A Look at Branding

Over the past few decades marketing has become a much more significant tool for communicators looking to enhance the visibility of a product as a way of solidifying a connection with current and prospective consumers. Much like public relations itself, marketing has moved away from efforts to establish mass appeal and sought to become much more targeted in its approach to boost sales. As part of this trend, a concept known as branding has emerged as a key marketing strategy. The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers."

What makes branding distinct is that it is not necessarily geared to entice customers to use a particular product over another. Instead, it is designed to get prospective users or buyers of a product or service to view it as being the only one that provides a viable solution to their problems or answer to their needs. More to the point, according to the AMA, a good brand is clear and understandable, drives home a product or service's credibility, motivates users or buyers, and strengthens user loyalty. All these, of course, are good things. But the trick comes in taking the right steps to ensure the sustained effectiveness of a branding effort. Basically, this requires meeting two goals: gaining a good understanding of the needs and wants of customers and clients and having a solid and/or reputable product or service to promote.

Much like strategic communication in that it entails a multi-level approach on the part of an organization - not just one office - branding must have the active buy-in of every aspect of an entity that is a source of public contact. In other words, each of these organizational parts must be speaking the same language and putting forth the same messages. If you are thinking that kind of comprehensive, well-coordinated effort is not easy to put into place, then you are right. It is not. It takes time to implement, calls for constant vigilance on the part of the communication office, can be expensive, does not generate immediate results, and is often times the cause of a great deal of frustration and stress for those communicators taking on such a large challenge. But at the same time, if successful, then branding can be extremely rewarding to an organization and help ensure a positive reputation that is lasting and durable.

Maslow Revisited

In 1943, Abraham Maslow, a native of Brooklyn who went onto become one of the more famous psychologists of the 20th century, developed a theory outlining fundamental needs that all men and women have. Irregardless of our station in life or opportunities we may or may not have to advance or succeed, all of us are driven by a set of basic needs that define our state of contentment and happiness. These needs, as identified by Maslow, can be divided into four primary categories: recognition or esteem; acceptance or love; safety; and survival, which includes such components as food, water and sleep. In other words, what motivates us the most each and every day is doing what we can to make sure these needs are met. Actions we take and choices we make are propelled by meeting this overriding, self-serving goal.

I do not know of anyone who disagrees with the basic premise of Maslow's theory. After all, we all want to be recognized or acknowledged in some way, be accepted by others such as family, friends and colleagues, feel safe, and be able to get a good night's sleep and enjoy regular meals. What is interesting, however, is how this relates to effective communication. The two, on the surface, do not seem to be all that compatible. On the one hand, the basic needs as identified by Maslow suggest we are motivated by doing what is best for us. Pure self interest. On the other hand, effective communication is dictated by connecting with others. At its best, communication is two-way interaction in which individuals or publics talk with each other from the basis of similar challenges, shared experiences and mutual goals. Does this, then, mean striving to meet our own needs is at cross purposes with attempts to connect or communicate with others? Not necessarily.

If Maslow is right, then we all share the same needs. They may come in different packages and we may give them different priorities, but our fundamental commonalities would seem to far outweigh whatever differences we might have. Does this mean our differences should be ignored or swept under the rug? Of course not. They help distinguish us as individuals and should be embraced. But they must also not be given any more weight than they deserve. This comes with giving them perspective and that comes from communication in the form of collaboration, active listening and empathy.

Free Speech With Limits

There is an interesting conversation in the news these days that has come out of Kentucky and is now part of the national debate. It started with Rand Paul, a libertarian who recently captured the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. As a libertarian, Paul believes the government should play a limited role in the lives of its citizens. In recent interviews, Paul talked about his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act in which the federal government declared, in part, it is against the law for businesses to not serve or discriminate against persons of color. While speaking against discrimination of any kind, Paul has also implied he believes the government was wrong to dictate what privately-owned businesses can and cannot do. Private owners, Paul said, should be free to serve whoever they want without interference from the government even if their actions are judged to be morally wrong.

