 8, 42% said they would vote "no" to the original language. But 54% said they'd vote "no" as the initiative was reworded. A spokesperson for www.ProtectMarriage.com, an unfortunately slick site that now is touting Prop 8 as a measure to "restore" marriage, said that she expected the rewording would "affect the numbers by a few percentage points." Happily, a spokesperson for the polling organization, which has polled on more than a hundred ballot initiatives, reported that "history shows that when an initiative starts out behind, it very rarely passes."

$85 billion dollar blooper

Days after its $85 billion federal bailout, insurer AIG pulls "Strength to be There" ads.
AIG took a credibility hit (as if it hasn't had enough already) when its "Strength to Be There" and "Live longer, retire stronger, never outlive your money" TV ads kept running while the Feds were negotiating its bailout. Ironically, it's "If disaster strikes, will you have the protection you need?" direct-mail campaign (for earthquake insurance) started to arrive in mailboxes early this week. Can you say "cognitive dissonance?"

The truth set her free, but not quite in the way she had planned.

L.A. Metrolink spokesperson, Denise Tyrrell, resigns in response to criticism that she prematurely blamed train engineer for fatal crash. Is honesty still the best policy?
As the L.A. Times just reported, the spokesperson for L.A.'s Metrolink system has resigned under withering criticism for taking responsibility for the cause of a fatal crash between a commuter train and a freight train the day after the tragedy. (By then, she was already privy to the initial investigation results showing that the engineer of the commuter train ran a red light.) She gave her CEO the advice I would have given: "be honest and upfront … rebuild public trust." The CEO approved it and then, under pressure, said that his permission was "premature." He did not ask Tyrrell to reconsider her resignation. Even prominent attorneys, who often counsel against saying anything that could be construed as admitting culpability, took her side, including the attorney/executive director of California Common Cause. Others, including a member of the Metrolink board, counseled taking the weasel-word way out. Tyrrell says she's being treated "like an overwhelmed, menopausal woman" instead of the pro she clearly showed herself to be. Now I ask, which approach to communication is likely to build better relationships with the commuting public: truth or lies?

Hey, you … almost a priest

(With apologies to Bill Cosby …) My partner, Randy, and I travelled to Milwaukee this past weekend for a series of events surrounding the wedding of one of his nieces. As a Recovering Catholic, I do my best to stay clear of events that occur in Catholic Churches, so I'm not up-to-date on the latest and greatest innovations in its operations. The wedding ceremony was officiated by a category of officiant I had never before encountered in the Catholic Church, a deacon. (Someone explained it to me when he began to talk about his wife and kids and I nearly cheered.) This guy was a brilliant communicator. He managed to build a palpable relationship with and among the hundred or so folks in attendance. His secret? Story-telling, punctuated by visual examples ("When Jessica and Alex came to dinner with me and my wife …", "Jessica was working in the snack bar at the university and Alex loved hamburgers …"). Using example after example, he created compassion, support and understanding for this young couple as they began their new life together. I'll admit that I didn't have much of a relationship with my niece-in-law when I arrived. But by the time this guy was finished, I felt as if I had known her and her new husband for years. Amen to effective communication!

Getting a little piggish

All of us voters have memorized the sound bites that we have been given by both parties to the upcoming presidential election. (Unfortunately, many of them have been swallowed whole by voters who simply don't know or are ignoring the facts.) Case in point: the difference between a soccer mom and a pig, according to the Republican VP nominee, is lipstick. Obama says you can't put lipstick on that pig. (That's also shorthand for the ethical foundation of public relations: always tell the truth.) It doesn't surprise me but pundits are sure to have a heyday with the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) media advisory last week issuing formal challenges to both the Dems and the Pubs asking them to commit to high standards of ethical practice in their campaign communications. In a letter to Robert Gibbs (Obama for America) and a letter to Jill Hazelbaker (John McCain 2008), PRSA Chair & CEO Jeffrey Julin, on behalf of the PRSA Board of Directors, asks the campaigns to sign a formal pledge obligating them to abide by the PRSA Code of Ethics in all communications, stating that:

"The use of innuendo, incomplete information, surrogate messaging and character attacks, whether in political discourse or other forms of commercial free speech, raises serious concerns for our organization and its 32,000 members, each of whom signs a pledge to the PRSA Code of Ethics. In fact, ethical practice is the most important obligation of PRSA membership, and we maintain that our obligations extend not only to those we represent, but also to the publics they serve. We view the code as a model for other professions, organizations and professionals, including political campaigns."

PRSA has not received the signature of representatives from either party. PRSA has set-up a FaceBook group, "Clean & Fair Campaign 2008" to develop grassroots support for the idea of ethical political campaigning. Imagine that.

Better late than never

I've resisted blogging for years. Honestly, I haven't felt as if I have enough to say to fill the space. But as I was writing the September 2008 edition of my monthly Update newsletter, which has a healthy list of subscribers and above-average open- and click-through rates, I found that I didn't have the space for everything that was on my mind. Since the most popular part of my monthly E-newsletter is my personal comments section, I'm putting two and two together: here I am for a trial run. For a while I'll keep this just between me and a few close friends and colleagues, a beta test to see if my late entrance into the world of blogging was worth waiting for. I'll be happy now and always for your feedback and participation.

In marketing parlance, blogs are a pull medium; you have to come here consciously, volitionally to share my thoughts. (If you choose to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts, I'll consider that you've just automated the pull.) Since good relationships depend on communication that is honest and direct, that's what you'll find here. Almost anything will go. I will neither bank my enthusiasm nor hide my disdain for a subject. I will steer clear of religion, unless one of more of them provides fodder that's directly relevant to my purpose here (more in a moment). Clients' programs will be off limits, unless they and I agree to tell a story. Politics are fair game and rich in material. I reserve the right to stray completely from my designated path at any time. In fact, I feel a blog about religion coming on …

My business has a philosophy expressed by the slogan "Building Better Relationships Through Effective Communication." In my September 2008 newsletter, I found that I need only look to the previous 30 days of my life to see plenty of examples of communication that helped to build, damage or destroy relationships. So this blog will focus there: on large and small examples of personal and organizational communications that had an effect on the quality of a relationship. Let the games begin.