First and foremost, my work is not the important part of any client’s message. Their message is. My communications efforts, either via 2.0, traditional, media, or some other transit, are secondary. In this writer’s point of view, anyone can work the phones and succeed in accomplishing public relations goals. The difficulty lies in a meaningful and tactically sound strategic plan. And the plan is the beginning of the campaign, the heavy lifting, the truly creative stuff that sets an unorthodox methodology from the humdrum of the majority of public relations efforts. Possibly I may consider posting some white papers written as discovery for new and potential clients, but that would serve to point out their flaws, which inherently opposes my stated purpose.

The second reason I prefer to keep clients off of my site, and to keep the people with whom I work discreet is that it has been my impression time and again that agencies and firms will drop the largest, most influential names possible in the hopes of establishing credibility. It’s an understandable ploy. It keeps listeners riveted, and depending upon the brand in question, can lead to runaway trains of hopeful thought for future monetary successes. However, the truth is that name-dropping large clients defies deductive logic for the critical potential client.

If someone were to tell me they had worked on a Nike campaign, for example, I am in no way impressed. Nike is an enormous advertising monster, with a budget from here to the moon, trying to reach the most ubiquitous market in the world: people who wear shoes. I am not any closer to understanding what said individual did, why they are no longer working with a client of such cachet, or why that experience can translate into success for me. If instead, said individual explained that he/she focused on challenger brands and enjoyed helping smaller companies etch out a niche that increased their sales figures without grievously impacting the bottom line/top line ratio, I am far more likely, as a critical thinker, to view that individual favorably.

Third, and frankly most important in my blog, is the fact that when someone drops an impressive name, there is no way of quantifying that individual’s worth to that account. There is no way of knowing if the individual had the fortitude to stand up to the large client to say, “The audience doesn’t buy in on your message because of the behavior of your <insert misbehaving officer here> . This needs to change immediately, or we need to change the message, you tell me which.”

Most large clients are averse to being told what to do, as they are, after all, LARGE CLIENTS. They tell functionaries such as ‘pr people’ what to do, and their functionaries follow instructions. Good public relations is a 2-way street, with information flowing and change occurring on both sides of the equation freely. The larger the name and bigger the brand, the less likely an earnest marketer or public relations pro can influence change in the client. And at that point, the public relations pro becomes a paper pusher with little to no autonomy and certainly not the ability to push back.

For these reasons, and others, my website remains clear of portfolio of work, or client names. If a potential client wants to know what I can do, I will draw up a white paper or a proposal and let my creative solutions speak for themselves. Otherwise, my clients may never know if their success is attributable to me and my efforts, or their own. Which makes ROI metrics for my work almost impossible.

These weren’t terribly difficult to implement or to even imagine, in my opinion. But, the look the property manager had on his face was priceless. It was as if I had shared with him the secret to successful time travel. Then he asked, with an incredulous tone, “Is this what you do for a living?”

It occurred to me then that I had fallen into a trap. A cunning one that many people buy into, this trap. Insidious and tricksy, this particular trap is a communicator’s biggest challenge. Once this monster sets its iron hooks, it requires a great deal of strength and willpower to escape it.

I had assumed that my ideas were common sense. And, when it became apparent that they were not, there was a moment of pure clarity. This is what I do for a living, after all. But, and here’s the big ‘but’ of the whole experience, the minute I lose my ability to understand my audience and begin to assume they think the way I do, and/or that the things I am explaining, projecting, or promoting are common knowledge, I am setting myself up for colossal failure.

Because I, like all good communicators, am not only sending a message. I am gauging how the message is being received. I am reading how my audience or market is accepting what is being shared, and looking for changes in behaviors or perceptions. In other words, I am LISTENING.

The second myopia sets in, my listening skills are hobbled. Astigmatic beliefs about my message and my clients’ needs take the place of unbiased information gathering, and worst of all, make it unlikely that I will be able to correctly adjust my client, their message, or my delivery.

In the end, it would make me a spam sender, a junk mailer, and a blanket advertiser, not a consultant whose objective is client success, as opposed to personal aggrandizement.

A heady reminder, indeed.

He has been with this company for 12 years. Allow me to repeat: he has been with this company for 12 years! According to the Department of Labor, today’s worker changes CAREERS 3 – 5 times in their working life, let alone company changes. A 12 year stint, for a man in his early 40′s is nearly unimaginable (insert more hyperbole, here).

It occurred to me that I had to ask him what keeps him there, and what has kept him and his coworkers at this building so far removed from the shores of the Land of the Rising Sun, separated from corporate leadership, et al.