One intriguing aspect of this position is the support for what I call the "pure action" that Paul and many other libertarians espouse: so long as there is no harm to others, then people should be free to do whatever they want. It is the essence of individual liberty. Of course, the reality of our nation is that none of us are allowed to behave in total freedom. There is a direct correlation here to communication. In our nation, for instance, pure free speech does not exist. Hate speech, to cite one example, is against the law. Numerous laws, in fact, exist that determine the boundaries in which communication can and should be carried out.

Communicators are free to devise ways to promote various products, messages and images, but only if they do so within specific guidelines or parameters. Corporate speech, a concept designed to protect consumers, illustrates this. A clever communicator can devise the cleverest of messages to promote a product, but if those messages contains falsehoods and defamatory statements, then the persons who wrote them as well as their sponsors can be held libel. Perhaps a libertarian would disagree with such a law. Yet to help ensure that freedom of behavior or speech are practiced responsibility, then clear limits are necessary.

Deep Thinker

I have a bone to pick with Bill Moyers. A few weeks ago this former press secretary, recipient of several Emmy and Peabody awards, ordained Baptist minister, television host, and best-selling author retired. I wish he had checked with me first because I would have told him not to. I was not ready for him to do that even though it did not come as a total surprise given that he will be celebrating his 76th birthday in a few weeks. But that's no excuse. He should not have done it and I want everyone to know it. As host of his highly-acclaimed "Bill Moyers Journal" on the Public Broadcasting Station, this native of Oklahoma zeroed in on numerous serious topics with many serious people in a way that represented the best of broadcast journalism. Moyers' programs were not drenched in yelling, name calling or one-liners designed to make himself look good at the expense of others. Rather, they consisted of in-depth interviews on a range of topics that cried out to be better understood by the general public.

Race and gender, civility in American politics, poverty, climate change and even the state of journalism itself are just a few of the wide range of topics Moyers delved into with guests who sat down with him to enlighten rather than posture. Noam Chomsky, Toni Morrison, Carlos Fuentes, Cornel West, William J. Wilson and many others of equal intellectual caliber shared their insights with Moyers over the years knowing they would not be talked-over by their host, but instead be allowed to share their insights on issues of substance and weight. The concept of his program was simple, yet the results it generated were profound. Fortunately, many remain accessible on You Tube or even on the PBS website.

It was the late news giant Edward R. Morrow for whom "deep-think" journalism was credited. For many, including me, Moyers very much carried on in that tradition. His style represented a high form of communication we see far too little of today. Moyers recognized that our country and our world face serious challenges that can only be understood and ultimately addressed if they are confronted in a serious manner. By itself, that may not seem all that profound, but one only has to scan the many news and talk shows on commercial, cable and public television to gain of good sense of how rare it is. Even his final broadcast was not common. Rather than run through a list of his distinguished achievements, Moyers focused on the dangers of plutocracy or government of the wealthy. His concern is that this is what America's so-called democracy is becoming. I fear he is right. I also fear that we as members of the general public are rapidly losing access to communicators who, like Moyers, are also deep-thinkers. This is why I want Moyers to get back in my good graces and unretire.

Wanted: More Lions, Fewer Lambs

If there is anything in this world of ours that has ups and downs, ebbs and flows, smooth times and rough waters it is relationships. That is as much of a truism as gravity itself. There is one particular relationship in our lives - an important one - that right now is not in a good place. I am talking of the one between public relations practitioners and journalists or the press. It was not all that long ago when the two were looked upon as being natural adversaries. Journalists would try to dig up information and ignore the public relations officers who tried to either stop them, distract them or limit their efforts. Journalists were loyal to the purity of the news and the PR types were loyal to whoever or whatever they represented. Things have changed.

PR practitioners, sadly, seemed to have gained the upper hand as journalists appear to be losing that sometimes annoying, yet admirable tenacity that earned them the tag: "The Fourth Estate." I do not believe the quality of journalists themselves has declined. Rather, I believe a combination of reasons have combined to make them far too dependent on public relations professionals. Dwindling revenues of the companies that employ them, staff cutbacks, a greater dependence by the media conglomerates on advertisers, stronger desire of corporate and governmental heads and boards to control their images, and the rise of social media are among the key factors that are taking out much of the bite of the journalism profession.

