Komen Crisis Caused by Bad-to-Worse Decisions

Well, another one bites the dust. Add one more name to the long list of organizations undone by poor decisions and even worse crisis management. In the space of one week the Susan G. Komen Foundation – famous for being the brand behind the ubiquitous pink campaign against Breast Cancer – has done serious, perhaps irreparable damage, to its reputation and brand. Check out this article in Fast Company for a good summary of the imbroglio.

The Komen leadership team did so many things wrong it’s difficult to know where to start. Let me try…

• Think before you act – First and foremost, if you are going to make a policy decision that will have a big impact on your operations, make sure there is a solid rationale behind the change. The argument used by Komen for the suspension of payments to Planned Parenthood – that changes were dictated by a new policy prohibiting organizations under investigation from funding – appeared disingenuous. Buried in the policy legalese – our desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation – is the reality that the “investigation” in question was seen by most as a partisan witch-hunt by one anti-abortion member of Congress. Observers were further led to believe the dramatic impact of this policy on Planned Parenthood was a mere coincidence.
• Don’t try to bury the story – The story of the policy change broke with an article by Associated Press, and quickly picked up steam on Twitter and Facebook before becoming a top story for traditional media outlets. The Komen team didn’t announce the policy broadly – presumably trying a stealth approach – preferring to inform it’s various affiliates directly. (By all accounts Planned Parenthood was not informed in advance of the change.) When the story broke Komen leaders were slow to react, and their initial responses were brief, formal and defensive. Some PR observers suggest the battle was lost in those initial 24-hours, when Planned Parenthood mobilized its fans and led a smart, vocal PR counter-offensive.
• Don’t ignore social media – The failure of the Komen team to acknowledge, and adequately respond to, the uproar on social networks is seen by many as the biggest failure in their crisis management strategy. The outrage was swift, viral and overwhelmingly negative. Many of my female “friends” on Facebook, some big supporters of Komen over the years, expressed their disappointment and disavowal. The Komen team did use Twitter for updates (largely repeating their canned messages) but anchored their response through more traditional “push” channels like written statements and YouTube videos. To make matters worse, they were accused of scrubbing the most negative responses from their branded Facebook pages and websites.
• Remember who you are – Somewhere along the way it appears the Komen team forgot they were a charity whose stated purpose was promoting the health of women – including poor women – and that they are a non-profit dependent on their supporters and fans for revenue. Their funding decision – at best an awkward decision based on dubious legal reasons – and their subsequent response seemed totally at odds with the feel-good, compassionate image of their brand. Whatever the merit of their decision, the impact of cutting off thousands of women from low-cost access to breast screening was anathema to their stated mission.
• Listen to others, not your own story – One lesson that Karen Brinker and team may still not have learned is that stubbornly repeating an argument that few believe is not courageous, it’s counter-productive. In fact, the Komen team continued their defensive, almost defiant stance even as several officials resigned in protest – surely not a good sign. Even after reversing it’s decision, Komen tweets and comments stubbornly continued to defend their original decision and argue politics was never a factor. The battle had been lost, but the lesson was not learned.
• Back what you say – The Komen team never provided solid evidence to counter the strong circumstantial evidence, supported by claims from former staffers, that the reason for their policy change was political. It didn’t help that previous statements and recent tweets by new policy VP Karen Handel made it clear she was an ardent critic of Planned Parenthood.
• Don’t treat people as idiots – Perhaps the most egregious error by the Komen team in this crisis is their attempt to position the response to the policy change as positive, even as any casual observer could see the overwhelmingly negative social media reaction and related media coverage. This blatant attempt at spin was as misguided and incredulous as it was ineffective.
• Build and protect your goodwill – Another potential factor in the quick fall from grace for the Komen organization was that its goodwill may have eroded over the past few years due to some very uncharitable behavior – including its hard-ball legal stance against any hint of copyright infringement. The brittle, arrogant demeanor of Komen founder – and main spokesperson – Karen Brinker probably didn’t help their cause.

