As I was preparing an executive communications training for a client, which includes exercises on effective sound-bites, I heard the latest "what was he thinking?" statement from Republican front-runner Mitt Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

This has been parsed in every news channel this week and used by competing candidates to bash Romney even while the candidate attempted to clarify that it was taken out of context. His full comment is below:

"By the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation."

Yes, it was out of context, but if you've ever had media training that included sound-bite training, you know that you have to be careful that no piece of your answer becomes that "gotcha" statement that can be used to distort your message. This is why speaking in paragraphs can be really dangerous, as any piece of it -- and sometimes it’s the pithy, albeit negative, pieces -- can be pulled out and completely change the meaning of your intended message.

This is a lesson Mr. Romney needs to learn, and fast, as he's fallen into this trap a number of times on the campaign trail and it has fed the perception that he is out of touch with the average American. For example, his attempt to say he was going to support the average American by being tough on service providers like banks, and firing them if necessary, left only this part of his complete thought hanging in the airwaves:

“I like being able to fire people.”

This fragment, taken out of context, was used to brand him as a heartless capitalist who is out of touch.

The ridiculous attention these statements have garnered worries me that this election could come down to the battle of the bad sound-bites. President Obama is no sound-bite king either and he's had more than his share of gaffes. Here's his top ten list, courtesy of Kevin Whalen of PunditReview. I wrote about Obama's lack of clear sound-bites when he was the Democratic candidate and delivered a 45-minute speech to deflect criticism about his association with Reverend Wright, who was under attack for making inflammatory comments. Obama is another politician who speaks in paragraphs rather than summing it up. 

And speaking of bad sound-bites and gaffes, I thought it was a hilarious turn of events when Vice President Joe Biden decided to summarize the President's first term in a 40-minute speech and managed to come up with a very good sound-bite:

“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.”

ABC blogged about the speech and went on to say:

"The Obama campaign has made the killing of bin Laden a signature foreign policy and national security talking point and has increasingly sought to promote the resurgence of the American auto industry in the wake of an Obama-backed, government-funded bailout as a heroic move. Today marked the first time a campaign figure boiled down those two points to a “shorthand” phrase."

Whether or not you agree with the statement, Biden’s sound-bite stays with you and it works. And it can't be shortened to anything that will hurt The President in the upcoming election. Of course, one can't say the same about the risk of having his VP, notorious for foot-in-mouth statements, continuing to summarize his accomplishments and long speeches for him. That is definitely frought with disaster.

I do worry about what I'm calling a "battle of the bad sound-bites" in this election. It's why I recommend that all spokespeople -- including candidates -- be concise and clear in their communication to avoid "gotcha" sound-bites that can be taken out of context and used against them. But I also appreciated the sentiment in a column by former Democratic Congressman from Washington, Brian Baird, who warns against either side trying to reduce complex matters like foreign policy to pithy comments intended to drive applause and campaign contributions.

"As a general rule, we should be suspect of any candidate statement on foreign policy that generates raucous ovations or an inpouring of interest group contributions during campaigns. (…) Nuance, complexity and long-term strategy are not easily distilled or communicated, and some of the most significant foreign policy actions must, of necessity, be conducted out of the glare of the media or publicity."

What I'm hoping for as the election year rolls on is less rhetoric and more clear communication. I'd prefer it to be in the form of shorter, clearer sound-bites that help the busy electorate net out where the candidates stand on key issues. But I'm sure Jon Stewart and others are hopeful that the battle of the bad sound-bites will continue to pepper the airwaves and blogosphere, for entertainment value.

What do you all think? 



One of the most interesting moments in the painful September saga of the Boston Red Sox's collapse was owner John Henry's surprise visit to the 98.5 The Sports Hub radio sports show.  Without entourage, he just showed up and accepted an interview, in effect indicating he was tired of hearing all of the criticisms their on-air hosts were hurling his way regarding his role, and wanting to give his side of the story.  It wasn't a great interview, but it was oddly fascinating, and I remember at the time having grudging respect for the Red Sox owner for making this bold move and breaking (pun intended) radio silence on the sinking Sox.

