As if that wasn’t bad enough, the gym teacher, a muscle-bound former Toronto Argonauts running back named Ulysses “Crazy Legs” Curtis, followed it up with this gem: “When you boys get older, you are going to want to sleep with girls, and before any girl will sleep with you, she’ll want to know how many pushups you can do.”

Alas, Curtis’s tenure at our school was short-lived, but I took his counsel to heart and began doing pushups and weight training from that day on. Nearly four decades later, I’m still at it, giving the younger kids at the gym a run for their money. (I was the first runner up in a contest last year at an Equinox Fitness Club to see which member could do the most pushups and pull ups within a minute; the guy who beat me was nearly 25 years younger.)

While I credit Curtis for getting me started on the fitness journey, in February I discovered someone whose influence on me already is equally profound. Her name is Jamie Graham, and she is a professional dancer who also oversees the Pilates studio at the Park Avenue Equinox club where I transferred last fall. Although I had long thought of Pilates as a “girlie” thing best suited for those who are looking for a simple stretch rather than a meaningful, sweat-inducing workout, the intensity and animation of Graham’s instruction and the level of attention she provides her clients, caught my attention. So when Equinox offered a free 30-minute session, I signed up. Truthfully, I wasn’t so much interested in learning Pilates as I was experiencing Graham’s passion for teaching it.

My initial session with Graham was quite sobering. One of the first routines she taught me is a routine known as the 100s, an intense abdominal, breathing, and concentration exercise that I found excruciatingly challenging. Graham is a stickler for detail and every movement she taught me required radical corrections. She also wasn’t shy about identifying my numerous weaknesses and body imbalances. As someone who was long used to impressing personal trainers with my fitness prowess, I found the constant adjustments both frustrating and humiliating.

But Graham inspired confidence, both in her abilities and my own, so I continued training with her. Though soft spoken and decidedly more understated than Curtis, Graham is equally tough and teaches with the same discipline as he did, albeit with more support and nurturing encouragement. She doesn’t care whether I like an exercise or routine, insisting that I embrace challenges that initially overwhelm or frustrate me. She knows my body’s limits better than I do, and without exception, each session with her has proven to be more challenging than the one before.

Though it took a few months, I gradually came to enjoy my sessions with Graham and increasingly experienced dramatic increases in my strength and flexibility. Whereas I first regarded Pilates as an activity for my “rest” days between my weight training sessions, it’s now my primary fitness training activity. Frankly, I’m starting to regard weight training as somewhat of a “girlie” thing.

Graham’s leadership also is impressive. Graham’s instructors all teach with the same enthusiasm and dedication she does and span at least four generations. By my estimation, they have well over 100 years of combined experience. If Pilates instruction was a competitive sport, Graham and her colleagues would unquestionably be the baseball equivalent of the New York Yankees.

Graham doesn’t engage in small talk while she’s teaching, and I know virtually nothing about her other than she is a performing modern dancer who hails from Nashville and trained at what is now known as True Pilates, a legendary Manhattan studio that research suggests is the Harvard of Pilates instruction. I’ve also learned that Graham, who has a maturity and poise way beyond her years, has no time for vanity. When I proudly told her a few weeks ago that the six-pack stomach I had in my youth had returned, she grimaced and replied, “A flat stomach is one of the results of Pilates, but it’s not what we are trying to achieve here.”

Given that Joseph Pilates initially conceived the practice that bears his name to rehabilitate hospital patients, I’m certain he would be quite pleased with Graham’s answer and with her mantra that Pilates is a process – a lifetime challenge that never ends.

Many thanks, Jamie, for starting me on my journey.

Share This Post

The play is called “Guido Girl,” a coming-of-age musical memoir about Marianne Ferrari’s struggle to escape her oppressive adolescent life in the Bronx and realize her dream of becoming a Broadway star. Ferrari is an amazingly talented actress with a host of impressive theater and television credits, which came as a big shock to me when I read the program guide. Ferrari also happens to be a Pilates instructor at the midtown Manhattan studio where I train, and based on just a few good morning pleasantries, I always perceived her as being a rather shy and soft-spoken woman, albeit one with a very beautiful smile.

Turns out, Ferrari is anything but soft-spoken and her inimitable smile masks a rather troubled past. Ferrari is one of four children of Italian immigrants who arrived on the shores of New York harbor on the Andrea Doria a year to the day before it sank on July 25, 1955. Her parents would hardly be model candidates for a profile in Parenting magazine – her mother made her endure such indignities as pointing out which child was responsible for each Cesarean scar. Her father pointedly told “Marriana” she was washed up at 15 and blamed Ferrari and her siblings for his failure to become an opera star. So much for the stereotype that Jewish parents are the true Olympians when it comes to laying on the guilt.

Ferrari has a deft ear for foreign accents, and her imitation of her Scottish music teacher alone is worth the price of admission, though I found the simulation of how he ultimately sexually exploited her unsettling. Ferrari boldly shares some of her most humiliating childhood moments, like how Michael Meade dumped her because she was such an awful kisser. Fortunately, a more experienced girlfriend named Desiree taught her the ropes. And then there was Fifo, the career aimless boyfriend who took her virginity but had nothing more to offer than good sex.

Ferrari eventually found her way to California and embraced est and various other self-help programs for lost souls. Despite her painful childhood memories, she returned home 12 years later to help take care of her father, who was ailing with cancer but eventually beat the disease. Although its quite possible I just missed it (I often miss critical parts of plays), my only disappointment with the show is that Ferrari doesn’t share whether her parents are still living. While I’m certain they would be quite proud of their daughter’s acting and singing talents, I can’t imagine they would love her portrayals of them.

What is most remarkable about “Guido Girl” is the sheer physicality of Ferrari’s performance. She is in constant motion the entire 80 minutes she is on stage, climbing on blocks, contorting her body, and impersonating men and woman of all ages and nationalities. If not for her advanced Pilates training, I strongly doubt Ferrari could muster the stamina to do the show multiple evenings.

“Guido Girl” is alternatively hysterically funny and painfully sad, and I strongly recommend seeing the limited engagement show. And if by chance you are in the market for some top-notch Pilates instruction, I urge you to sign up for some lessons with Ferrari at the Equinox Fitness Club on Park Avenue, where, incidentally, the Pilates teaching standards are decidedly among the highest in the country.

You’ll have no problem finding Ferrari. Just look for the seemingly soft-spoken woman with the deceptively beautiful smile.