Of course, Komen did have the wisdom to change their decision – albeit belatedly and without totally letting go of their delusional narrative. In fact, they continue to be defensive about the “incorrect presumption” behind their ill-advised policy, and pointedly did not promise to renew the cancelled grants to Planned Parenthood.

Use of Social Networks in Riots Sparks Discussions on Censorhip

The recent riots in the UK sparked a great deal of soul-searching – including about the use of social media. Many reports noted, with some alarm, that the rioters were using social networks and smart phones (notably RIM’s Messenger service) to plan and execute their dirty deeds. As a result, Prime Minister David Cameron is considering, among a range of remedial steps, to censor or block future communication on these same networks.

This reaction, though understandable, is rash and misguided. For one thing, it fails to consider that social media was also used by citizens to organize clean-up efforts and counter-demonstrations in support of order and civility. Video reports gathered by police and observers also greatly facilitated the identification of the rioters and spurred thousands of arrests. But most importantly, this focus on technology is a losing game, since those with initiative and evil intent (rioters, hackers and the like) will quickly find another channel or tool to plan their activities.

This scenario of social media as both spark and balm during civil unrest is being repeated on a regular basis. A few months ago the city of Vancouver was shocked and disgusted by urban violence and looting during the Stanley Cup finals – some of which was coordinated and fueled by social media. But again citizens of Vancouver used the same technology to plan a massive clean-up effort and to open a widespread public dialogue on the identity and values of the community. In a different context, we’ve seen how social media helped those involved in the so-called Spring Uprising in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. More recently, transit officials in San Francisco arbitrarily cut-off underground cellphone service for several hours to – in their words – prevent a disruptive protest by citizens upset by a recent shooting.

It’s clear that social media technology provides unprecedented benefits – allowing for instant, fluid communication with global reach. And it’s equally clear that this same technology can be used for evil purposes – whether it be pedophiles trolling on Facebook or anarchists using networking platforms to engage and direct supporters. The way to address these abuses is not to ban or censor the channels, but to develop relevant rules of engagement – and laws – that are designed specifically to prevent such abuses. If an individual breaks the rules or uses the networks for criminal activities, then he/she should be punished and/or banned. The response should be targeted and specific, and based on activity rather than speculation. The alternative is blunt, arbitrary shutdowns that punish many for the abuses of the few. As suggested by Jeff Jarvis in this commentary, any social media ban – even if targeted against convicted rioters – sets a dangerous precedent and raises questions about who decides what to censor. This is a valid and important debate, but it requires a balanced, measured approach that acknowledges the positive impact of social media – even in the worst situations of rioting or war.

Facebook Whisper Campaign Another Black Eye for PR Industry

I’ve long ago stopped telling people I work in the PR industry. One reason is it can be a tough thing to explain PR to people outside the communication field – particularly if the discussion starts with a sarcastic question about being a “publicist” – but my primary rationale is I don’t want to be associated with an industry that often requires its own image overhaul (irony duly noted.) The latest black eye comes from Burson Marsteller – who was caught in a so-called whisper campaign trying to pitch privacy fears about Google. According to news reports, senior Burson staff approached tech reporters and bloggers to seed unfounded allegations about privacy gaps in Google’s Social Service application. A blogger broke the story by posting the email exchanges.

After predictable (though belated) mea culpa, both Facebook and Burson came under heavy criticism – though the latter was a favorite target on social platforms for initially censoring its Facebook page. Strangely enough, both Facebook and Burson argued in their defence they were merely helping to publicize “publicly available” information – which raises the question why they would have to brief reporters in the first place. Burson eventually admitted it erred in taking on the project, and said the campaign went against its standard operating procedures. Apparently, the agency has decided not to fire the two consultants at the center of the storm, though they will go through training on ethics.

The bigger culprit here, in my mind, is Burson…and any other PR firm that takes on a project with a dubious purpose that contravenes basic rules of transparency and probity. Too often, agencies take on lucrative clients for projects that should send alarms to any self-respecting communication professional. If there is a litmus test, it’s not easily apparent. Every PR agency – and communication professional – needs to confirm the ethical guidelines and values that will determine what projects it takes on, and how the PR programs are implemented. There are companies I won’t take on as clients, and there are definitely some things I won’t do or say under the guise of public relations.