So where is that John Henry with regard to the mess that has been swirling about his relatively new investment in what he hopes to be the next big global brand, post Red Sox, the Liverpool FC club?  Living with a family of international football fanatics, I have been hearing about the situation in Liverpool for weeks.  The incident itself involved a heated exchange in the goal mouth during a match that involved Liverpool striker, Uruguayan Luis Suarez and Manchester United defender, Senegalese Patrice Evra.  Evra left the game very upset, telling his management that Suarez had insulted him with a series of racial slurs during the game.  An ensuing and thorough FA investigation resulted in Suarez being found guilty and being charged with an 8-game suspension.

The Liverpool FC and their fans were outraged by the FA decision and continued to support Suarez, led by their manager Kenny Dalglish, who even donned a tee shirt supporting Suarez at a game after the decision came down. Here was his own tweet the day of the decision:

20 Dec via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Owners John Henry and Tom Werner have been silent on the entire situation, including the Liverpool Club's decision to back Suarez and not to push for an apology from Suarez which could have mitigated this entire crisis. Now the two clubs square off again on Saturday January 28 in an FA Club match at home for Liverpool.  Evra is expected to play and is bracing for potentially more slurs from the fans and, possibly, the opposing team members.  Suarez will not be playing, due to his suspension.  And in the midst of his silence, John Henry and his band of sports investors, are rumored to be considering bringing a Liverpool vs. AC Roma match to Fenway Park.

The decision-making from a communications and crisis standpoint just boggles the mind, doesn't it?  First of all, does Henry condone racial slurs of other players?  His silence may portend just that.  Shouldn't he be pushing for something to tamp down the fury rather than covering his ears and eyes and wishing it will go away?  How about insisting that his manager and team members not fan the flames with tee shirts?  How about insisting that this grown man, Suarez, apologize?  The lengthy explanations that in his native language the statements Suarez made were not intended to be racial slurs is what I would call protesting too much.  And the potential for more embarrassment tomorrow is something Henry should be getting ahead of so it's clear this is not something he condones or expects from his players.

How do you think Bob Kraft, owner of The New England Patriots and the New England Revolution would be responding to this crisis?  Do you think he'd be silent?  I don't.

So although I've often recommended that depriving a story of oxygen by not having spokespeople get into he said/she said/they said exchanges on air or online, I think the current avoidance technique (not sure what else to call it) that Henry is exhibiting, isn't working in his favor.  Witness the MirrorFootball column that calls it out as an indication that he's not really serious about Liverpool or international football.  And anyone who lives with a football fan, as I do, knows this is a passionate crowd that you don't take lightly.  There's management of a situation like this -- which could be controlled with at the very least a statement -- and then there is the passive letting it play out approach that is being adopted at present, it seems, by Henry and cohorts.

I'd rethink your communications strategy, Mr. Henry, and I'd do it fast.  Kickoff is tomorrow morning at 7:45 a.m. (U.S. e.s.t.).  Get busy.

Major kudos are in order to U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown and his Democratic rival in the upcoming election, Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren.  They recently made an agreement that Brown has dubbed a "People's Pledge" to work to limit attack ads by outside groups during their Massachusetts Senate race.  As reported by the AP, "Under the terms of the deal, each campaign would agree to donate half the cost of any third-party ad to charity if that ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name."  The big question now, raised in a NY Times blog post, is how to enforce this pledge:

The agreement requires each side to donate to a charity of the other’s choosing whenever a third-party ad is aired supporting them or attacking their opponent. Both parties will also sign letters to outside groups and to television station managers, calling on them to stop running ads in the race.

But Brett Kappel, an election lawyer at the firm Arent Fox, said there was “zero” chance that all such groups would comply, no matter how much pressure Mr. Brown and Ms. Warren exert.

“There just isn’t much they can do legally to put a stop to it,” Mr. Kappel said in an e-mail, adding that “people who want to affect the outcome of this race will do what they want, regardless of what the candidates would prefer.”

Mr. Kappel also predicted that television stations, which reap the financial benefits of outside advertising, would not go along with the plan. “Even if they didn’t have an economic incentive,” he said, “they wouldn’t want to be accused of being a censor for one or both campaigns.”

Watching the mud-hurling between Republican candidates during primary season, I personally am thrilled to see our current Senator and his rival make an attempt at civility here in Massachusetts.  A Washington Post blog commended the two politicians for making this attempt.  I completely agree.

I only hope it can be executed successfully and will become a trend during the rest of this election year.  Following their lead, I'm going to stay positive.  What do you all think?

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.” ~ Warren Buffett
 
In a city consumed by sports excellence over the past decade we have become accustomed to fending off criticisms and low blows from fans and media in other markets.  Yet we were ill-prepared yesterday when one of our hometown sports heroes, Bruins net minder Tim Thomas, delivered a cheap shot of his own.
 
