Force For Good Communications

Whole Foods' Mackey sparks whole new controversy

The last time I wrote about Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, I was highly critical of his ill-advised posts to an investor chatboard, under the assumed name "rahodeb," that talked up Whole Foods' prospects and trashed Wild Oats, a competitor that Whole Foods would later attempt to take over (leading to questions of whether Mackey had deliberately tried to drive down the stock price of Wild Oats in advance of the take over). Mackey at first dismissed the controversy, then was pushed reluctantly into apologizing, while Whole Foods had launched an investigation into the matter and shut down Mackey's blog.

Two years later, Mackey is still CEO of Whole Foods. And he was back in the news, controversial in an entirely new way that has raised my respect for the man immensely.

In August, Mackey wrote a thoughtful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," that I rate as the most intelligent and cogent proposal yet offered on reforming health-care in America. Mackey's plan focused on meaningful reforms to cut costs, which would enable coverage to be extended to the uninsured without added to the exploding national debt or expanding government bureaucracy.

The reaction from the left was swift and stunning. Progressives felt betrayed by a company that serves a customer base that undoubtedly leans toward the progressive (i.e, liberal) side of the political spectrum. How could Mackey speak out against health care reform as they have defined it?

As ABC News put it: "Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible."

The Whole Foods Boycott was launched on Facebook within days with this rationale: "Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives. Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities."

Pretty strong stuff. What ever happened to freedom of speech and the idea that truth emerges from the vigorous debate of opposing points of view in the marketplace of ideas?

From a brand-management stand-point, Mackey's high-profile opinions seem ill-advised. When a brand is closely connected to a lifestyle that tends to be synonymous with a certain world view, espousing an alternative world view can be expected to rile customers and damage the brand. It isn't likely that conservatives will adopt Whole Foods as their grocery of choice, adopting an organic lifestyle in sympathy for Mackey's views on health care -- although according to the Christian Science Monitor, some are doing just that: "Conservatives have rallied to Mackey’s side, and members of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition are being urged to flood the parking lots and aisles of their local Whole Foods store and stage a 'buycott.'" I don't expect this counter-reaction to have much staying power.

Wholeboycott.com claims it registered 23,000 supporters in the week after the boycott was announced, and that Whole Foods' brand favorablility had taken a 10-point hit.

Mackey surely knew that his op-ed wouldn't sit well with progressives. Apparently he chose to voice his convictions on a politicized issue because he genuinely wanted to advance the debate and despite the ramifications. As an individual thought-leader, his principled stand is admirable -- and wholly unexpected given his prior rahodeb wackiness. But as the most prominent member of management of a company catering to a liberal clientele, his outspokenness does not advance the value of the brand and his shareholder bosses may want to shorten his leash.

*   *   *

The White House is making no effort to lower sky-high expectations for President Obama's speech on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night. On the contrary, the speech is being billed as a critically important moment for Obama to take control of a debate (that has clearly gone off the tracks). It is classic Obama -- play to his undeniable strengths as an orator and use a highly visible speech to sort out a controversy. (Just as he responded to the ruckus over Reverend Wright last year during the campaign by delivering a forceful speech on race relations.) 

The format is almost perfect -- Obama is at his best delivering a momentous speech, addressing Congress showcases the President as the true leader of the nation, television captures it all, and there is no Q&A time for journalists or town hall attendees to ask difficult questions. Almost perfect, but not quite. Obama' won't be helped in his critical tak of winning over the hearts and minds of middle-of-the-road moderate America by the backdrop behind him: VP Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cheering him on. Biden is at best neutral but Pelosi is a powerfully negative personality to much of America, with one of the lowest approval ratings among national politicians.

- Jon Harmon 

Avoiding a choice between the lesser of two evils; communicating 'in the gray'

We like things simple. Black and white. But few issues that matter are so cut and dry.

Successful issue management often calls for the difficult task of communicating "in the gray."

In a corporate environment, we too often clam up in the midst of uncertain times. Lawyers caution against comment and risk-adverse leaders are all-too happy to take the advice to the extreme. A skillful leader will win trust and boost the confidence -- of employees, investors and other stakeholders -- by providing some measure of the challenges being faced and the relative prospects for success in the future. Avoiding hollow promises or insincere platitudes, the leader gives stakeholders a sense of just how serious the issue is and his/her relative confidence in a positive resolution, emphasizing what needs to be done immediately to move the ball forward. Constituents understand and forgive the lack of specifics if the leader has built up good will in the past with candid and accurate communication.