Whether this latest Burson smear campaign was done by rogues or hints at a larger systemic rot, I can’t say. But it only the latest in a long list of industry scandals that erodes the credibility of every communication professional. It may be a coincidence, but the IABC’s latest edition of Communication World focuses on the topic of ethics in the PR industry. Is anybody listening?

Kenneth Cole Twitter Scandal – The New Crisis Cycle at Web Speed

Just read a really interesting article in AdAge that provides a post-mortem autopsy on the Kenneth Cole Twitter scandal…and subsequent redemption. There are two provocative arguments in the article:

• Social media has dramatically accelerated the usual steps and cycle of scandals, including quick resolution and forgiveness for those who take appropriate action;
• The new scandal pattern features a secondary wave or parodies of the original blunder…which sometimes generates more attention that the original event.

Based on some recent miscues propagated on/by Twitter, it would appear that companies can go from goat to reformed sinner much faster than before the advent of social media. And the deluge of content on networks like Twitter and Facebook inevitably helps push old news out of the spotlight. That said, I would argue that the outcome of the crisis – and ultimate impact on the brands involved – depends on the magnitude of the original error, as well as how promptly and cogently the company reacts. Kenneth Cole quickly apologizing for his ill-advised use of #Cairo in his original tweet cannot be compared to the massive BP oil spill crisis, or even the recent Taco Bell “where’s the beef” situation. For one thing, those events quickly spread across social several social networks and traditional media channels and an easy, quick resolution is not likely to occur. (BP, for example, is likely to face years of legal repercussions.) These other crises also raise more fundamental, serious questions about the companies involved. Kenneth Cole may have been insensitive, but he wasn’t accused of endemic incompetence, harm to consumers or corporate corruption.

Despite these caveats, communication professionals should be aware that old models and time-honored principles of crisis management – do you remember the “5 R’s”…responsibility, regret, restitution, resolution and reform – are being influenced by the technology and mores of social media. In nothing else, it appears that some crises will be played out at lightning Web speed. Whether that makes it easier or harder to manage is open to debate, but it’s fascinating to watch.

Taco Bell Using Aggressive Crisis Response

Another week, another interesting corporate response to a crisis. This past week we have Taco Bell defending its honor against a lawsuit accusing it of misleading customers on claims of beef content in various taco products.

The official Taco Bell response – centralized on a page within their corporate website – typifies a “good offense is the best defense” approach. The company quickly raised the profile of the issue with sarcastic, defiant full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers. The response also features a video from the CEO Greg Creed (and taped interviews of the CEO with major networks), various fact sheets and a stern statement warning they will vigorously defend their integrity against the “bogus” lawsuit. The company also wisely leveraged its various social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook – which showcased messages of support from hundreds of fans, and even a spoof on the lawsuit response. To their credit, Taco Bell management didn’t seem to filter the comments on either platform to skew a positive response.

Not surprisingly, there is a range of opinions from PR pundits on whether Taco Bell is using the right approach. Check out these comments in a USA Today article. One writer on the Huffington Post argues Taco Bell may have permanently hurt its reputation by bluntly admitting its beef is bland and needs to be augmented with flavor and fillers.

From my perspective, the company did many things right:

• They jumped right on the issue clearly stating their case to ensure consumers heard their side of the story;
• The CEO has been very visible and is definitely – for better or for worse – the public face of the company;
• The company leveraged various communication channels – ranging from traditional media to social media properties – and formats to get its message out;
• Taco Bell has shown some creativity and bluster despite tackling a serious topic, which is consistent with their young, hip advertising image (think barking Chihuahuas);
• Messaging from Taco Bell has been consistent and concise, if somewhat shrill.

The problem with Taco Bell’s strident response is that it leaves no room for error – after loudly proclaiming its “beef” is 88% meat (and not 35% as argued in the lawsuit) the company has little leeway for compromise or back-tracking if the facts are proven otherwise.