Emerging Artists Theatre presents

Guido Girl

written and performed by Marianne Ferrari
Directed by: Troy Miller
Musical Direction by: Peter Saxe
Produced by Agustine Welles

October 06, 2009 through November 01, 2009

Mondays @ 9pm
Tuesdays @ 7pm
Saturdays @ 9:30pm
Sundays @ 6pm

Location

TADA Theatre
15 W. 28th St., 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10001

Tickets

www.brownpapertickets.com

Share This Post

The Internet is typically blamed as the primary reason for the accelerating decline of daily newspapers, but I don’t buy that argument.  Quality neighborhood news cannot easily be found on the Internet and a newspaper that is staffed by journalists who understand and respect the communities they cover will always be in demand.   Sadly, most daily newspapers don’t appreciate their readers’ interests and values, and accordingly, cannot establish, let alone maintain, a connection to their subscribers.  Sometimes the disconnection is so egregious it leads to the publication of appallingly offensive articles.

Mark Whicker, a columnist for the Orange County Register, serves as a poster boy for why daily newspapers are dying.  His column in question is so asinine that I’d prefer to just link to it, but I note that sample reader responses under the apology he was subsequently forced to issue are considerably more intelligent, thoughtful, and better written than the column itself.  That Whicker’s column made it into print speaks volumes about the editorial leadership of the Orange County Register.  The newspaper clearly is in need of some adult supervision.

The company that owns the Orange County Register filed for bankruptcy last week but promised there would be no changes to the newsroom’s operations.  If that’s the case, The Register deserves to go out of business.

Herewith is Whicker’s commentary:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/world-won-most-2555260-never-one

Share This Post

I could never make it as a restaurant critic.  Don’t get me wrong — I enjoy fine dining as much as the next person and would have no problem doling out the criticisms when warranted.  It’s the delivery of high praise that would be more problematic for me.  There are only so many original ways I can imagine to describe a perfectly prepared filet mignon.

Writing another blog post about yet another exceptional Holy Cross intern poses a similar challenge.  For the past five years, S&A has participated in the college’s innovative internship program.  Although we provide a learning experience for a deserving junior or sophomore, it is the school’s alumni association that pays the student a stipend.  Without exception, every Holy Cross intern we’ve had has far exceeded our expectations and raised the bar for their successor.  Lauren Olney, our Holy Cross intern this summer, continued that tradition.

In years past, our Holy Cross interns worked primarily with my colleagues, as the general consensus around here is that an intern shouldn’t be subjected to my desultory ways.  My brain typically processes information faster than I can articulate what I’m thinking, and I’ve been known to get quite frustrated when someone can’t immediately read my mind.  Lauren isn’t easily intimidated and from the get-go displayed a certain grit and maturity that showed she was up to the challenge.  The fact that Lauren also is a stubborn perfectionist made us kindred spirits.

One of the challenges of working with Lauren is the incredible speed and accuracy with which she completes her tasks (admittedly, not the worst challenge for a manager to have).  I once gave her a project that I expected would take her an hour to complete.  Fifteen minutes later, she was at my door, finished assignment in hand, asking for another one.  I marvel at how quickly Lauren can navigate the web and mine critical research; she manipulates web resources with the panache and flair of a virtuoso conductor commanding an orchestra.

Lauren’s accomplishments here at S&A are quite impressive.  We have a client in a financial niche not readily understood by outsiders.  Not only did Lauren learn their business, she used that understanding to secure a profile story on the company in an influential trade publication.  Even Jeff, one of the best media guys I know, was in awe.  Lauren also came up with one of the best slogans we submitted to a client, though admittedly she had a decided edge in this department (her father is vice president of marketing at a major consumer company).

I grudgingly note as well that Lauren’s blog post on New Jersey two weeks ago has generated more traffic lately than my own blog posts.  Underscoring her endearing modesty, Lauren says her family and friends likely account for most of the volume.  (Kudos to the person who taught Lauren you should never upstage your boss).

Lauren also handles rejection well.  Lauren didn’t argue or complain after Jackie spiked a blog post after I had her rewrite it three times (Jackie’s concern was with the appropriateness of the theme for a corporate blog, not the quality of the writing).  The experience was no doubt highly frustrating, but Lauren learned first-hand that S&A’s strength is teamwork and mutual respect for the judgment of others (Jackie has the final say on all corporate blogs, including mine).

But what I’m most grateful about Lauren are the lessons she taught me.  Among them:

Daily Print Newspapers Have No Future

Lauren is quite knowledgeable and inquisitive, but she grew up in a digital world.  She dutifully reads the New York Times every day - on her iPhone.  And heed this Mr. Sulzberger: You try charging Lauren even a nickel to access your content and you will lose her as a reader.  Given that some 34 percent of people in Lauren’s age group don’t even follow the news, it’s hard to imagine that the print editions of newspapers will be economically viable in a few years.

Journalism Can’t Attract the Best and the Brightest

Lauren is a talented writer and editor, her research and analytical skills are extraordinary, and she works on her college newspaper.  Lauren also is quite resourceful: she had a Facebook account in high school when the site was supposed to be restricted to college students.  Lauren would make an exceptional reporter, but she isn’t considering a career in journalism because she doesn’t think she is “aggressive” enough.

With few exceptions, the best journalists I know get by on the dint of their intellect and integrity, not their aggression.  But the media’s reputation has been so badly sullied that journalism is now perceived as a business best suited for loud, self-absorbed individuals interested in promoting themselves rather than serving the public good.

Don’t Stereotype Generation Y

Young adults in the so-called Generation Y age bracket have been maligned for their supposed sense of entitlement, less-than-hearty work habits, and pop culture-punctuated speech.  Suffice to say, Lauren and all her Holy Cross predecessors distinguished themselves through their industriousness and professionalism.  Never once did any of our Holy Cross interns show up even one minute late for work and they always offered to stay beyond their scheduled departure times.  I’d match their writing and verbal skills against those of any generation.

Apparently some companies are turning to consultants now to help them better understand and manage the younger members of their workforce.  I have some valuable advice for these companies:  Your money would be better spent sending recruiters to schools like Holy Cross who attract top students with a seemingly very different mindset and work ethic than their headline-hogging peers.

If Lauren Olney is representative of our nation’s future leaders, the country will be in very good hands.

Good luck in your senior year, Lauren.  You will be missed!