That's what it means to communicate "in the gray."

Media relations in such an environment can be even trickier. The mass media gravitate to simple "archetypes" or story lines. When a villain is readily apparent, media will naturally assume the competing person (or idea) is virtuous.

Life is often more complex than that. World events in the news show the difficulty of choosing between the ready-made alternatives:

• The recent election in Iran was almost certainly rigged. Peaceful protesters there call for international support against a repressive regime. But the Obama Administration has rightly been cautious in its response, even in its somewhat more vocal condemnations more than a week after the election, not wanting to provide credence to accusations of U.S. interference in Iranian affairs. Nuance is seldom cheered, and Obama continues to draw criticism for not taking a harder stance. Further complicating the issue is the unhappy choice between the two top candidates. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is clearly an enemy of peace and freedom, but the leading opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi is no true reformer -- despite the inclination for many in the Western media to brand him a "moderate." Obama has wisely steered away from showing any support for Moussavi.
  .
  
• Strangely, the Obama Administration has shown no such reluctance to choose sides in another messy conflict, decrying the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya from power in Honduras. But Zelaya's actions that led up to his ouster -- moving to alter the country's constitution to increase his power and to strangle any opposition -- disqualify him for membership in the archetype of duly-elected Democratic leaders overthrown by a revolutionary coup d'etat. In fact, the Honduras Supreme Court had ordered the military to remove Zelaya for his unlawful actions. 

Corporate life can be messy, too. Constituents who find one course of action particularly unappealing will seek a quick and simple alternative. When there is no easy solution, no clear-cut winning move, don't fall into the trap of endorsing the lesser of two evils. Treat your constituents as adults. Talk about the unpleasant situation without promising an easy fix. Often that means the company itself must act as a game-changer to rise above the flawed choices that appear to be the only alternatives.

- Jon Harmon

Budget-conscious way to increase media exposure: Get quoted and Help A Reporter Out

Looking to get your company in the news more often? 

No, not for causing the next salmonella outbreak. You want to help your company get some positive recognition. Thought leadership on topical issues helps distinguish executives and companies with key publics.

But you don't have the budget for a PR agency to pitch for you.

Start small and increasingly aim higher. You begin by having an interesting or provocative point of view on an issue that people care about. (Have something to say.) This is different from shilling a new product offering. 

Once you have something to say, work hard at saying it in a way anyone can understand it. Write an op-ed for your local paper or your industry rag. Offer an exec up for a segment on local talk radio. You will quickly cultivate a list of reporters and producers who have space and time to fill who will take your calls and be glad they did. And maybe you can go national.

Ok, this does involve a fair amount of work and time. But perhaps worth it if you want to stand apart from your competition.

Meanwhile, here's a simple and free way to play in stories about your industry, assuming you are acccesible, nimble and can write clearly. It comes courtesy of technology blog Force of Good (not affiliated with Force for Good other than we share high ideals):

Sign up someone in your department (maybe you) with the free service Help a Reporter Out to receive frequent emails featuring a list of requests by journalists looking for a quick answer or quote that will help them advance or finish a story.

Make sure you respond quickly and only to requests in which your exec, company or product is a good fit for the journalist's inquiry. (Yes, you will be kicked off if you try to spin your way into a story you don't belong.)

You will be helping a reporter out while getting your company some free exposure. What's not to like about that?

- Jon Harmon

Three steps to get bad news out and move on

(Last night I took part in an executive roundtable discussion at the Publicity Club of Chicago. The brief case study I shared provides a good lesson learned that I believe is quite apt for these difficult economic times, and so I'll hit the main points here.)

Following two and a half years of being delinquent in its financials, which didn't win too many points with the SEC and led to a delisting by the NYSE, Navistar scheduled a meeting with more than 200 analysts and media in New York in October 2007. We would disclose a massive restatement of prior financials and take the first steps toward becoming a current filer,

In the wake of Sarbanes Oxley and numerous changes to accounting standards, Navistar was by no means alone in having to restate prior financials. But we had gone an unusually long period without reporting after discovering mistakes that had caused the company to scrap its year-end 2005 analyst meeting. And we were more than a little concerned about the reaction we would get to a restatement that, including tax changes, amounted to a negative $2.1 billion against prior earnings. But we were confident in the company's overall health and in our business strategy for the future.