By now you may have heard that Thomas declined to attend the ceremony at the White House hosted by President Obama to recognize the Bruins Stanley Cup Championship. In response to media inquires as to why he declined to attend, Thomas offered up this statement via his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL. This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

It may be the only public statement he plans on making, but that will not keep the media from asking. Within 24 hours of the Patriots punching their ticket to another Super Bowl and the Bruins being honored by the President of the United States, all anyone was talking about was Thomas and his refusal to attend.
 
Headlines this morning from our two major newspapers in town read:
 
On a day for team, Thomas left them shorthanded ~ Kevin Paul DuPont, Boston Globe
Tim Thomas Told: ‘Stick to Hockey’ ~ Dave Wedge and Stephen Harris, Boston Herald

What I find particularly surprising is that Thomas, more than anyone perhaps in professional sports, should understand the value of a reputation built and earned.  Here is a guy who toiled in anonymity for years in leagues and cities nobody has ever heard of before finally getting his chance.

Some may argue that this shows that Thomas is a man of principle.  I for one believe that rings a little hollow.  If Thomas felt this strongly about making a statement he had his chance two years ago to decline an invitation to play in the Olympics.  Yet he chose to participate where there was opportunity for personal recognition and the potential to add to his trophy collection.
 
What makes hockey one of the truly great games is that it’s about 20 guys battling together and standing up for each other no matter what.  It’s Shawn Thornton taking on all comers to defend his teammates.  The fact that Thomas made such an emphatic point about an ‘INDIVIDUAL’ decision regarding a team event makes me think he doesn’t get it.

Hey Tim, think standing in front of an oncoming slap shot from an NHL defenseman is intimidating? How would you like to be Jeremy Jacobs or Cam Neely and have to stand in front of the leader of the free world and explain why the only American of consequence on the team (sorry Steve Kampfer) has decided not to come?
 
From comments made by Bruins management yesterday, it’s clear that these discussions have been going on for a while and that this was not a last minute decision.  Given he had time to think it through; hopefully he considered the consequences as well.

As a goaltender, nobody can dispute that Tim Thomas has stood tall in the biggest moments. However, I hope he fully appreciates the fact that he put his team in a bad position.  In hockey terms, he didn’t ‘Man Up’ and support his teammates,  and that may be the most damming criticism of all.

"In the world we live in, somewhere between 80 percent and 95 percent of new product introductions fail. It’s not that hard to postulate that you must do virtually everything right to successfully launch new products." Jack Gordon, CEO of AcuPOLL Research Inc  

One of the greatest challenges solution providers face is how to package and present their new offerings in a way that will generate interest from the media.  Historically, the media has tended to focus on products rather than services or solutions.  In fact, many reporters react negatively to the term “solutions.”  But that mentality is changing due to the shift in the overall technology market over the past three to four years.

The transition to cloud computing and managed services is redefining the perception of what constitutes a product.  These environments foster a climate of continuous development.  Fixes and enhancements are added every day.  The era of major version revisions with long development and beta test cycles is on the way out.  That means the old approach to launching a product is dying with it.

Further complicating this dynamic is the impact of social media.  These channels not only provide new avenues to communicate with customers, but they also offer a new means for gathering intelligence on what customers are saying about you and your services and how they share that with their network.  To sum it up, launching products has changed dramatically and there is no single formula for how it should be done. 

Nevertheless, there are still some fundamental best practices that should be considered in any product launch effort:

1. Give it time to develop – Too often companies rush product or service announcements out the door.  Sometimes you just have to go with a date that is given to you based on other business drivers, but to get the maximum impact of an announcement, it should still be planned well in advance to ensure that it takes takes into account several concerns, including: 

• Is the positioning and messaging well defined and differentiated?
• Do we have customers to use as reference to support it?
• Do we have all the content and social media channels aligned for maximum SEO and impact?
• Should we take an exclusive approach -- pre-brief a select group of publications under NDA, or should it be released to the broader media in general?
• Do we have industry analyst support for the announcement?
• Should it be timed to coincide with our avoid an industry event or competitive development?
• Does the sales team have the tools they need to promote it directly to their customers and prospects?
• Do we have our lead tracking and measurement programs in place to assess the impact of the launch?