It’s too early to tell if their aggressive response is working in the PR arena (and the lawsuit will likely take time to be resolved) but judging by the hundreds of comments I’ve seen Taco Bell has plenty of dedicated fans who don’t believe – or don’t care – that their beef may not be 100% beef. Taco Bell may be gambling that many consumers aren’t expecting high quality beef for tacos that cost a dollar or two. Ironically, maybe Taco Bell is still suffering from previous PR fiascos (like widely publicized videos of rats running around one restaurant), so expectations may be so low their brand will rebound from this latest attack. Let’s check in a few months time to see if there is any obvious impact on their sales or brand equity. In the meantime, keep reading those Twitter and Facebook comments.

Listening in Social Media is a Contact Sport

I am reminded on a regular basis of the gap between organizations leading the adoption of social media – who are embracing and shaping new trends and applications – and others who still seem hesitant to devote any resources or intellectual capital to the discipline. The latest example comes through the concept of listening. While some organizations are (inexplicably) barely paying attention to online dialogue, others are working hard to improve their listening ability and using the information to shape their customer outreach, products and even their business operations. They are listening with a purpose – to use the insights and information they gather to truly engage with their customers, critics and fans online.

A recent blog post by Brian Solis details the progress of companies like Dell and Gatorade, who have expanded the concept of a community manager – the model for many companies engaged in social media – to that of a social media command center. This command center model not only provides a more robust, integrated structure to monitor, analyze and moderate online dialogue – which can be a challenge for organizations with a global profile and thousands of daily mentions – but also helps the team to internalize and respond to the various inputs.

There are numerous benefits to this enlightened approach. Solis writes about the Gatorade team, which is able to adjust online marketing campaigns in real-time based on analytics and user comments. Dell’s command center, meanwhile, provides a centralized platform to coordinate the outreach of its online ambassadors, expert authors and customer service activities. Issues and potential emerging PR problems are quickly identified and assessed. Various social media platforms and programs are integrated and managed without attention to traditional silos and functions. In other words… you listen, you learn, you react and you adapt.

As Solis describes it, Dell has become the model of a truly social and adaptive organization. And it’s important to note this goes beyond a defensive posture to respond and react to individual customer issues; the ultimate benefit from engagement with online communities is being able to harness their opinions, ideas and wisdom on topics well beyond sundry product or service complaints. Perhaps the biggest lesson from the actions or Dell and Gatorade is that existing organization models and concepts are no longer effective in this age of social media – which transcends traditional disciplines like marketing, IT, research and public relations. Even appointing a few individuals as community managers is a stop-gap measure. It will be interesting to see how other companies manage their social media activities in the coming months. My guess is the gap between leaders and laggards will only get wider.

Social Media Requires Leap of Faith

The folks at AdAge posted an article recently on what they (and others) have described as the biggest social media campaign of the year: Coca-Cola’s global Expedition 206 project, where three “happiness ambassadors” travelled the world to document people’s search for happiness. Based on many measures, this campaign was a huge success, with over 650 million media impressions and huge global audiences across the campaign platforms – notably in relatively immature Coke markets like China. (It likely didn’t hurt that Coke’s social media properties are already among the most popular in the world.)

It’s interesting to note that some observers – including a few commenting on this article – aren’t sold on the success of the campaign. A few critics questioned whether the program had actually translated into a spike in sales, arguing increased awareness or positive buzz was a soft, meaningless measure of ROI. Others claimed they had never heard of the campaign, suggesting the ratings might be hype.

But beyond the debate about evaluating success – which is a big enough topic for another post altogether – I see a few important lessons for all communication/marketing professionals in this campaign:

• Social media is about people and local markets – The Coke folks developed the campaign blueprint at HQ and leveraged a core team to coordinate the massive undertaking, but used a decentralized approach where local teams (and the personable ambassadors) had flexibility to implement and customize the outreach. It’s also worth noting the prevalence of informal video in this program – a popular and compelling format that is too often ignored in many corporate programs;
• Be open to learning and adapting along the way – The Coke team freely admits they were flying blind on many aspects of this program, and leveraged the insights and feedback along the way to adjust the plan;
• Dont’ wait for things to be perfect – It might surprise some that even a social media leader like Coke launched this campaign knowing their teams would have to stretch to implement the campaign (for example, requiring a higher level of coordination across marcom groups and forcing many local teams to become more familiar with social media). Sometimes a campaign is the impetus for organizations to raise their game and overhaul technology and/or process…and that’s not a bad thing;
• Face-to-face still matters – Coke used a wide range of virtual activities in this campaign, but complemented the robust online tactics with critical local meetings and testimony by the ambassadors, which in turn generated much of the digital content. The heart of this campaign – as it were – was the personal friendships and outreach of the 3 ambassadors on the ground;
• Engage partners in relevant communities – The ambassadors reached out to local bloggers, fans and reporters to support their local outreach and extend local word-of-mouth;
• Be creative - This campaign went well beyond the typical, relatively safe Facebook and Twitter outposts favored by more timid organizations. The result was a campaign that was bold in scope and also much more interesting and lasting in terms of content and coverage.

These lessons were similar to what I experienced at Dell as part of the core team that developed and launched the social media programs several years ago. There were many things we didn’t know when we started, but we never would have learned – or made any progress – if we had waited for the perfect situation. Our focus was on getting the basics right – our strategy, objectives and key principles – but positioned our efforts as a constant beta test…constantly assessing, innovating and improving. Like with Coke, our efforts forced the issue on many fronts (for example the introduction of new technology and upgrades in infrastructure.)

The frenetic, unpredictable pace of evolution in social media doesn’t allow for ponderous, diffident planning more common even a few years ago. Yes, planning and strategic rigor still matter, but they shouldn’t get in the way of great ideas.

Success of Political Hype Bad News for PR

I read a headline in my local newspaper today about the list of 2010′s top lies according to the website Politifact.com – a national fact-checking website. The winner was the oft-repeated claim that President Obama’s health care overhaul was a “government takeover”. According to the Politifact researchers, this loaded phrase has no basis in fact and is, at best, a gross exaggeration. According to the reports, the messaging was developed by a political consultant and designed to foster opposition to the legislation.

Sadly, the loaded, misleading phrase apparently played an important role in shaping public opinion – and fostering widespread misunderstanding – about the health care plan. Republican leaders and pundits repeated the phrasing with almost obsessive regularity – following the old adage that if you say something often enough, people will eventually believe it. A number of public opinion polls suggest the attacks got traction with the public, and most observers believe the losses by Democrats in the November elections can be attributed primarily to negative views on the healthcare reforms. (FYI: Factcheck.org has also repeatedly debunked the government takeover claim.)

No matter their political convictions or opinions on healthcare reform, communication professionals should be disappointed by the apparent success of this dubious messaging. Yes, it was effective – at least in the short-term – as a provocative and simplistic sound-bite. And it certainly helped shape public opinion against the healthcare reforms – at least so far. But it also reinforced all the negative stereotypes of public relations as spin, fluff and disingenuous hype. I’ll allow that politics is a more polarized environment where truth is often vulnerable to simplistic political slogans, but the dramatic impact of the healthcare attacks is still cause for concern. Has truth actually become irrelevant in public discourse?

As communication professionals, we’re often required to help our clients or companies to influence public debate and garner positive media coverage – and ultimately help drive a strategic agenda. And we certainly do our best to present information through messaging that is resonant and palatable with the target audience. We even advocate the message repetition I mentioned in the previous paragraph. But that doesn’t mean we should lose sight of the fundamental principles of public relations – such as commitment to transparency, honesty and respect for your audience. That’s what drives long-term credibility and trust, and helps build positive brand or personal reputation. We see clues of the Pyrrhic healthcare victory in the political arena; though public opinion is firmly against the healthcare overhaul, Americans have very low levels of trust in their elected officials – including those who so harshly criticized the healthcare reforms. So the messengers pushing the government overhaul canard seem to have a credibility problem of their own.

Ultimately, as professionals we need to ask ourselves what we would do to win an election, promote a stock or help sell a product. I suggest that sticking close to the facts is a good place to start. With no ethical compass, we deserve all the criticism the industry gets.