So we followed a three-part communication strategy:

1. Fully disclose the problem. Our news release, and the analyst meeting itself, began with a clear and forthright explanation of the restatement as well as an assessment of an under-resourced accounting function and numerous material weaknesses in the company's financial reporting processes.
2. Commit to fixing the problem. Our CFO detailed steps being put in place to remediate problems, beef up accounting resources and instill rrigorous financial reporting discipline throughout the company. We would steadily work to catch up in our financial filings until we were current, and we would resolve to stay current and accurate.
3. Stress the soundness of the business and its strategy to capitalize on opportunities ahead. More than half of the release and the presentation focused on future opportunities for profitable growth and how we had exactly the right strategies in place to make the most of those opportunities. We demonstrated that the company's management had not allowed the epic restatement work to distract it from the task of running the business. The company was on track to meet or surpass its growth and profit objectives, and bullish on its future.

By thoroughly and clearly communicating the first two steps, we were able to largely remove them from further discussion. The majority of analysts' questions were on our current and future business, not on our past accounting sins.

The meeting started about an hour before the market opened. When the OTC opened (Navistar was still banished to the "pink sheets" but has since returned to the NYSE), our stock was down just a fraction and we knew we were going to weather the storm. The media was fair to us as well, with much of its focus on the product announcement we made sure to include in our news release.

This formula works well for companies needing to share bad news that doesn't truly change an underlying strong story. An it applies as well for communicating to employees and other stakeholders in this brutal economy: get the bad news out, commit to discipline throughout the business but then spend the majority of time talking about the reasons you know you have the right strategy and your bullish on your long-term prospects.

As I've said in recent posts, confident hopefulness is motivating. Especially when everyone else seems to be incapable of doing anything except wringing their hands.

- Jon Harmon 

How to undo an unwelcome 'brand'; Illinois as 'most corrupt state'

On Chicago's WLS talk radio this morning, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) urged Illinois' new junior Senator, Roland Burris, to resign following Burris' admissions that he had tried to raise money for disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich, which followed his admission Sunday that he had been asked by the former Governor's brother to raise money but he had refused, which followed his testimony under oath to the Senate Ethics committee early this year that he had not had any contact with G-Rod or his representatives in connection with the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

It now appears that Burris (above)  tried to raise money for the disgraced Governor at the same time he was making it known that he wanted to be appointed to the vacant Senate seat. The fact that he failed to find any willing donors isn't much of a response to those questioning his ethics; it just means that he may be a dishonest politician who is also an inept fundraiser. 

Burris' ever-worsening admissions "just reinforce Illinois' brand as the most corrupt state in the country," Kirk said. "We need to restore Illinois' reputation."

Who can disagree? It seems that we have reached and passed the tipping point in public opinion. "Chicago-style politics" used to be an almost endearing term for the sharp elbows one needed as a politician in the"City of Broad Shoulders." Now politics in Illinoisis has sunk to the level of being a too-long-running national joke." Such as this bit:

"Rod Blagojevich was in the middle of his second term as governor of the state of Illinois. They impeached him and tossed him out as governor, and he is banned from participating in Illinois politics for the rest of his life. Fortunately you can participate in Illinois politics long after you're dead." – David Letterman.

The resignation of Burris, followed by a special general election to fill the Senate seat would be good first steps toward restoring the state's reputation. (But even that won't come easy. Democrats will want new Governor Pat Quinn to appoint someone to fill the vacancy, not wanting to risk losing the Senate seat to a Republican challenger.)

But then the long process of real reform must begin. Rules need to change; more importantly, behavior needs to change. Bring the back-room deals out in the open to see if they pass the sniff test. Contracts and agreements shouldn't stink of rotten behavior. Consistent transparency will help the state, over a long period of time, lose its unwanted brand in favor of all the positive things the state should rightly be known for.

- Jon Harmon  

Dead-locked Democrats Will Find Common Ground in Corporation Bashing

The U.S. Presidential marathon has entered a new phase. With McCain having wrapped up the Republican nomination, almost no one will pay a lick of attention to the G.O.P. until its convention in September. The focus is solely on the tawdry Democrat dust-up between Senators Obama and Clinton (wooing super delegates to flip-flop; the possibility of “do-over elections in Florida and Michigan” – where else can you change the rules midstream?, etc.).