His reply was simple, “They really do treat us like family.” And while anyone can say that, it is far more plausible for a Mom & Pop corner deli to treat staff as relations than an international megacorporation employing nearly 300,000 people. Yet, as his 12 year tenure and overwhelming loyalty attest, it IS possible.

In addition to paying industry standard, if not a touch higher in some markets, some of the key points to the loyalty he felt were simple:

- No one loses a job when times are tough. All other costs will be cut and corners will be clipped before jobs are lost. Temporary and contract employees likely will not be renewed, but they will rarely, if ever be cut off. This culture even goes so far that employees have brought staples and paper clips from home in order to maintain a healthy bottom line.

- Everyone knows their role, AND knows their role is important to the overall success of the business. This is a particularly large failing in the American business mindset of “time vs money” employees. While the average American employee believes that his/her mere presence is intrinsically valuable in monetary terms, the average employee of Japanese firms believes his/her efforts AND results are inherently of value for their employer. What’s more, they are told so.

- Finally, these employees feel that suggestions are encouraged. The team-work model that dominates the Asian education system graduates to the corporate and larger societal model. While the American employee may secretly dream of individualistic glory and personal name-brand celebusiness cachet akin to the Buffets, Gates, and Allens, the Japanese employee is proud to name drop his/her company and to extol that company’s virtues. The mindset is, simply put, that if one’s company is virtuous, good, and admirable, than the employee, by simply being a cog in the large machinery is also virtuous, good, and admirable by tacit projection.

While there is little hope of changing the Western education systems, business leaders and communicators CAN learn crucial lessons from the Asian model. Although the American employee has the aforementioned individualism, he/she also has a flexibility, fluidity of thought, and adaptability that escapes many from the Asian cultures. The winning leaders and communicators will reach new heights in loyalty and employee engagement by playing off these strengths.

That CNN has the temerity to run a Wells Fargo analyst’s comments and use what is obviously a Wells Fargo press release to generate a feel-good story about what is truthfully a still very frightening economic landscape is irresponsible. While Fox News certainly is the broadcast medium of the right, CNN has become the medium of the lowest common denominator.

Yes, cyber-terrorism has hit even someone who pays as close attention as yrs. truly. Currently with 2 spyware blockers, and 2 anti-virus software programs, one might make the assumption that this is a hard target. Yeah, not so much.

The day has been spent trying to get resolution, find the culprits responsible (all signs point to the Great Red Dragon), and to remedy the situation. Could it have been better spent doing, oh I don’t know, BUSINESS? Certainly. However, it has been highly informative. One may even say it has been educational.

The lessons, sadly, are rarely worth the price of admission. Many times, we think (as fallible humans and businesspeople) that the juice truly is worth the squeeze. In this moment, my argument is a firm and resounding, “NO.” No amount of post-action revisionist imagining will make this any better. It simply sucks.

Bottom line is that crime and criminal acts are in no way karmic justice. The scales of the universe do not get tipped through bad things happening to otherwise-unfazed scofflaws. The sad truth is that crap things happen to good people, and even worse, the reverse is true.

Most telling in all of it is how people respond. If one is pernicious and yet receives bounty, how is that handled? If one is virtuous and yet receives affliction, how is that handled?

Who we are at the core is how we manage these times.

For many casual observers, publicists and spin doctors are cuts of the same cloth, and that these are archetypes of anyone wearing a ‘PR’ tag around their neck. The visual association the terms bring to mind are often negative, ranging from a political staffer hiding his boss’ peccadilloes to a rockstar’s publicist hiding the hooker’s body. Between distasteful and dishonorable is the maximum range many people give our industry. It’s a shame, it pisses me off, and makes me demand a change in the business.

I am a business communicator. And for me, just as every coin has two sides, so does every story. I will not condone hiding or covering up unethical, immoral, or illegal activity, in either my business or in the business of my clients. My role, as I see it, is to research the key audiences, develop a strategy and message to deliver, actually deliver the message, and then measure the results, and recommend changes as necessary to find success for my clients. And this is how true practitioners work. They don’t spam press releases, or work a crowded room for a client, or if they do, it’s as an adjunct to their more ‘business-like’ duties of measuring a message’s impact, and making recommendations and changes to the message, the method of delivery, and often, to the client’s way of doing things, in order to see success.

Notice, there is no description of posturing, making false overtones, or lying in this walkthrough. In fact, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) has a stringent code of ethics by which members must abide or face expulsion from the society. One of the most important elements to the code is the free transmission of ‘accurate and truthful information’ in a member’s work.