Rolls-Royce Tries Quiet Crisis Response

There is strong consensus across the PR industry for an approach to crisis management that emphasizes proactive outreach, transparency, visible resolution and executive presence. But not all companies subscribe to that strategy. Witness the recent crisis involving Rolls-Royce – whose fiery engine failure on a Qantas jumbo jet forced the airplane to make an emergency landing.

In the face of intensive global media coverage – and speculation on the cause of the engine failure – Rolls limited its initial response to two terse written statements (buried in its website) which essentially said it was looking into the problem. The tone and content of the statements is very much “stiff upper lip”: factual, low-key and devoid of any emotion or empathy. Written by and for engineers. Almost as a after-thought – literally the last sentence of the statement – the Rolls memos assure readers that safety remains the company’s highest priority.

The muted response from Rolls is in stark contrast to both Qantas and Airbus – who built the A380 jet involved in the emergency. As reported by the Wall Street Journal in this article, the Qantas CEO followed the standard airline playbook by being front-and-center in several news conferences and discussing progress in the investigation. Airbus, for its part, put the ball squarely back in Rolls’ court and said it was delaying further A380 deliveries until the engine problem was fully addressed. At the same time, Airbus continues to promote its products and track record through a considerable marketing effort.

Some experts quoted in the media suggest the key to a positive resolution for Rolls is finding an explanation and quick solution to the engine problem, rather than a vigorous public outreach. Rolls’ brand reputation, they posit, is based more on quality and customer service than on any public profile. Other observers say Rolls prefers a robust behind-the-scenes approach that focuses on identifying and fixing problems (and working with partners) rather than providing a stream of public commentary. In other words, the quality of the products and customer service will ultimately protect the brand equity. As one pundit puts it: they have been here before and their approach is “this will pass.” One interesting theory is that Rolls executives became even more gun-shy about public announcements in the wake of the universal criticism of BP executive Tony Heyward. Finally, it’s worth noting there is a fundamental difference between Rolls and Qantas, in that the former sells to companies while the airline interacts directly with customers. It’s a natural tendency for B2B companies to focus on direct communication with their corporate customers than through the public.

Has the Rolls approach worked? It may be too soon to tell, but on one short-term metric – share price – they have failed. Reports this week in several major news outlets – including this one – suggest uncertainty from the crisis has wiped out 10% of Rolls’ share price, or about $1.5 billion of the company’s value.

Though there is merit on focusing on thorough investigation and resolution during a crisis rather than self-serving media activities, Rolls fails to recognize that the debate on its brand and products is now occurring in the public arena. The company’s reluctance to engage in dialogue is creating a vacuum others are only too happy to fill. It is also naive to hide behind the cloak of engineering prowess and focus on direct outreach to corporate customers, since B2C companies like Qantas will certainly consider consumer opinion and brand reputation when selecting their equipment partners. Another lesson some companies have learned the hard way in recent years is that brand reputation is ephemeral – even one with a rich history like Rolls-Royce.

Ultimately, Rolls’ unwillingness to share information and engage in conversation suggests a sense of arrogance and stubbornness that is totally out of sync with prevailing trends on communication and consumer interaction. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out for the major players.

Communication Lessons from the U.S. Election Trenches

I hesitate to wade into the political waters in the wake of the U.S. election, but I keep on asking myself if there are valid lessons for communicators in this post-mortem. A cynical person might be tempted to conclude the following from the mid-term election:

• Negative advertising – despite being shrill, dubious and laughably formulaic – actually might work.
• Facts may ultimately be irrelevant in shaping opinion or discourse.
• Influence and credibility are not necessarily related to knowledge, intelligence or probity.
• Repeating statements – even outrageous, simplistic arguments – will ultimately result in public acceptance.
• Personal attacks are acceptable – even expected – under the guise of political discourse.
• National media have given way to self-important, biased blowhards disguising as reporters.

