Comments for A Closer Look Blog

Comment on Gallup: GOP Edges Democrats in 2010 Generic Congressional Ballot by Amra

Amra — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:46:33 +0000

so much of Obama-craze! Welcome to Obama-hangover.

Comment on FINRA Issues Social Media Guidance For Brokers by Chad Bockius

Chad Bockius — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:09:46 +0000

Firms interested in learning more should check out the Companion Guide to FINRA Social Networking Compliance http://bit.ly/8xT73y. It picks up where Notice 10-06 leaves off, offering additional detail on social networking considerations and a checklist of requirements for choosing a social networking compliance vendor.

Comment on Red Cross Raises $800K+ Online For Haiti Relief by Tweets that mention A Closer Look Blog » Red Cross Raises $800K+ Online For Haiti Relief -- Topsy.com

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:09:55 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roy Temple and Diego Delgado, Richard Callow. Richard Callow said: RT @roytemple: Shout out to the Red Cross for raising $800k thru txt msg http://bit.ly/9063Pv #90999 [...]

Comment on Cassidy Client-Activeion Named One of Forbes Breakout Products for 2009 by Tweets that mention A Closer Look Blog » Cassidy Client-Activeion Named One of Forbes Breakout Products for 2009 -- Topsy.com

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:05:42 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roy Temple, Gregg Hartley. Gregg Hartley said: RT @roytemple: Cassidy client @Active_ion named one of Forbes Breakout Business Ideas for 2009. See the video here http://bit.ly/5CgHuJ [...]

Comment on Shocking News: Social Media Isn’t the Be All End All. Who Knew? by Clemo

Clemo — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:22:29 +0000

I really, REALLY don’t understand why this has become rocket science…social media is not a strategy in and of itself it is a TACTIC. The strategy has not changed in 200 years: 1) Create a desireable product; 2) Promote that product to an appropriate audience; 3) Sell the product and make money.

So why do businesses that have no audience in the social media network rush to embrace it? If and when the network becomes better defined, go for it. Until that time, work the tried-and-true channels. Otherwise, it’s throwing money away — and passing along the bill to the rest of us.

Comment on New Cassidy VP Albert Morales on the Immigration Issue’s Impact on Health Care Reform by Deanna S Adams

Deanna S Adams — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:05:02 +0000

Mr. Morales’s points are well spoken. Many of chronic medical conditions are more pronounced because of delayed treatment due to current health care availability to the poor, which includes illegal immigrants. We would do well to provide preventive treatment.

Comment on New Cassidy VP Albert Morales on the Immigration Issue’s Impact on Health Care Reform by Norvell

Norvell — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:17:33 +0000

Many good points are raised here…first of all, our public hospitals will NOT turn away a person in need of urgent medical care, regardless of resident status. Are doctors going to delay treatment of an auto accident victim, pending verification of legal U.S. residency? In fact, this would be illegal in many states — not to mention the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors. So without medical coverage, the financial burden would fall on the hospital — and by extension, the coffers of state and/or local government.

As such, requiring resident verification of anyone willing to purchase a public option makes no sense. But it is painfully obvious that the United States is in desperate need of nationwide, comprehensive immigration reform. Each and every one of us are the decedents of immigrants, and hard working individuals who are willing to attain resident status and pay their fair share should be given the opportunity to do so.

But I don’t think we can wait for an immigration reform bill to address the nation’s health care crisis…

Comment on At the National Journal Blog: Marty Russo on the Obama Lobbying Rules by Norvell

Norvell — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:35:15 +0000

Let’s boil this down to the basics: if lobbyists did not serve a useful purpose, they would not exist. It is very tiring to continusoulsy listen to the demonizing of a particular group or profession just because it is popular. Abused children and spouses, civil rights organizations, and activists for the poor and homeless all have lobbying efforts on their behalf. And so do business groups, labor organizations, and governmental entities. They all want the same thing: successful advocacy for their point of view through education, information, and communications.

Just pick up the daily paper and you can make an argument that all police officers are good (or bad), all lawyers are bad (or good), and all politicians are only looking out for themselves (or are zealously protecting the interests of those they serve).

The bottom line: Americans are blessed with freedom of speech, and if that means designating someone to exercise that right on your behalf, so be it. Ultimately, it is up to our elected representatives to make the final decision. If they make the wrong decision, each and every one of us have the power to make a change at the next election.

Comment on A Fascinating Look at AOL’s New Business Model by Clemo

Clemo — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:36 +0000

I like the overall concept, as too often the business world takes the “build it and they will come” approach to marketing — and more often than not, it falls flat. (See the American auto industry of the 1970s, or General Motors of the 2000s). Why not give consumers what they want, rather than creating a product or service and trying to make them want it?

My biggest reservation is that the resulting “product” here is going to be a Web version of infomercials — slanted “Web sites” that look like helpful niche sites, when all they do is hawk a particular product via “advetorial” space for sale to the highest bidder. When I access one of these sites, personally I am totally turned off of the product they are trying to sell, as well as whomever is running the site.

Why not borrow a page from the cable television, or specialty magazine industry (I would think AOL could do this easy enough): Create special interest sites, with independently produced content — just like a Web version of Home and Garden TV or the Food Network. And use it as a vehicle for Web ads and clearly label thems as such. No “advetorials.” No infomercials.

Comment on Should the Role of Corporate Lawyers in the Court of Public Opinion Be Expanded? by Clemo

Clemo — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:55:28 +0000

I recall a business seminar I once attended on public relations. One of the first rules was “Don’t let attorney’s write your press releases!”

I couldn’t agree more. Among the professionals I have worked with, the two that were the worst writers were: 1) Doctors; 2) Lawyers. (With the exception of John Grisham and Michael Crichton).

The bottom line is, lawyers are good at “lawyering,” doctors are good at “doctoring,” so why can’t they leave professional communications to “communications professionals”?

Many of the more astute law firms actually employ in-house PR staff, and include them on the legal defense team…smaller firms will contract with outside firms to provide this service. Although it may be somewhat unfortunate, I agree that many cases are won or lost in “the court of public opinion.” If an attorney is to zealously guard the best interests of his client in a high-profile case, he or she would be well advised to enlist the services of an individual who knows the ins and outs of that arena.