Share This Post

If any company should appreciate the value of having a clear, credible, and consistent message, it is The New York Times. Remarkably, however, the Times is flailing on the PR front, and its current media offensive is only quickening the fast erosion of its prestigious brand. The newspaper’s editor and spokesperson are publicly lashing out at reporters whose stories question the newspaper’s future and the competency of its publisher with the kind of ad hominem attacks the newspaper regularly hears and knows not to take seriously from the targets of its stories.

The peril of the Times‘ PR offensive was underscored last Friday in “Page Six” of the New York Post. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis apparently called to complain after the gossip column characterized Mexican financier Carlos Slim as the newspaper’s savior. Earlier this year, Slim had agreed to inject $250 million into the publishing company, for which he will be paid a whopping 14 percent interest. “I think the correct way to refer to Mr. Slim is that he is a shareholder in the New York Times Co.,” Mathis reportedly argued. “And we did a debt transaction with two companies in which he has an ownership position.”

I’m all for taking the offensive and playing hardball with reporters, but the tactic only works if you have formidable facts and credible arguments. CIT, a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy last week, was saved at the 11^th hour after agreeing to pay 13 percent interest on its debt injection. It is not unreasonable to assume that a company paying an even higher rate must be in a similarly dire situation. In any case, arguing semantics with the writers of Page Six is a strategy doomed from the get-go, particularly if you represent a company that is a frequent target of its ridicule.

In fairness to Mathis, she may have been pressured by management, or some outside consultant, to make the ill-advised call about their characterization of Slim. Regardless of who was responsible for the decision, it should now be abundantly clear that it was a very bad one. In the end, it merely served to spark the kind of negative attention that the Times presumably wants to avoid (corporate communications isn’t for the faint of heart).

Alarmingly, that bad call to Page Six was not a one-off. Comments Mathis and Times editor Bill Keller have made to reporters at The New York Observer suggest that attacking reporters and media outlets who write critical stories about the Times and its publisher is standard procedure – and the full sum of its PR strategy. The problem is, of course, that that is not really a PR strategy or plan. It’s a bad omen.

The Times‘ future is dependent on whether it can maintain its position as a purveyor of the best original journalistic content available anywhere. Communicating and reinforcing that message should be the driving force behind all the newspaper’s PR initiatives. Given the Times‘ precarious finances, debating whether Slim is a savior or merely an investor is akin to a spokesman for the Titanic arguing in its waning hours that the ship wasn’t sinking but merely taking in some water.

Many companies mistakenly isolate public relations as a separate silo from their core businesses. But effective and authentic PR requires a holistic initiative that integrates a broad range of functions outside of marketing, finance, internal communications, and particularly HR. Mathis can tell reporters outside that the Times‘ finances aren’t all that bad, but its own news staffers are being told the situation is sufficiently dire that they have to take pay cuts and furloughs. That is a significant message misalignment that cannot be dismissed.

If the Times is to have a fighting chance at a winning PR program, it needs a real plan that focuses on promoting, preserving, and reinforcing its superior brand of journalism. Media relations – the effective kind – should be only one component of that effort. Among some tactics for the Times to consider:

Ignore the NY Post

The Post has been trashing the Times and publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. for as long as I can remember and nothing the Times can do or say is going to make a difference. We all know that Post owner Rupert Murdoch is determined to have his Wall Street Journal dethrone the Times as America’s most influential newspaper, so he has a vested interest in diminishing the value of the competition’s brand. Michael Vick has a better chance of being named head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals than the Times does of getting favorable coverage in the Post or any News Corp. media outlet. Accept it and move on.

Don’t Waste Your Time with Michael Wolff and Other “Nattering Nabobs of Negativism”

It’s a waste of time to pursue a “charm offensive” with Michael Wolff and other media pundits who promote their own brands by trashing yours. Most Times readers don’t know who Michael Wolff is, and even if they do, they probably don’t care what he has to say. The only people who take Wolff seriously are other journalists at best. Let Murdoch, who clearly doesn’t have a lot of time for Wolff and his antics, deal with him in his own inimitable way.

Get Bill Keller Media Training — Stat!

Times Editor Bill Keller needs to learn a valuable lesson in media relations: Just because a reporter asks a question doesn’t mean you have to answer it. He discloses way too much about the inner journalistic workings of The New York Times. The Observer should pay him a stipend for all the original material he provides the newspaper’s media reporters.

For a seasoned journalist, Keller can say the darnedest things. To wit: Responding to a question about layoffs, he told the Observer that “it serves no useful purpose to talk about things that are mainly hypothetical.” That’s a pretty incredulous comment coming from an editor whose own newspaper regularly reports and speculates on the hypothetical. As well, he might want to check out some recent Times corrections or this classic before chastising other publications for “mistakes elementary fact checking should have caught.” It’s unfortunate that Vanity Fair’s profile of Sulzberger misstated the number of Times reporters, but at least they spelled the name of your publisher correctly.

As the saying goes, “People who live in glass houses…”

Focus More on the “Nuances” of Times Readers

Amid the Times‘ unprecedented challenge for survival, Keller last month jetted off to Iran so he could better understand the “nuances” of that country. While I understand and respect that Keller wants to preserve his overseas reporting chops, the Times probably doesn’t have much of a paid circulation in that country.

The most successful corporate leaders make a point of actively meeting with current and potential customers. As the editorial leader of The New York Times, it is Keller’s responsibility to meet with readers and potential readers and hear first-hand about their concerns and interests. Traveling to Detroit might not be as interesting as visiting Tehran, but the economic and political turmoil there is quite formidable. Not to mention, the Times offers home delivery in the area.

Stop Telling Readers Who First Reported a Story

With the exception of journalists, the vast majority of readers don’t care one iota which news organization was first to report a story unless it involves something monumental like the Watergate break-in. The Times should stop crediting other media outlets for first reporting stories that it is just covering for the first time; doing so merely creates the impression that you are serving warmed over news. If competing publications want recognition in the Times for being first to report a story, let them take out an ad.

Kill Clark Hoyt’s Column

It’s admirable that the Times feels an obligation to employ someone whose job it is to air the newsroom’s dirty laundry, but in this day and age it’s a luxury you can’t afford. In addition to Fox News and the Post, there are more than enough bloggers looking to call attention to the Times‘ journalistic wrongdoings, and I’m not aware of any evidence that having an ombudsman has a meaningful impact on how reporters conduct themselves. Hoyt’s columns merely serve as a painful reminder that the Times also has its share of ethically challenged reporters and columnists– and endanger the remaining trust readers have in the brand.