The context for my soul-searching is that much of the dialogue during the campaign seemed to be about emotion, hype, polarized opinion and vitriol than about policy, statistics or integrity. And there was no consensus on the most trustworthy, reliable sources of information – in fact, it was like a gigantic buffet with pundits and sources for every partisan flavor. Plenty of screaming, media noise and anger…but very little intelligent conversation. During the election, I was asked pointed questions by peers and clients – including whether “truth still mattered?” and “is experience now a negative?” Ultimately, what does this all mean – if anything – for communication professionals?

My answer is yes…truth and behavior do still matter and there are basic communication rules that are still relevant. I think part of the answer is that elections are a special occasion where – for better or for worse – normal rules of conduct and communication are suspended. Passion, hyperbole and hype trump civility, dialogue and facts. Still, there are a few notable lessons from this election:

- Communication means listening not just talking. Perhaps the most valuable lesson from this election is know your customer. By all accounts, the Democrats totally underestimated the angst and frustration among the electorate – including their own party – and stubbornly continued to push their agenda despite strong evidence it lacked resonance and popularity. It’s no surprise, therefore, that many appeared to tune out the White House and Democrat candidates during the election period.

-Long-term relevance and credibility is about relationships. Wild accusations and demagoguery by self-appointed pundits may shift opinion during a campaign, but they are not the basis for long-term credibility. Sources that have a track record of solid, objective reporting and commentary have a better chance of a sustained profile and relationship with listeners. This has nothing to do with formal credentials or experience, and everything to do with integrity and responsibility. Beyond the media, voters will also remember the conduct and promises of the candidates, and they will also likely favor those that acted with consistency and honesty over time.

-Tell your story. One of the primary criticisms of the Democrats during this election is that they failed to convincingly tell their story – whether it be explaining their agenda or detailing their achievements. It’s hard to argue with that assessment when a majority of Americans have incorrect notions on a wide number of government policies and issues (most notably that the TARP effort was a failure.) Facts do matter, but not if they are buried or delivered in the wrong format, context or channel. Opponents of the President were only too happy to fill this vacuum with their own story.

-Choose your media platforms carefully. One of the striking lessons from this campaign is that the media landscape is increasingly fragmented and diverse. Americans appear to increasingly seek out media sources that are aligned with their political leanings or cultural preferences, and that includes social networks that allow for communication within narrow interest groups. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it does create communication challenges for those seeking to reach across a broad segment of the population, rather than smaller communities or interest groups, or to gain the informal stamp of approval – the proverbial media hit – from a widely respected, influential outlet. It also raises serious questions about the accuracy of the information being shared, which ultimately harms the quality of the public discourse. On the positive side, this trend may drive organizations to find new, better ways to communicate directly with their constituents (or customers) rather than through third-parties.

- Advertising still works…or it may not. It’s hard to uncover any immediate clues from the impact of the $2 billion in campaign advertising during the election, but clearly some of the biggest ad campaigns (hello Meg Whitman) didn’t work as intended. Hard to say if that was the candidate, message or medium, but clearly just repeating something ad nauseam does not change people’s mind or make them do something they don’t want to. There’s also evidence that ads or calls that were relevant or targeted were better received that spam or robo-call campaigns.

-A bad story (or statement) can live forever. The ravenous 24-hour media cycle can spark and spread global coverage quickly – which is great when it’s a good story but terrible when it’s about a scandal, controversial statement or debate flub. Several volatile candidates likely suffered from their ill advised actions or claims. Even without the election glare and related “gotcha” mentality, leaders need to be keenly aware of the potential impact of their statements – whether written or spoken – and conduct. You can’t avoid honest mistakes, but preparation and crisis planning can help avert a bigger PR disaster.

-Stick to your values & principles. The election environment is full of temptations around communication – attack your opponent, stretch the truth, cherry-pick your interviews, drill your message, make grand promises – but I still believe (naively perhaps) that corporate and political leaders should be guided as much by their values as their communication playbook. There’s nothing wrong with a communication strategy, of course, but building it on a framework without credibility is a mistake. What may seem like an expedient solution – whether during an election or corporate crisis – may permanently tarnish a reputation or brand, and ultimately is a disservice to loyal customers (or voters.)