.

The pundits repeatedly tell us that this is a calamity in progress for the Democrat Party.  But is it really a bad thing to have a virtual monopoly of public and media attention for several months in an election year? (You have to believe that every George – from Stephanopoulos to Soros, and maybe even Bush – knows the real score here.)

.

What this really means is that we have entered into a new high season of corporation-bashing. The corporation is the most reliable of scapegoats, especially in difficult economic times, and this is one place the Democrat contenders will find common ground.

Too often “corporation” is short hand for monolithic, greedy and socially-irresponsible Big Business. As Jack and Suzy Welch write in Business Week:

.

“…no bogeyman is more convenient, election season after election season, year after year, than The Corporation. The mere word is so impersonal! It conjures up images of grim concrete fortresses and slick skyscrapers, giving pols free rein to make pronouncements like one we heard just the other night: ‘For the past seven years, we've had a President who has stood up for corporations. It's time we had a President who stands up for you!’”

.

Of course, these same corporations are the engine of commerce and the employers of most of the electorate. And most of these corporations – like, for example your company? – aren’t evil-spirited, faceless places but rather enterprises working diligently to play by the rules in search of a fair profit.

.

So is now the time for corporate communicators to stand up for capitalism in America? Only if you have the masochistic urge to run right into the buzz saw, say the Welches:

.

“Not unless they possess the strange and burning desire to get blamed, scorned, disparaged, and excoriated for the next nine months or more—specifically, until Nov. 4. Because as high-pitched and, yes, hypocritical as the ‘hate corporate’ rhetoric is right now, we'd wager that it will pretty much end on Election Day. Then the winners, no matter what their political party, will reembrace a reality that most of them already know perfectly well. Business isn't the enemy of people—it is people. And business doesn't destroy hope. It creates it.”

.

However easily the newly elected President might be able to flip that attitudinal switch away from corporate hate-think, the damage will have been done to the psyche of the American people. Big Business will remain a populist bogeyman, at least until the next upturn in the economy at large.

.

Corporate communicators should be mindful of this business-bashing headwind.

.

Take every advantage to differentiate YOUR company from the negative stereotype – emphasizing genuinely socially responsible actions, philanthropy, sincere interest in safe and reliable product performance, etc. Don’t forget to tell the stories of the people behind your business. The stereotype may be a cold, monolithic and “impersonal” (to use the Welches’ word), but your company isn’t! Emphasize the persons who make your company great.

.

-- Jon Harmon 

Force for good Communications

Seller Beware: The Stories of Your Company Are About More Than Pushing Product

(Disclosure: The publisher of the book referenced in this post sent me the book so I might review it here. I have not received or expect any further consideration.)

.

“One of my first assignments as a newly hired 22-year-old reporter for Ford Motor Company’s employee newspaper was to interview a senior vice president for a story about a new business venture. As I entered the svp’s office, he sized me up and soon made it clear through his demeanor and body language that he was insulted that someone so young and inexperienced had been assigned to interview him.

.

“So what did I do? I skipped over the customary introductory pleasantries and politely yet firmly asked him a very tough but pertinent question. In this way, I immediately established my credentials as an intelligent communications professional who had done his homework and was up to the challenge.

.

Then I gave him my rapt attention and followed up with another probing question. The svp’s manner quickly changed. We had a productive interview and, when it was over, he said he would be pleased to make his people available to further flesh out the story.”

.

I used this anecdote recently to make a point with one of my younger managers – that we p.r. people need to prove our value to the operations to win a seat at their table. We do that through serious preparation, business acumen and perceptive thinking.   

 

Telling this story helped me make the point. And story-telling can help communications of all sorts resonate with intended audiences. 

.

As the narrative of successful mass communications changes to include more story-telling and less a reliance on the shouting out of key messages, the sales and marketing arms of the corporation see a natural alliance with public relations. That point of convergence is in many ways a high-water mark for "integrated communications" but also a potential hazard in the continued evolution of aspirational public relations.

.

Screen-writer Richard Maxwell and media-trainer Robert Dickman tread rather clumsily on this delicate balance in THE ELEMENTS OF PERSUASION: Use STORYTELLING to PITCH BETTER, SELL FASTER & WIN MORE BUSINESS. That sub-title (as well as the hyper-capitalization) gives away the authors' inclination to view PR as merely an important sales tool.