As a public relations practitioner, I supposed I should be glad to have journalists more dependent on me for information about the institution I represent. After all, it places me in a more commanding position to control what is said about my employer and thus makes it look as if I am all the better at my job than perhaps I really should be. Truth be told, I miss the days when reporters were more lions than lambs; less dependent on so-called chief information officers. Yes, it made my job more difficult; but I firmly believe our society was and is much stronger when it has access to unfiltered, less scripted information.

Looking Both Ways

The other day while driving in my neighborhood I came to a stop sign. As I waited for the car ahead of me to move, I watched a mother at the corner instruct her young son on the importance of looking both ways before crossing the street. It struck me at what sound advice this is. Not only is it good for pedestrians, of course, but it also rings true for all of us who try to communicate each day. Ideally, pedestrians should not run out into any street for the obvious reason they put their lives at risk by possibly stepping in the path of a moving vehicle. Interestingly, when it comes to communication, I am struck at how often people, including myself at times, blast away without first stopping to consider their actions with the same deliberation we expect pedestrians to use.

With this in mind, there is a mental check-list of points to remember if we are going to actually enhance an interaction with another person or a public rather than do it harm. They include: Do we have a good understanding of what has been said to us? Are we responding in a respectful and open manner? Are we sharing our own thoughts in an honest and straightforward manner? Are we doing all we can to engage the person to whom we are speaking? Are we sticking to the topic at-hand? Adhering to these fundamental guidelines can help us maintain an open channel of communication with others even if we disagree with their perspectives. Good communication does not require agreement but it does require engagement. It speaks to positive interaction and maintaining opportunities for further engagement.

Crossing the street without first looking both ways can lead to consequences of the worst kind. Ineffective communication can have negative consequences as well. This is why both actions should be approached with respect and deliberation by children and adults. And here's the real kicker, just as none of us not matter our age or level of maturity should ever not look both ways before crossing a street, the same holds true for communicating. For all of us, they need to remain on our permanent to-do lists.

Banana Splits

It seems as if every where we turn these days there is bad news. Violence. Terrorism. Oil spills. Racial profiling. Economic upheaval. Floods. Job losses. Where does it end? Where will it end? When mountains of turmoil are knocking at the door and, in many cases, actually inside the house, what is a communicator to do? One essential strategy is to tell the truth. Do not sugar coat things. Be honest. And be even-handed in presenting the facts. Another vital strategy is to create channels by which various publics are able to connect with each other in order to collectively address the issues and problems they share and that may seem insurmountable. I would like to suggest a third strategy. It has to do with noting that the despite the challenges before them, the reasons for genuine concern and the difficult consequences publics may be facing, there remain good things - big and small - in the world that can and do bring smiles to young and old alike no matter what else might be going on. This brings me to banana splits.

First of all, I acknowledge there may be those in the world who do not like banana splits even though I can not help but think such a group has got to be among the smallest in existence. That said, particularly in these times of great challenge, this is a treat for which the word "yummy" was no doubt invented. Three scoops of ice cream, several toppings, a few cherries, nuts, if you are so inclined and, of course, the foundation of this delightful concoction: the banana. Dig in and lose yourself for a little while. It won't make the problems of the world go away but it will put one in a better frame of mind in which to face them.

In the name of being a truthful communicator, it should be noted that even the banana split is not without controversy. There are those who claim it was invented in 1904 by a 23-year-old pharmacist from Latrobe, PA, named David Strickler. Others credit Stinson Thomas, a chief dispenser at a department store in Boston, with the invention in 1905. My guess is this will probably be one of those disputes of history that will never be resolved. This is why I tip my hat to both Strickler and Thomas. Just a few years after bananas were first imported to America in 1902, one or both of these gentlemen were inspired to take this fruit and use it as the basis for what has become a timeless treat. So, here's to banana splits. And here's to taping into a smile-invoking treat as one way of giving us the resolve to deal with other, far less positive realities of the world.