2. Ensure content is optimized to extend reach and life – The days of relying primarily on a press release to be the basis for a product introduction are long gone.  Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines have changed how people find information.  To that end, ensuring that your announcements leverage the latest SEO techniques is essential.  Additionally, new forms of digital content – images, infographics and video – add extra juice to product announcements that can grab attention and increase their likelihood of being shared through social networks. 

3. Synchronize all your distribution channels – It is still a fundamental business practice to use the wire services for press release distribution.  They’ve all done a nice job adapting to the new opportunities available to use rich content and social media, and they offer great services to get the most exposure for your announcements. 

But they are just the start. 

You must do all you can to strategically leverage relevant social media channels – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Linkedin –  in order to extend your reach and speak directly with customers and prospects.

4. Talking to whom, why and when – One of the negative ramifications of the digital and social revolution is that good old fashioned face-to-face conversations between companies and the media has taken a back seat.  There are fewer print publications with smaller staffs.  These editors and reporters are pressed for time and the competition for column inches is fierce. 

This means you must do a better job researching and targeting these individuals and crafting a story around your product announcement that will appeal to them and their readership.  This may also mean dealing with someone on an exclusive basis in order to get that high-profile story.  You may have to consider the tradeoffs between securing one piece of great coverage versus getting a few smaller mentions. 

In all cases, you must think about the date and timing of the announcement, ensuring that you are hitting the news cycle at the time that works best for the media, such as Mondays and Tuesdays and never on a Friday.  One final important point is that spokespeople must be flexible to talk to the media when they are ready, not vice versa.

5. Prove the point – As stated previously, third-party references are still essential to any successful product launch.  Without the customer and analyst reference, most media will not cover a new product or service announcement.  They get so many of those types of announcements, that to them they are just marketing noise.

6. Track, measure and merchandize the heck out of that coverage – Once a piece of coverage hits, it’s important to take that and push it out through social media channels and other tools to communicate with customers and staff worldwide.  The more that coverage is shared the greater the return on that product launch effort. 

Closing this loop and measuring the impact of the product launch will identify those strategies and tactics that worked best, how it positively impacted the business, and areas for future improvements.

When you think about it, in some ways, it might actually be easier to launch a new solution today. Certainly there are more avenues to get the word out. What’s much tougher is actually connecting with the people who you want to hear it.  

What other best practices do you follow to get someone’s ear?

It's one of those emails you really hate to receive, so I'm sharing parts of it with you, along with my reactions:

"First, the bad news:"

[Don't you hate it when an email starts like that?]

"We are writing to let you know that there may have been illegal and unauthorized access to some of your customer account information on Zappos.com, including one or more of the following: your name, e-mail address, billing and shipping addresses, phone number, the last four digits of your credit card number (the standard information you find on receipts), and/or your cryptographically scrambled password (but not your actual password)."

[Oh, that's good; you drew them a map, but you didn't color in every single segment.  Perfect.]

"THE BETTER NEWS:

The database that stores your critical credit card and other payment data was NOT affected or accessed."

[Good to hear, I think, trying to remember back to the last time I ordered from Zappos, as I'm not a frequent purchaser from this site.]

And now the fun begins in earnest:

"SECURITY PRECAUTIONS:

For your protection and to prevent unauthorized access, we have expired and reset your password so you can create a new password. Please follow the instructions below to create a new password.

We also recommend that you change your password on any other web site where you use the same or a similar password. As always, please remember that Zappos.com will never ask you for personal or account information in an e-mail. Please exercise caution if you receive any emails or phone calls that ask for personal information or direct you to a web site where you are asked to provide personal information."

[If I'm like most online consumers of information and commerce, that means I need to change passwords on perhaps an average of 40 sites.  So much for doing my job today and seeing my family. Thanks, Zappos.]

Here is the easiest part of all of this:

"PLEASE CREATE A NEW PASSWORD:

Please create a new password by visiting Zappos.com and clicking on the "Create a New Password" link in the upper right corner of the web site and follow the steps from there." 

[No worries here; I still don't shop at TJ Maxx unless I pay with cash for my purchases after their breach years ago forced me to get a new bank credit card -- twice -- and to re-register the new cards wherever I had been using them. As much as I appreciate the service of the brand, I think I can safely say I won't be creating a new password on Zappos.]

And now here's the warm and fuzzy part:

"We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. If you have any additional questions about this process, please email us at passwordchange@zappos.com."