Get Your Messages Straight

Accuracy and consistency of message are two of the givens of PR, yet sometimes Mathis has made statements that are subsequently shown to be egregiously wrong. I speak from first hand-experience. And I’m not the only one who has taken issue with the credibility of her statements. (Again, to be fair, Mathis may merely be following orders).

For what it’s worth, Mathis shouldn’t be commenting on editorial matters. There is supposedly a separation between the Times‘ business and editorial sides, and a corporate spokesperson shouldn’t be straddling that division. The newspaper has a “standards editor.” He should be the spokesperson on most editorial matters.

Keep Your Reporters Focused on Producing Great Journalism

I recently had breakfast with a Times reporter whose “to do list” for the day was staggering. Within hours, he was expected to file a story for the International Herald Tribune, do a broadcast interview, and then report on a major Page One story for the following day’s newspaper. Adding to the reporter’s stress was an ever-increasing mandate not to get beaten by Murdoch’s invigoratedWall Street Journal.

What makes the Times America’s most respected newspaper is its ability to provide highly authoritative and original content. Reporters can’t do this if they are expected to rush off and provide interviews for the broadcast networks and videos for the Times‘ website.

Multi-platform journalism is a great concept in theory, but in the real world a journalist can only produce a finite amount of content. Times reporters today are stretched way too thin and are being dragged in competing directions – while being asked to take a pay cut to boot. This is not a sustainable or realistic HR model. Journalists don’t aspire to work at the Times for the opportunity to provide sound bites for Entertainment Tonight.

No More Comedy Central Interviews

After watching the Daily Show interview, even the newspaper must now realize the error of its ways in letting those cameras in. What on earth were you thinking? The show’s stock-and-trade is mocking mainstream journalists and the Times no doubt represented the ultimate target. And make no mistake, Jason Jones hit a bull’s eye.

Sulzberger apparently likes to spout that he is “platform agnostic.” While I don’t know exactly what that means, presumably it has to do with making the Times available to readers via the medium of their choosing. If that’s the case, the Times needs a leader that excels at communicating on all platforms and in diverse interview situations, including comedy shows – like this guy and this guy.

When a company is in a crisis mode, a solid, rational public relations strategy is the compass that helps leadership find its way out of the dark woods. Regrettably, it seems the Times is operating without one.

Share This Post

Meet Lauren Olney, our Holy Cross intern this year.  Although Ms. Olney is well travelled and has lived in world-class cities as London, Toronto, and Rome, like S&A co-founder Jackie Condie she takes great pride in being - ahem — a Jersey Girl.   Ms. Olney believes the much maligned Garden State unfairly gets a bad rap and argues there is much more to New Jersey than storage tanks, strip malls, and nail salons. Here is Ms. Olney’s recommended PR positioning for the Garden State (We decided to let it slide that she chose to attend a college in Massachusetts). — S&A Staff

“New Jersey.”

What pops into mind when you see or hear the name? A vision less than flattering I bet… including smog and big poofy hair perhaps?

Now, imagine living there and telling out-of-staters. Imagine seeing their expression turn sour. Imagine meeting a man in Rome - who first asked if the state of Seattle was above New York - knowing people “no like New Jersey.”

Trust me, it’s not easy.

People have poor opinions of New Jersey, as the media often captures the dramatic, not qualifying, aspects of the state. Thus, the general public is left with several common misconceptions, leaving a lot to be desired of New Jersey’s reputation management skills.

Myth #1: “What people see in Newark is what the rest of NJ looks like”

New Jersey is not just factories and roads, but few people venture beyond the Turnpike or airport to see aspects like the twenty percent of Jersey’s productive farmland. Does the average American know that NJ ranks 2^nd in blueberry production, 3^rd in spinach, and 4^th in bell peppers among many? Or that the state has the most horses per square mile? I once visited Central Jersey, and with open fields and large farms, and at first I had to ask if we were in the same state. Houses were modest, clothing choices were understated. Certainly, “The Real Housewives of New Jersey” featured nothing of the sort.

Myth #2: “New Jersey has the worst drivers in the country”

Despite what some people may think, New Jersey residents are tested the same as other states, and aren’t really the worst (sorry, New York.) New Jersey has the highest population density per square mile, thirteen times higher than the national average. That means everywhere, including roads, are more crowded. How does anyone expect us to be docile or forgiving on the road? To endure such a dense setting, one must anticipate and use survival-of-the-fittest maneuvering tactics. Hence explaining outbursts of aggression?

Myth #3: “Everyone from NJ is like The Soprano’s, or the Real Housewives”

“Joisey” accents, sprawling Vegas-like mansions, Italian-American family life, and criminal organizations are what these shows make New Jersey seem like. I (despite my dreams of being Italian) am a combination of Irish and Slovak heritage. My neighborhood also is very diverse, which isn’t unusual given that New Jersey ranks among the highest religiously and ethnically diverse states. There always has been a broad Italian base in Jersey, but the Asian-American population currently is the fastest growing in the state (and they aren’t in the Sopranos…?)

Myth #4: “Nobody from New Jersey is very smart”

Many people think that New Jersey residents are unintelligent. But it may be a surprising fact that NJ is tied for second with Massachusetts for the highest number of high school graduates that go to college, and placed sixth for percentage of residents who completed a Bachelor’s degree. With the statistics as back up, New Jersey is one of the smartest states.

Myth #5: “Nothing good ever happened in New Jersey”

New Jersey was once known as “the Crossroads of the Revolution” as it housed more battles than any colony during the Revolutionary War. Princeton became the nation’s capital for four months, and New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights. Among other New Jersey accomplishments, are the first drive in movie theater, Miss America pageant, brewery, can of condensed soup, submarine, boardwalk, and the first solid body electric guitar. Our state housed the first organized baseball game, first professional basketball game, and the first intercollegiate football game. Famous names such as Thomas Edison, Clara Barton, Grover Cleveland, Frank Sinatra, Stephen Crane, Paul Simon, Chelsea Handler, Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, and Derek Jeter were all from the state. Nothing good? The facts beg to differ.

So, please, the next time we tell you we’re from New Jersey, hold back the urge to give us the same, distinctive response. Our reputation needs to be improved by shedding more light on our positive attributes, because proudly, we have many. And, even though nobody likes us, there’s a reason why we have one of the lowest depression rates.

Instead, perhaps an old New Jersey state slogan says it best: “come see for yourself.”

Share This Post

In those days, martinis at The Library Bar were made stirred, not shaken, and generously served in glass pitchers. My martini arrived arctic-cold with no discernible taste save for its slight hint of dryness. It burned soooooo good. I felt like a grown up.