No News is Not Always Good News

There is an old saying that goes like this: "no news is good news." We have all heard it. I have even used it from time and time and maybe you have, too. But this declarative statement is one with which I have never been comfortable. Recently, I came to the realization why: because it is not necessarily true. "No news" suggests that nothing bad has happened or otherwise we would have been told. Really? A few days ago my wife and I went to movie. We sat there chowing down on our popcorn, enjoying the film and feeling content that we were not being interrupted with so-called news from the outside world. It was not till after we got home when my wife noticed that our parked car had been nicked by another driver. That "no news" was not good. And just yesterday I learned that one of my favorite relatives has been dealing with prostrate cancer for the past six months. Fortunately, he is doing very well but that "no news" was not good either.

Even though living under a false notion that things are good or I would have heard or been told about it added some level of bliss to my life, I have now come to the conclusion that I want to know about stuff that goes on even if that information is upsetting or negative in some way. Ignorance may be bliss in some situation, but that does not make it a good thing, nor something I particularly want. I like knowing things. Further, I do not believe I am alone with that sentiment. While I do not know who originated another old saying, "knowledge is power," but whoever did first come up with it really hit the bullseye in terms of identifying a key ingredient that can and does give us all greater contentment based on fact rather than assumption.

Communicators can and should keep this mind in terms of helping those they represent maintain good relations with others. Just because nothing has changed, for instance, does not mean that is not valid information to share. It is even helpful letting people know that life is status quo. An example of that is my own daughter. I had not connected with her in awhile. During the course of our conversation she said she would have let me know if there were any big changes in her life. I replied by reminding her that even letting me know her life remains on-track is important and, above all, helpful. It also further cements the bond between us. For she and I and, I believe, everyone, communication is all about continuing to secure ties that bind.

History Repeating Itself?

For years now whenever there is conversation about crisis communication, invariably Exxon comes up as an example of a major entity doing a poor job of connecting with its publics at a time when effective communication was needed the most. It was in March, 1989, when one of the Exxon Corporation's oil tankers ran aground spilling an estimated eleven million gallons of crude oil into the waters of Alaska's Prince William Sound. Despite the fact nothing of this magnitude had ever happened before, executives at Exxon waited a full week before issuing any kind of public statement. And what did they say? Basically, the corporation's chief executive officer Lawrence Rawl blamed the United States Coast Guard and Alaskan government for holding up efforts to clean-up the oil spill; failed to take responsibility for the accident; and announced it was going to pass along spill-related expenses to its customers. As a result of this sorry performance, there are many that continue to hold-up Exxon today as the poster-child for corporate irresponsibility and arrogance.

I bring up the Exxon incident now because of what is going on at this very moment in the Gulf of Mexico. An oil spill that may surpass the one associated with Exxon has occurred. This time the corporation responsible for the safe maintenance of the oil is is another international giant, British Petroleum (BP). The jury is out in terms of how well BP is handling this environmental and economic crisis, yet signs are pointing toward the makings of another example of an entity that has dropped the ball when struck by disaster. Back in February, 2009, BP told federal regulators that any oil spill would have minimum impact to the Gulf coastline because of the distance of its oil rigs to the shore and because its own response capabilities. Sadly, we seem to be witnessing one more example of a company with little or no realistic contingency plan in place to contend with a major crisis.

I am trying hard not to jump the gun here and start pointing figures too quickly. The crisis remains very much underway and BP employers and representatives of the federal and various state governments are working so hard to stop the crisis and then begin the long process or recovery and restoration. At the same time, it is very troubling in these times of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and ongoing human error that organizations, corporations and institutions continue to pay lip-service to readying themselves for times when crisis occurs. Are we really that short-sighted? Do we really place that much importance on money that we are not willing to assume the extra cost needed to adequately protect the lives of people? Rather than answer those questions, I will conclude by saying it is times like this when the importance of crisis communicators emerge that are able to help entities devise solid plans and then help keep those plans current and viable. It is not a matter of whether entities can afford to have such a professional on their payroll. Rather, how can they afford not to?