[No signature.  Barely registered with me the sincerity of their concern.  Did not make me want to keep buying.]

Judging Zappos' Approach

That's one consumer's reaction to the email that landed in my personal mailbox in response to the security breach at Zappos.  I'm sure I'm not alone. 

The coverage of the breach alternated between praising their transparency about this and their exposing as much as they could about what consumers should do to protect themselves and suggesting that they over-communicated and therefore could have created panic (from Ellen Messmer of IDG):

"Overall, the Zappos response strategy is "not a good idea," contends John D'Arcy, assistant professor of information technology at the University of Notre Dame. The Zappos decision to terminate customer password access creates a situation that makes it appear it's in a panic mode. "Maybe they went overboard." He says the motivation for the attack is probably to gain information to sell to competitors on the black market. However, phishing attacks to try and steal more customer information is also a possibility.

Other analysts generally praised the Zappos response. Gartner analyst John Pescatore, while noting he doesn't know if Zappos sufficiently protected its systems or not, said he finds the Zappos public response to be a good one so far, especially in terms of communicating publicly, adding "avoiding exposures of course is much better."

Some other security experts piled on, saying Zappos' security measures overall should have been stronger to withstand this type of attack and prevent this from occurring.  Of course many of them offer security products that they were touting, so one must take their comments with a box of salt. 

And some very interesting positioning was the very specific noting that Amazon, Zappos' parent company, does not share servers with Zappos and was not affected by this attack.  Despite this, a lawsuit from a customer already has been filed in Kentucky against both Zappos and the much-deeper-pocketed Amazon parent and more may follow, although it's not clear that any of these will have any legal merit.

As a communications person, I typically err on the side of as much transparency as possible in the event of a crisis.  But in this case, the tenor of the communication I received seemed like a purely perfunctory way of throwing all of the inconvenience and hassle of changing my passwords on me, without much of an apology or a personal communication from the CEO.  And, of course, it was an attempt to deflect blame from the company if consumers like me did not take all of these precautions they recommended to fix the mess that occurred on their site. 

It didn't make my day, or warm me to Zappos for future purchases.  They will be in my own personal penalty box for a long time over this one. 

What did you think?  And did I get the "infrequent buyer" version of the apology letter that was more perfunctory?  Was there a "We are so sorry!" email that went out to frequent purchasers that included a personal note from Tony?

I spent a good part of my childhood living in New Mexico. My parents use to make fun of how obnoxious the neighboring Texans were, who visited nearby ski resorts every year. My Dad, in particular, complained about the loud Texans, skiing down the ski slopes in their colorful, brand-spanking new oufits, singing their Texas songs, all the while, bailing down the slopes (his theory was they can't ski). I'm not sure why it drove him so crazy to see how proud the Texans were about their state. Well, I hate to do this to my parents (who I love dearly), but now I'm that bugger Texan, talking excessively yet again about how great my state is. Or city, in this instance.

Time Magazine just dubbed Austin the clean tech leader of the U.S. That's right. Not too shabby, especially being that we're competing with east and west coast venture capital meccas, such as the Bay Area, which has poured millions into the effort. Not that it's a competition, we're all in this together, right? Sure, we're going after the same market for the good of our country. And the environment is on the minds of some, but definitely not all, of the participants. But in the end, it's a massive new market (or an evolution of the energy market, in the long run), and right now it's still attracting more venture dollars than any other market in the U.S.

While I'm at it, I want to flag the fact that Katie Couric gave Austin kudos last year on the CBS Nightly News for bucking the recession better than any other city in the country. Yes, there's something in the water down here - Austin has it going on. And it's nice to see that our clean tech leadership continues to attract widespread recognition. It's not just marketing, we have more businesses running on 100 percent renewable energy than any other city in the country - along with all of our municipal government's electricity. So we're talking - and walking - the walk. Pretty cool, if you ask me.

This week's announcement by Google of "Search Plus Your World" was one of those times where Silicon Valley is great spectator sport. 

In case you missed it because you're at CES, or getting ready for NRF, or heads down after the holidays, Google rolled out its deepest level of integration of Google+ -- content and social signals from Circles, +1's and reshares -- to core Google search results to date. The bottom line, as Danny Sullivan put it, is that it's the next level of personalized and universal search.

But questions immediately began about whether Google went too far, taking advantage of its search monopoly to force Google+ results onto people, in some cases overwhelming results from across the web so as to make results confusing and almost too narrow. The screen shots below show the difference between old and new Google search.