I’ve lived in New York for two decades now and in all that time – and despite the city’s reputation for having the best of everything – I have yet to find a place that serves one that rivals the mastery and flair of The Library Bar. Gotham is sadly lacking on the quality bartender front. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than randomly finding a bartender who knows how, or will take the time, to serve a properly dry martini. Even some of the best and most expensive restaurants employ rank amateurs.

Fortunately, there are some notable exceptions. And one of them is Abdul Tabini, a longtime bartender at The Odeon who is beloved by Tribeca locals not only for his significant mixology talents, but also for his warmth, charm, and unbridled discretion. I suspect James Bond, a character known for his impeccable taste for the best of everything, particularly his martinis, would be most appreciative of Tabini’s handiwork with a bottle of gin or vodka, a few olives, and a splash of vermouth (although Bond would no doubt disapprove that Tabini also believes a good martini is stirred, not shaken).

The Odeon is, of course, the landmark New York restaurant that flashes in the opening credits of “Saturday Night Live” and was featured on the cover of Jay McInerney’s novel “Bright Lights, Big City.” From the day it opened nearly 30 years ago, the restaurant has always managed to attract a trendy crowd of artists and bold-faced names without making mere mortals like me feel somehow out of our element. Despite its impressive pedigree, The Odeon lacks pretension, which I suspect is one reason for its continued success. For at least the last 14 years, martini-master Tabini was another.

In the mid-nineties, 22-year-old Tabini left his native Morocco for the States with no more than a few dollars in his pocket and a handful of English phrases in his vocabulary. He quickly found work at The Odeon as a barback (essentially a bartender’s assistant), where he thrived. He kept his eyes and ears open, quickly learning both the language and the art of bartending. Tabini was promoted to bartender within eight months; I am proud to be counted among his first customers.

To describe Tabini as being a bartender would be tantamount to describing Alfred Hitchcock or Steven Spielberg as mere film directors. He does not simply pour drinks by rote following recipes long-ago locked in his head. There is exceptional art and pride to what he does, approaching each empty glass much like a sculptor must approach an unmolded piece of clay – as an opportunity to create a uniquely wonderful “wow” moment.

In addition to his sheer flair for making a great drink, I also very much admire Tabini’s inimitable warmth. He has a remarkable memory for details and always seems genuinely interested in how things are going for me and my friends, especially “Chuck” who was one of the regulars many years ago before work obligations took him out of the neighborhood. Tabini also is incredibly discreet: I’ve yet to hear him say anything about anybody to anyone. Whatever happens in front of Tabini stays with Tabini. The guy is a real class act.

This Saturday night will be Tabini’s last shift at The Odeon, a day that the regulars have looked toward with mixed emotions. While we hate to see him abandon his cocktail shaker and swizzle sticks and wave goodbye, he leaves to start Ward III, a 46-seat restaurant and bar he’s opening with two former colleagues around the corner at the site formerly occupied by QDT at 111 Reade Street.

Although Tabini’s myriad regulars earnestly pledge they will frequent his new joint, many also admit they will miss seeing him at The Odeon. “He’s like family,” confided Tommy, a local producer and director. “It’s devastating,” chimed his friend Patricia (before reminding me again to be sure to mention in this blog post that he makes the best martinis).

It takes real guts to leave a secure job to open a restaurant at the best of times, and even more so in the midst of a major economic downturn. Tabini says he isn’t afraid. “You can’t give up just because it’s a bad economy,” he says. “We believe in ourselves.”

Having enjoyed his company and his drinks for the last innumerable years, I must say I believe in them, too.

Tomorrow we drink to your continued success, Abdul. Bottoms up!

Share This Post

I attended several of DePalo’s performances and was always mesmerized by the graceful ease at which she mastered the complexities of her craft, making complicated dance steps and sequences seem effortless. Each performance left me wondering how choreographers do what they do. Where does one even start when conceiving a dance piece? It took nearly a decade but thanks to our newfound friends at modern dance company Jennifer Muller/The Works, I am beginning to find out.

A few months ago, S&A client and friend Gary Hayes asked if we’d consider getting involved with Jennifer Muller/The Works. The company, which he supported on a personal level, was planning a gala to celebrate its 35^th anniversary. Like so many other cultural institutions, they were feeling the financial pinch of an economy turned south and were seeking additional patrons.

For the uninitiated, Jennifer Muller is a living legend in the modern dance world. She has created more than 90 dance pieces and created and restaged countless others for more than 20 international repertory companies across nine countries. She has collaborated with prominent artists such as Keith Haring, Sandro Chia, Keith Jarrett, and Yoko Ono. Underscoring her accomplishment, Muller was one of only 30 artists chosen in 2003 as a founding member of the World Arts Council in Valencia, Spain.

Although there are a few New York City dance companies that have been around longer than Muller’s, virtually all of them were founded in the 1960s when grants and corporate funding for the arts were more readily available. Founding a dance company in the mid-seventies was an ambitious and formidable challenge and keeping it alive through multiple recessions is testimony to her business acumen.

Given my personal interest in dance and our team’s collective excitement to provide the dance troupe support, we leapt at the opportunity to get involved. Truth be told, they had me as soon as I learned I’d be able to attend a rehearsal of the works being staged later in the season! Finally, I had my chance to peek behind the curtain and watch a celebrated choreographer at work.

I’m hard-pressed to accurately explain the emotional reaction of watching Muller at the helm of a rehearsal. As a team leader myself, I was impressed with how she can be so remarkably demanding and nurturing at the same time. She has clearly earned the admiration, respect, and loyalty of her dancers, each one delivering the extra something required to meet and then exceed her passionate demands to achieve perfection. In corporate-speak, we’d say that her dancers are fully engaged in the mission. They live for their art, they have great confidence in their leader, they trust in her vision, and execute it brilliantly not for the mere sake of recognition or tangible reward, but rather because not delivering the goods would be too great a personal disappointment.

Most people don’t realize that the life of a modern dancer isn’t easy or glorious, even for those talented and fortunate enough to make it into a top-tier New York City company. Muller’s dancers spend seven hours a day studying and performing, and the majority need to hold secondary jobs to make ends meet (you definitely don’t choose a career in modern dance for the money). In addition to teaching at various gyms around the city, company dancer Rosie Lani Fiedelman, for example, performs at least eight times a week as an ensemble cast member in the acclaimed Broadway play “In the Heights” (for which she received a 2007 Drama Desk Award). Her dance company colleague Elizabeth (Beth) Disharoon is an energy analyst at a Wall Street firm that, fortunately for her, genuinely supports the outside pursuits of its employees. Needless to say, time management is obviously a requisite skill for being a professional modern dancer.