While the thought of mandatory licensing is frustrating and largely ineffective (one need only look at the wide range of attorneys to see that licensing will not keep the licentious, the avaricious, or the dishonest out), accreditation is a viable alternative. With a recognized body of professionals certifying a fellow practitioner as a follower of sound and ethical business practices, clients and the media can look far more favorably on the efforts of the certified practitioner, and can trust that what is being communicated is likely to be the truth.

The summary of it is that to be an effective public relations practitioner, whether as a hostess at a restaurant or the President of the United States, one must be professional not only in demeanor, but in practice. One cannot simply talk the talk, but truly and honestly, with all intent and integrity of character and heart, walk the walk. This is what professionalism is and does.

The pundits called the healthcare summit a pr stunt. I say the politicians only wish they had the ethics of a true professional.

While every congressperson will agree that the current system is broken, and that the two largest entitlement programs in the Federal budget are about to begin operating fully in the red, Obama is suggesting to spend MORE money in order to push the economy forward. Huh???

Now, it has been mentioned in this space before that this writer is no financial whiz, no accounting genius, nor even a very sound abacus-user, but something about this scenario seems even remotely stable. Taking taxpayer money and giving it to projects that are neither taxpayer-mandated nor taxpayer approved, for anything other than the “common defence and general Welfare of the United States” opposes the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Most disturbingly, as many pundits posit, the states of New York and California are the harbingers and canaries in the American economic coalmine. And both Albany and Sacramento are currently in turmoil. Vested interests are turning the system into a mockery of the intent laid out by the Founding Fathers.

The ‘general Welfare’ as intended by the Constitution is not an identification of a Nanny-state, where entitlements and government handouts are to be expected. Looking at California as a parallel to the United States the similarities are striking:

California – Burdened by a public employees pension (entitlement) program that has exploded in size in the last 25 years and been declared as ‘unsustainable’ by its own actuary (!), lead by a personality rather than a business leader who is ineffectual as a result of a fractious Legislature, and carrying a budget deficit so large that IOU’s will be used to pay numerous vendors.

United States – Burdened by multiple programs for public assistance (entitlements) that have blossomed in the last 30 years (33% of the federal budget went to entitlements in 1965, over 60% today), lead by a personality rather than a business leader who has been ineffective due to a fractious (yet, single party dominated!) Legislature, and carrying a budget deficit so large that other countries are warning the government to reign in spending.

California is a true bell cow for the economy at large. The key differences between the two governments are that the Fed can print more money (certainly at the risk of inflation) or monkey with interest rates (at the risk of losing foreign investment), and California is voter-mandated to annually have a balanced budget.

It will be a long, cold economic winter in California, and Washington will follow right along. But when the summer does break, it likely will come as the result of a handful of dedicated Californians showing the rest of the country how to fix a broken system.

(Skipping, for a moment, the rest of the thought process and jumping right to another stream-of-consciousness mind-line, but was not this money already IN the economy? And if not, then where did it come from? Ah, that’s right, my daughter’s Social Security fund.)

According to recovery.org, the White House’s own website dedicated to tracking the funny money floating freely about, over 595,000 jobs were saved. Hooray!!! But hold, upon reading the fine print, the browser of the bureaucratic arcana is informed that the number is “based on the number of hours worked in a quarter and funded under the Recovery Act.”

Now, I am certainly no fiscal expert. In fact, I can barely understand how to calculate the tip at the end of a meal, however it is apparent that something is amiss in this definition. Actually, there are a number of somethings amiss in this definition.

First and most obvious is the lack of definition for hourly rate. The viewer is not told how much per hour the calculating authority is assuming the individuals worked are making. There is a gaping void in the logic chain, and if one where to do some forensic analysis to the formula, it becomes apparent that something here is way off.

Example: The fictitious state of Moreland gets an awarding of $100,000 in stimulus money. To determine the number of jobs saved, the Fed then declares that from October 1 – December 31, the hours worked that are paid for from the $100,000 pot are jobs the Fed has either ‘created or saved.’ Where the non squitur occurs is in the measurement of the pay rate.

If a business owner takes a contract from the state of Moreland to build much-needed widgets, and happens to bid $85,000, there is no possible measurement for where the widgets are being made, who is making the widgets, and if how much the business owner is paying him/herself from the contract.

Are there 85 people working 100 hours at 10 bucks an hour? We do not know. Herein lies problem number 1: There is no defined payrate or payscaling in the formula.

Second, and an adjunct to the first problem, and highlighted in the example, is the question of how much a business owner can make from stimulus funds. If, in the Moreland example, the business owner decides to go the unethical route, and chooses to hire 85 workers at 100 hours at 10 cents an hour, this is quite obviously doing the economy no good, while enriching an elite class. This sounds familiar.