The spectator sport was around Twitter sniping at Google for basing social results on Google+ and ignoring Twitter, and Google sniping back. The tech blogosphere went crazy and raised the specter of anti-trust investigation. And the pom-poms came out with other social media bloggers.

Do Most of Us Care?

My immediate question when the news first broke was, based upon the fact that searchers have to be logged into a Google account AND have a Google+ profile to see these changes, how many people does this really affect? I tried to research any data that may show the percentage of total Google search performed where these two conditions are met and couldn't find any.

The closest information I could find was from SEOmoz last October that showed that less than 15% of its search referral traffic was affected by a change by Google where it is no longer passing keyword information for searchers that are logged in and therefore search via https://www.google.com.  I'm not saying this is a proxy for the amount of logged-in searchers overall, but it suggests the number is pretty low.

It stands to reason that the vast majority of people that use Google see unpersonalized search results (with the exception of perhaps "web history" cookie information).  Also, for Google+ personalized results to make an impact, those with G+ need to actually use it, and there are lots of reports that while 40-50 million have signed up, usage is choppy.

PR and Marketing Impact?

It is plainly obvious that Search plus Your World is another way that Google is enticing people to sign up for Google+. It remains to be seen whether it will be enough, or if people are too locked in to Facebook or Twitter.

The potential PR and marketing impact is noteworthy, and Forrester's Melissa Parrish enumerated it very well yesterday. For this reason, companies shouldn't dismiss it outright. To start with, search Google+ using both your brands and your target buyers' titles as keywords to see how prominent and active customers and prospective customers are using it. Also consider key influencers (media, analysts, bloggers).

If there is a good amount of quality discussions there, create a branded Google+ page and make it part of your content publishing strategy. This gives those talking about you the opportunity to connect, follow you, share your content and interact. It also feeds the Google+ data into Google Search Plus results for those using it.

I agree with Parrish that it's not time to take resources away from other social initiatives, so unless your community is active on Google+, for now it is OK to lean towards a wait-and-see approach.

What is your reaction to Google search changes? Too personalized? Enough to make you create a profile or turn you away?

The activities to finish up 2011 strong are all completed, and planning for 2012 from a communications standpoint is in full force -- often combined with sales kickoff meetings around the globe.  We're looking back to see how we all did, what we need to do next, and how that stacks up to what we expect the competition to do.  

If done right, much of the planning hinges on taking a look at messaging.  For all of us communications professionals -- within companies or on the consulting side -- it is easy to get stuck on the treadmill of activities, events, announcements, and not take a step back to make sure the foundation of what you are presenting to the world about your company and your brand is up to date and still effective. 

The idea of redoing a company's messaging strikes fear into the hearts of many marketing people, as it sounds like you are throwing out everything and starting from scratch.  It can be a daunting and arduous task, but it isn't the only way to proceed.  The following are other ways to do a gut check on your messaging to see if anything needs dusting off or updating so it will be as effective as possible in the new year.

Do the activities and announcements planned for 2012 have a strategic backdrop?

Sometimes this may be all you need to adjust to make sure your communications program truly can move the needle.  As each group lays out the news they would like to disseminate, make sure everyone takes a step back to ensure that their messaging aligns with priorities and that it supports not only the overall corporate strategy and vision, but below that, the divisional and technology/product messaging.

Has the competitive landscape shifted dramatically, requiring changes on your end?

New entrants can change the playing field.  The same holds true for mergers and acquisitions.  Sometimes a tough competitor becomes more difficult to compete with if they become part of a larger entity with a huge sales and marketing machine at their disposal.  On the other hand, sometimes a competitor that has been acquired becomes less difficult to contend with, as they become just one product set to sell among a huge portfolio of products and their marketing and sales may be less focused.  It's important to take a look at these changes and make sure your competitive positioning is fully taking them into account. 

Are your current messages still fresh or have they passed their expiration date?

During a recent client survey conversation one of our clients, who has many years of marketing experience, commented that she counts on us to make sure messaging is kept fresh and to gauge how long it will be good for.  She even described what I really believe is a fundamental problem with communications – The messages that worked last year, or even last quarter, may lose their relevance because of market shifts or changing interests. Message du jour strategies certainly are not the goal, but it's important to make sure your messaging hits the mark today and will continue to hit the mark for several quarters, at least.  Someone needs to keep doing the "freshness check" to make sure the messages have not expired.