From June 9-14, Jennifer Muller/The Works will be performing at New York’s Joyce Theater, one of the premier dance venues in New York City. Having already seen multiple Muller performances, I can say with considerable authority that this is an event that modern dance enthusiasts will not want to miss. Starkman & Associates is extremely proud to be a corporate sponsor of a talented dance company that reflects our own values, and hopes you’ll join us at the Joyce Theater next week. We’ll be easy to spot – just look for the group standing proud and clapping the loudest.

Share This Post

Far be it for me to defend the wrongdoings of the PR industry, but journalists stand on a rather unsteady soapbox when it comes to passing judgment on the collective ethics of public relations professionals. Plagiarism, fabrication, and other forms of dishonesty are as common in journalism as steroids in professional sports. Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, Mitch Albom – it doesn’t take much thought to quickly recall the names of those who broke the cardinal rules of journalism and helped tarnish the industry’s once well-regarded reputation for fairness and integrity. Sadly, media plagiarism is so rampant that even journalism professors have been caught doing it.

For every reporter who gets caught, there’s no doubt countless others holding their breath hoping their inappropriate editorial shortcuts aren’t in the limelight next. We know of a few journalists who deserve to be worried. In one instance, a well-known reporter at a major magazine a few years ago lifted entire passages from a bylined article written by one of my clients. We chose not to expose the incident for fear there would be a media backlash against our client for bringing down a respected reporter. In another incident, a reporter at a competing magazine lifted wording and misinformation from an obscure publication without citing the source. The magazine in question had to run a lengthy clarification that was, of course, very carefully crafted to obscure any suggestion that plagiarism occurred.

Maureen Dowd, a popular columnist with The New York Times, and Barney Gimbel, a writer at Fortune, are among the most recent journalists caught lifting or citing information without attribution. And their responses, and those of their media brethren, provide considerable insight into the murkiness of mainstream media’s ethics.

Dowd lifted virtually verbatim a passage of more than 40 words from blogger Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. Dowd claims she never read Marshall’s work, but got the wording from an email exchange with a friend who didn’t identify the source of the information. Dowd cites the fact she credited two other bloggers as evidence she wasn’t attempting to plagiarize. She hasn’t faced any disciplinary action, and as best I can tell, has yet to concede any wrongdoing.

Gimbel, a young and amiable reporter, in February was caught using some passages from a New York Times Magazine article published five years earlier. Although he didn’t reprint the work verbatim like Dowd, Gimbel didn’t seek to defend himself by arguing that lifting passages here and there is a widespread journalism practice. Feeling deeply ashamed and fearing that he had irreparably betrayed the trust of his colleagues and readers, he voluntarily resigned thinking that was the right and honorable thing to do. He was under no pressure to do so. (Full Disclosure: At the request of a friend, I met and offered some advice to Gimbel after he resigned; I didn’t ask for compensation, but Gimbel did insist on taking me to dinner).

The media’s response to the Dowd and Gimbel incidents is quite telling. Gawker maligns Gimbel for putting “very little thought into concealing his apparent crime,” but gives him no credit for acting honorably when his wrongdoing was exposed. As for Dowd, Gawker sniffs that she “will get off penalty-free for (she says) accidentally plagiarizing” which they are fine with providing the Times finally stops weeping and wailing about how undisciplined online news outlets are ripping them off. Media critic Howard Kurtz defends Dowd with the argument that she wouldn’t deliberately plagiarize because the likelihood of getting caught was just too great. If that’s true, then how would Kurtz explain Gimbel’s transgression? Surely The New York Times Magazine is no obscure publication and the risk of getting caught, accordingly, equally strong.

The Internet is generally blamed for the declining influence of mainstream journalism, but that argument is as simplistic as blaming Japanese and German automakers for the declines of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Foreign automakers taught us that automobiles can be reliable and well-designed; the Big Three automakers never rose to the challenge. Similarly, mainstream journalists simply cannot withstand the real-time scrutiny of bloggers, many of whom are extremely insightful, well-connected and justifiably fed up with “old school” media’s hypocrisy. Even if you buy Dowd’s defense, the fact remains she has been exposed for serving warmed-over thoughts already articulated in cyberspace. Once upon a time, The New York Times op-ed columnists were renowned for the breadth of their experience, the skill of their wordsmithing, and the originality of their commentary.

Most tragic of all is that there isn’t one mainstream media outlet today that can be legitimately cited for impeccable institutional integrity. With regard to The New York Times, I know several reporters whose ethics and professionalism are beyond reproach and whose modus operandi is unfailingly the honest pursuit of truth. But the Times, to its discredit, also publicly countenances the deceptions and misrepresentations of reporters like Alex Berenson and Edmund Andrews, who erroneously believe the ends justify the means and if a little dishonesty will get you there, so be it.

Sadly, there are far too many people in the public relations industry who believe the same thing. Those reporters and PR people are two sides of the same coin – one that’s not worth a dime to either profession’s credibility.

Share This Post

The banking industry’s public response to the current headline-making credit card legislation underscores how far America’s bankers truly are removed from reality. Public loathing of America’s banks has become so profound that even Congress can no longer acquiesce to the industry’s demands – despite the best efforts of a powerful lobby – hence the expected passage of legislation requiring credit card issuers to cease practices that are both unfair and unscrupulous. Rather than take the offensive and ostensibly embrace the inevitable legislation with campaigns touting “We Want to Help Restore America’s Economic Vitality”, the banking industry has effectively responded with “Paybacks are Hell.” Consumers, even those with unblemished credit histories, are told to expect new or higher annual fees, less affinity benefits, and a further tightening of available credit. Bankers just can’t help themselves.

The credit card business doesn’t have to be inherently anti-consumer. Nordstrom Bank, which is wholly owned by the retailer of the same name, is a case in point. I opened a credit card with them last year and have been impressed with how well it maintains Nordstrom’s vaunted reputation for exceptional customer service. Its approach is in stark contrast to those of the major card issuers with which I’d previously dealt.

Let’s start with its call centers. When I first called the 800-number to activate my card, I resigned myself to getting an automated response. Instead, a friendly representative who, it turned out, was incredibly knowledgeable about the card’s benefits, answered my call within 60 seconds and quickly helped me activate my card. Thinking it unlikely Nordstrom had built the call center capability from the ground up, I assumed she worked at an outsourcing company. The woman assured me she was a full-time employee of Nordstrom Bank.