.

Successful, aspirational public relations is indeed truly integrated into the objectives of a corporation's marketing and sales teams, cuing up large numbers of favorably dispositioned potential customers to the top of the  purchase funnel. But public relations is also integrated fully into the company's business strategy development and, of course, into the process of driving internal culture forward through employee engagement. Story-telling can and should be part of the full gamut of successful public relations.

.

“Stories are facts wrapped in emotion,” the authors say, explaining the power in stories as well as their universal appeal. “All humans are story-tellers.”

.

Fundamental to the success of the communications practice is to mine for stories that provide color and texture around the facts and numbers found in 10-Ks and sales reports, and then to tell them vividly in as few words as possible. The story of a company’s contributions to society, the stories that define its brands and products and the stories lived out of by the people who make up the company – all help define the essence of the company’s reputation.

.

Just remember it shouldn’t all be hard sell.

.

-  Jon Harmon

Beyond a Seat at the Table: Fully Engaged PR Team Makes Rest of Company Better

Regular readers of “Force for Good” may wonder why I have been updating this blog so infrequently over the last few months. I should begin by explaining that my career has taken a new and exciting turn as I have joined Navistar, a global transportation company with its core business in commercial trucking and diesel engines, as vice president – Communications. While I have been quite busy in this new role, I do intend to continue to stake a position of thought leadership in progressive public relations by authoring this blog. As in the early days of “Force for Good” when I still worked at Ford, the views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of my employer.

.

I’ve been remiss in following up an earlier post in which I discussed the role of public relations as counselor to the business. Here is the long ago-promised sequel.

.

Public relations professionals bring value not only through effective and purposeful internal and external communications, but by earning and keeping a “seat at the table” in bringing the voice of reputation to the business operations’ decision-making process. In this way, PR helps anticipate and avoid business decisions that don’t pass the “how would this look in tomorrow’s newspaper” test. To function well in this role, PR professionals need solid business acumen and understanding of the inner workings of the company and its industry.

.

But a fully engaged and professional public relations team can bring even greater value to its company beyond those three vital roles of PR (internal and external communication and “seat at the table”). Simply put, when PR is functioning at its highest level, it makes each of the other staff functions more effective.

.

Strategic alignment of message certainly helps corporate staffs such as Investor Relations and Governmental Affairs meet their objectives. Clearly there is value in working to ensure messages delivered through consumer media complement or amplify those delivered to Wall Street and Capital Hill. Media such as the New York Times and Washington Post clearly reach multiple sets of stakeholders; messages effectively delivered through those publications can advance the company’s objectives in multiple ways.

.

Internally focused staffs, such as Finance, Human Resources and IT can better achieve their objectives when PR’s internal communications efforts are thoughtful, strategic and targeted. Employment alignment and engagement, a more complete understanding of financial responsibilities from Sarbanes Oxley to staying within budgets, success stories captured and shared from one business unit to another, and the creation of a company culture of innovation and creativity are all hugely positive outcomes when PR partners smartly with other internal staffs.

.

Marketing, of course, also has much to gain through a strategic partnership with PR. Certainly, public relations can create cost-effective consumer awareness of a new product in the weeks or months leading up to the first waves of advertising that won’t hit until the product is about to reach the market place. Cuing up masses of potential customer at the top of the "Purchase Funnel" enables the company to reach its sales goals despite perennially tight marketing budgets. PR creates awareness and some initial favorable consideration; the Marketing and Sales staffs take it from there, down the funnel from active consideration to product evaluation, purchase and loyalty. (The same dynamic works for B-to-B companies as well.)

.

A less apparent but even more important benefit of the strategic partnership between PR and Marketing comes from enhancing the power of corporate reputation and the company’s brands. Marketing is rightly focused on each product’s customers in its own partnership with Sales, as well as on sharpening the power of the brands. PR should be working to find “proof points” in the products, the people and the processes to tell the stories that bring the brand alive and a winning association to the company’s name. Companies with vivid brands and favorable corporate reputation are nearly always successful by any measure of their business.

.

.A fully engaged and strategic public relations team, partnering with the rest of the company, can drive the actions inside the company and the favorable perceptions with all its stakeholders to define it as a winner. People want to work for, buy from and invest in winning companies. It’s not hard to see the value in that.

.

- Jon Harmon