What's the mechanism to ready spokespeople and sales people on any message changes?

This is a key issue that needs to be considered whenever you are adjusting your messages.  Sales kickoffs are often used to get salespeople up to date on products or services, to educate them on how to position what they can sell now, and to ready them for what is coming down the road (but will not stall sales now).  Executive spokespeople need refreshers to make sure their messaging is up to date and ingrained into the way they talk with influencers as well as prospects.  Many executives feel they don't need media training, but message training is a subset of media training that smart companies use to make sure executives are very comfortable and ready to present new messages and new positioning.

So messaging in 2012 does not need to be a scary "rip and replace" strategy.  But it does need to be thoughtfully reviewed and, as needed, updated.  Mechanisms must be put in place to make sure that all of the most important message carriers are armed with the right way to present their products and company to the world, with the new messaging backdrop. 

Happy messaging, everyone! 

Well, it is that time of year for reflecting on 2011 and looking ahead to 2012.  If 2011 proved anything, it was that social media has crossed the chasm into the mainstream -- worldwide.  (Tip of the hat to Geoffrey Moore.)

From the democratic revolutions of the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street Movement to the Japanese tsunami to the death of Steve Jobs, social media played a central role in not only communicating the news, but also being an essential element of the events themselves.  

On a more local and personal level, many of our clients who had been taking a very measured approach began to see the benefits of their social media activities, leading to more investment.

So if we look at the state of social media adoption I would suggest that we're well into the early majority phase of adoption.  With this shift comes a new set of expectations for social media.  The days of "let's try it and we'll see" have been replaced with, "let's have a plan with clear objectives and measurable results." 

This phase places more expectations on communications professionals to continually prove the efficacy of their social media programs in 2012.  With that in mind, here's a list of some things that we will be focusing on in the year ahead:

1. Ensuring a holistic owned content strategy

The Google Fresh update was the latest move that makes Google a real-time search engine and places a greater premium on an organization's ability to continually publish fresh and relevant content.  This makes your ability to create content of various types -- text, images, infographics, video -- and orchestrate it through all of your channels -- web site, blog, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, email, direct marketing --  essential. 

The results we've seen for some of our clients bear this out, where their great blog content outranks their web site. The ideal is when your blog and other channels sits alongside your web site in multiple search positions on the first page of Google results for many keywords.

2. Tighter SEO and SEM linkage

This always should be in the mix from the very start, but it's remarkable how many marketing organizations still operate in silos with very little, if any, integrated planning and execution amongst their social media channels, SEO and SEM programs.  Communicators need to be more disciplined in closing the loop between the content they are creating, use of keywords, and their placements on landing pages and other marketing content.

3. Better connections and conversations

The vast majority of social media activity is still broadcast in nature and not conversational.  You spend the time finding the right people to connect with, you create and distribute content that you believe will be of interest to them, and then hope they respond in some way.  Let's spend more time working to engage those whom you believe will be the most inclined to have a conversation.  Contribute to their channels.  Invite them to contribute to yours.  Easily said, but not easily done.  

The key is knowing your audience.

4. Measuring the impact not just the numbers

There are plenty of very good tools out there for tracking frequency, following, reach, and impact, with the latter up for debate.  But one area that you should spend more time on is finding out what kind of conversions you are seeing as a result of the content you are creating.  Are you driving more attendees to webinars?  Are more people visiting the web site, downloading content and making their way into the salesforce and CRM system? 

A key mantra for 2012 should be "action". Action takes various forms and is tied to the resolution above in terms of publishing content that your followers will act on by sharing, clicking on and commenting on, with a desire to want more from you.  

These kinds of metrics can show how social media helped to find, facilitate and close deals.

5. Better integration with marketing automation and marketing execution tools 

CMO's and VPs of marketing are using these tools to better integrate and automate marketing processes, improve efficiency and measure effectiveness.  Bringing the social media channels, programs and results into these applications ensures that they are part of a complete strategic marketing plan. 

Most new year resolutions are set with the best of intentions, but more often than not are impossible to keep.  Why is that?  Is it because they tend to be more aspirational and harder to achieve than pragmatic?  Given we're moving into a phase where social media must demonstrate its practical and measurable value in order to secure continued investment and growth, I think these resolutions are worth sticking with.  

What do you think?  Do you have any other resolutions for your social media efforts in 2012?  Tell me about them.