Third, and these are just three issues found in a quick glance at the site, is there is no accounting for overtime hours worked in this formula. Taking the Moreland example again, if said employees at 10 bucks an hour decide to work overtime at 1.5 times their initial hourly rate, or if the business owner requires their overtime participation at 1.5 times the hourly, rates become even more vague, and overrides are a distinct possibility.

To claim that the stimulus plan is working because a Tennessee Valley Authority approach to economic infrastructure building in tandem with physical infrastructure improvement contracts is foolish. One of the key reasons the New Deal was so effective in historical terms is that it prepared through blue-collar, government-subsidized training, a soldier/builder/patriot mentality that would prove instrumental in American participation in the Second World War and in the recovery process following that conflict.

Today’s stimulus plan(s) require more accountability in their results, flexibility in their implementation, and creativity in their application. Business leaders certainly need the freedom to act in their firms’ best interests, while being kept on a loose, yet snugly-fitting government leash.

Fingers remain crossed.

It was funny, off-beat, and completely harmless, which is fairly common material for Melrose, whose graying mullet retains an air of invincibility from criticism, even as it remains a mullet. Dana Jacobs, the other permanent First Take host played off Melrose, feeding him for a little more good natured ribbing of Crawford, as off-camera personnel alternately groaned and chuckled at Melrose’s comments. Cut to commercial.

On the return, Crawford and Jacobs are sitting at the main desk for the show, discussing Melrose’s comments. From off-camera, the viewer can hear Melrose responding, playfully involved in a verbal give-and-take with Crawford.

(It should be mentioned here that both Jay Crawford and Dana Jacobs are widely recognized as some of the nicest folks in television, and the quality of being knowledgeable, unoffensive, and professional, while also seeming personable and approachable is a unique talent that they share and that makes them ideal for a morning sports show.)

Jay asks Berry, whom the viewer cannot see, what he does for his crow’s feet. Completely deadpan, Melrose replies, “Chickenshit.”

Jay is obviously unsure of what he’s just heard and responds with a natural, “What?”

Melrose, sure that this unusual remedy for wrinkles is the reason Crawford is asking, repeats, “Chickenshit. Just dab a little on.” And the conversation continues for a moment or two, and then Melrose departs the set.

Jacobs’ head, meanwhile, is buried on the desk, alternately mortified and belly-laughing. Crawford does his best to play the whole conversation off, as it was obvious Melrose had no idea the cameras were rolling, and Crawford had no way to communicate that to Melrose without breaking the 4th Wall and potentially embarrassing a proud and valuable asset like Melrose.

Fast forward a commercial break, and Dana Jacobs takes a moment to apologize to everyone who was offended by Melrose’s comments and to explain the situation.

Here is the question that most bothers me about the whole thing. Who are these people who are calling in offended? It was obvious to anyone watching that this was a purely live moment that Melrose had no idea was happening on camera.

Could it be that there was concern for children watching who might pick up that potent weapon of vitriol, the bilious ‘chickenshit?’ If so, why would children young enough to not have heard the term be watching talking heads on a sports analysis program? More to the point, why would any child be home to watch First Take on ESPN the day after Presidents’ Day? Certainly there are kids who are ill, home-schooled, or otherwise home for viable reasons, but are they really watching ESPN?

If so, it would be my argument that they are sports fans. As such, they have heard much worse on live broadcasts. Likely they are also athletes themselves, and as anyone with school age athletes can report, athletes involved in stressful competition often use strong language.

If it is not a concern for the children watching and possibly picking up the word, then it must be adults watching the program and feeling offended. If so, then all of the above arguments are even more valid.

The shame of it all is that these moments of spontaneity become increasingly rare as wrists are slapped and perpetrators approach the public with hats in hand, kowtowing and pleading forgiveness. While it is crucial to maintain our sense of decorum and respect for one another, we cannot ignore the pure joy that comes from the unscripted, both as entertainers and as viewers.

Clients sometimes want more creative work done than outreach, and sometimes more outreach than creative work. While it is certainly easy to price creative work (hours worked x hourly rate = price), and it could be argued that pricing outreach could be priced similarly, the difficulty remains for the majority of clients who want both creative and outreach with measurable monthly objectives for both. The reason? I refuse to be a bill-by-the-minute individual.

It stifles creativity, inhibits open dialogue with clients, and generates a sense of doubt. (“Have they REALLY spent 10 hours working the media?”) Obviously a retainer is the ideal solution, but for those clients who choose to have a list of deliverables on a monthly basis, the question remains:

How to most effectively price that work?