As one who firmly believes that consumer-focused companies that truly care about the customer experience would never outsource the customer service function, I contacted Nordstrom CEO Blake Nordstrom to see if he shared my view. In a reply to my e-mail (how many other Fortune 500 CEOs respond to e-mails from ordinary customers?) he said:

We are one of only three retailers that I know of that still own their credit business. Everyone else has sold it and outsourced it. As merchants, we don’t profess to be bankers. We do feel strongly, though, that we work one on one with our customers and not have a third party in between to potentially jeopardize our relationship. We do have two call centers: one in Denver, the other in Southern California that are staffed 24/7 with Nordstrom employees.

Nordstrom Bank has further earned my admiration for its acts of graciousness. When I called the bank after realizing my first payment would not reach them by its due date, the phone rep waived the accrued late charge and interest penalty without any prompting from me. The bank also did not charge me a fee to make an electronic payment over the phone, an atypical practice that the rest of the industry will now have to adopt, as mandated in the current credit card bill. Since then, I’ve called the bank a number of times, and without exception I was speaking to a customer rep in less than a minute because once you are “in the system” you can simply hit zero and a real person comes on the line. Such respect for customers’ time and connectivity preferences, coupled with an affinity program that is honest and transparent, has earned them my appreciation and loyalty.

Interestingly, Nordstrom doesn’t have a slogan or even a logo, and it doesn’t spend a great deal of money on advertising buys, yet the company is one of the country’s best known retailers. Nordstrom preserves its enviable brand reputation the same way it established it: by giving shoppers impeccable service, great selection, competitive prices, and no-nonsense sales practices. And that’s what consumers want from their banks. Vernon Hill, the banking maverick who turned Commerce Bancorp into a retailing powerhouse in the mid-Atlantic region, was one of the few bankers who understood and embraced this reality.

Banks and the executives who lead them would do well to remember that the responsibility for reputation management does not begin nor end with the folks in the marketing and public relations department. It truly is a shared obligation that touches on every aspect of banking operations. Banks that fail to quickly grasp this fact will continue to find themselves a day late and more than a dollar short. They better heed this reality because they have no more political currency left to support yet another taxpayer-funded bailout.

Share This Post

The omission is, regrettably, one of the compromises journalists must make to remain viable in today’s scoop-centric news industry. Given a choice between preserving future access to corporate sources with exclusive information or risk having that spigot turned off as the result of a negative merger-gone-bust story that fingers their sources for the blame, most reporters will opt for the former. By not holding Wall Street accountable for orchestrating mergers that are doomed to failure, the media becomes an unwitting accomplice to the investment bankers who continue to pocket tens of millions of dollars in fees while eroding – and in some cases destroying – healthy corporations. Rare indeed is the reporter who is willing to go out on a limb and say “these are the dealmakers who screwed up.”

That’s why I read with incredible interest Andrew Ross Sorkin’s especially passionate “Dealbook” commentary today in The New York Times. Mr. Sorkin, who to his credit has written more critical articles about the M&A industry than his competitors, is seemingly outraged that Tribune Company has filed for bankruptcy just one year after real estate magnate Sam Zell acquired it for some $8 billion and then saddled it with a staggering $13.2 billion in debt. (As an aside, Aaron Elstein at Crain’s New York Business takes a similarly critical and compelling look this week at Apollo Management and its missteps with soon-to-disappear Linens ‘n Things.)

What sticks most in Mr. Sorkin’s craw is the cast of characters that earned millions in fees for making the Tribune deal happen, and he is not afraid to name names. He reports that Citigroup and Merrill Lynch earned $35.8 million and $37 million, respectfully, for advising the Tribune board and then scooped up millions more on top of that in financing fees. Other companies dining at the trough were Morgan Stanley, which earned $7.5 million writing a “fairness opinion” as well as a $2.5 million “advisory fee”, and Valuation Research Corporation, which was paid $1 million to give a “solvency opinion”.

Some perspective is in order. A failed M&A deal is a dog-bites-man story, and the $8 billion Tribune deal is rather puny by today’s standards. Contrast Mr. Sorkin’s column to the Times‘ and other media outlets’ coverage of the $29.5 billion writedown Sprint Nextel announced earlier this year stemming from the ineffectual post-merger integration of Sprint and Nextel. Despite being significantly larger than the Tribune transaction, there is not even a passing mention in the news coverage of the masterminds behind this M&A debacle who got it so wrong.

The Tribune Company owns various media properties, including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and its bankruptcy filing certainly doesn’t auger well for employees at any of them. And while the plight of fellow journalists is seemingly what has Mr. Sorkin most in a dither, the message of today’s column could have easily and more aptly been written months ago – years even – about countless other dealmakers and companies who, at the end of the day, failed shareholders and employees alike by trying to integrate oil and water.

Mr. Sorkin and his colleagues would do readers a great service by continuing today’s naming names approach in their future reporting of M&A dealshitting the skids. Holding investment bankers publicly accountable for their misguided advice and pricey opinions would be a far greater public service than publishing league tables that simply note which ones are involved in the most deals destined to fail.

Share This Post

But there is a discernible trend suggesting that reporters, perhaps inadvertently, are helping to promulgate government wrongdoing rather than expose it. The latest egregious example is a page-one “exposé” in the (Albany, NY) Times Union last summer alleging that former New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno misused state aircraft. According to a report released last week by the Commission on Public Integrity, the story closely tracked – verbatim at points – a memo written by Darren Dopp, who had led former governor Eliot Spitzer’s communications function. Mr. Dopp and four other Spitzer administration officials have been rebuked for orchestrating their “Dirty Tricks” plot to discredit Mr. Bruno.

The Times Union was not, however, the only media outlet to serve as the Spitzer administration’s errant pipeline for pumping dirty water to its constituents. During his days as Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer instigated a malicious campaign to disparage former New York Stock Exchange chairman and CEO Richard Grasso. As Mr. Grasso’s PR advisor following his disgraceful firing from the NYSE, I had a front row seat to what was unquestionably one of the most irresponsible periods in modern business journalism. The biased reporting of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (news side, not editorial) come most clearly to mind.

Journalists from the Times and the Journal zealously reported a steady stream of misinformation and innuendoes spoon-fed to them by Messrs. Spitzer and Dopp to pressure Mr. Grasso into settling. Much of this misinformation received prominent page-one placement and virtually all of the stories have since been discredited. All the charges Mr. Spitzer filed against Mr. Grasso have been dismissed, which wasn’t a surprise to anyone who understood the facts of the case.

Also of note is USA Today’s reporting concerning what turned out to be a government smear campaign against former Army bioterrorism researcher Steven J. Hatfill. Back in 2002, the newspaper prominently and repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Judge Reggie B. Walton has since ruled “there is not a scintilla of evidence” (emphasis mine) implicating Dr. Hatfill to the anthrax attacks. The Justice department recently agreed to pay $4.6 million to settle Dr. Hatfill’s defamation lawsuit.

Dr. Steven Hatfill was first publicly accused by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, which should have raised eyebrows among responsible reporters since an investigation was still underway and no charges were even close to being filed. Some of the most accusatory stories were written by former USA Today reporter Toni Locy. As she herself reported, there were other government officials who doubted the evidence against Dr. Hatfill yet she wrote the damning stories anyway, seemingly placing a higher value on getting the proverbial scoop than on safeguarding a potentially innocent man’s reputation and career from irreversible damage.

Shockingly, the mainstream media is neither embarrassed nor chastened by the Bruno, Grasso, and Hatfill reporting debacles, just as it wasn’t particularly contrite following the shameful pack-mentality reporting on Richard Jewell, the security guard in Atlanta who years ago was erroneously fingered and subsequently vilified as the Olympic park bomber.

The truth is that reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified. Reporters defend this malignant journalism by arguing the leaks are in themselves “news”. Compounding the problem is most newspapers no longer value experience and have forced their older and most knowledgeable reporters to take buyouts. As a result, most newspapers lack editors who can readily identify a bogus story. To wit: a story earlier this year in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper that has undergone massive layoffs, about associates of Sean Combs attacking rap artist Tupac Shakur with the former’s knowledge was almost instantly debunked by three experienced journalists at The Smoking Gun. Similarly, it took a seasoned reporter at the New York Post to ultimately expose the Spitzer administration’s Bruno smear campaign for what it was.

Those in favor of a Shield Law for reporters argue that protecting the media from revealing their sources is in keeping with the notion of the press as the Fourth Estate, a part of the checks and balances built into our system of government to prevent abuse of power. But the harsh reality is that such a shield will mostly serve to protect political hatchetmen like Darren Dopp and some of the still-unidentified dubious characters who leaked erroneous information about Dr. Hatfill to Ms. Locy. Reporters are rarely sued or pressured to reveal their sources when they get their facts correct.

Today’s media environment is nothing like it was in the late 1700s when the Fourth Estate concept took root. People do not have to rely on pamphleteers and underground newspapers to get an uncensored perspective on notable events in their homeland. This legacy of transparency and a free press is, without question, to America’s great credit and benefit.

But accountability is the price that the media should be required to pay for press freedom. It is the best protection we have against reporters who abandon their professional obligations and ethical responsibilities. Passing a Shield Law will only serve to cripple that defense.

Share This Post

Given the high performance bar that these employees set, S&A can be a rather daunting place to work, especially for a college junior. Our exacting internal standards coupled with the sophisticated client projects we undertake and the mach speed at which we often work can tax the most ambitious college student. Understandably, we don’t expect our interns to keep up with the pace. We simply expect that they truly partner with us to make their internship a meaningful learning experience.

As I’ve written before, we participate in an internship program by Holy Cross that has been an incredible experience for us. We learned of Holy Cross’ internship program through one of their graduates that we had hired. It’s a rather novel approach – we provide the learning opportunity and, as long as there is a Holy Cross grad on staff, the school’s alumni organization takes care of paying the intern’s seasonal stipend. Every Holy Cross student and graduate that has walked through our door has vastly exceeded our expectations. This summer was no exception.

We had the distinct pleasure to work this summer with Kaitlyn Curley, who became a critical member of our team almost from the moment she arrived. Kaitlyn doesn’t just seek to perform tasks – she strives to understand the rationale behind them, to identify trends, to spot parallels. Her analytical skills are quite impressive. As a result, Ms. Curley took on considerably more responsibility than we anticipated with amazingly little direction.

Kaitlyn has a great work ethic. She always arrived on time and often worked well beyond her designated departure time to finish her projects, even when they weren’t due for another day or two. When given assignments, she would take copious notes and ask insightful questions to ensure she had what she needed to complete the task with exceptional speed, accuracy, and proficiency. We never saw Kaitlyn websurfing, talking to friends, or working on personal matters while on “company time.”

To say that Kaitlyn is quiet is an understatement. She is one of those people who you never know quite what they are thinking and, like my colleagues Jackie and Jeff, can keep her opinions and emotions VERY close to the proverbial vest. I also know that she plays lacrosse, as I caught her one night trying to quietly sneak past my door in her field attire. Although Kaitlyn is slight of build, I strongly suspect she is a terror with a lacrosse stick. You know what they say about the quiet ones – they’re always the ones you have to watch out for!

Today is Kaitlyn’s last day with us, and we are all noticeably disappointed for it. We will miss her spirit, her great work, her strong ideas, her fresh enthusiasm, and her company. Good luck in school this year, Kaitlyn, and don’t forget to call us first when looking for your first full-time job. It would be our great honor to have you back on board.

I’ve often wondered if Holy Cross makes its students great or if it simply has a knack for attracting great students. Regardless, I’m impressed how everyone I’ve met from this well-respected institution is intellectually well-rounded and inculcated with enviable values and discipline. If anyone knows of a Holy Cross graduate interested in initiating or continuing their career in public relations, please send them our way.

Let’s just say that résumés with Holy Cross on them tend to move to the top of the pile at S&A.

Share This Post

So I was understandably taken aback to read Don Hewitt, a veteran broadcaster and the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, actually defending Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Mr. Hewitt told The New York Times that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience”.

“When you’re in television, that’s your job,” he is quoted as saying.

Fair enough. But given that presidential candidates now make the rounds on entertainment talk shows, appear on “Saturday Night Live”, and even do videos for World-Wide Wrestling Entertainment, why bother with the debates if their sole purpose is to simply create some more “show biz”? We get enough of that from them already.

Alternatively, if the debates are merely entertainment, perhaps the networks should consider asking comedians Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien to serve as moderators. Not only would the ratings go up, my guess is so would the level of discourse.

Share This Post

Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”

Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”

Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.

That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.

Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:

“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”

Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.

Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.

Something tells me you could use one.

Share This Post