Filed under: Customer relations | Tags: Bob Meighan, Customer relations, Intuit, public relations, Quicken, Quicken 2006, Quicken 2009
In my previous post, I lambasted Intuit for what I labeled as disingenuous marketing-speak. Evidence of their PR savvy showed up quickly, as their PR Department and VP of customer relations commented on the blog. Their responses to what I wrote are absolutely first-rate, and can be found here.
The reason their responses are so great is that they explain, in no uncertain terms, why they have taken the steps they have. This is the kind of communications that actually resonate with consumers, because it’s not vague, nebulous marketing fluff. I might not agree with it, but at least I understand it.
I think the lesson here – at least from my perspective as an entrepreneur who needs full information about the factors that affect my operations – is that your customers should be treated as though they are discerning, intelligent people rather than lowing masses to be placated with platitudes.
Intuit’s second response was excellent; if only it could have been their first.
Filed under: Customer relations | Tags: bad pr, Bob Meighan, Customer relations, Intuit, public relations, Quicken, Quicken 2006, Quicken 2009
Talented writing can take you only so far when it comes to breaking bad news to customers, and Intuit pushed that limit to the breaking point with its recent notice to customers that they can either pay for a product upgrade or lose critical features of the product they bought. Although most of my PR analyses are based on a dispassionate assessment of communications that don’t directly affect me, this one is different because I’m the one who got the message from Bob Meighan, Quicken’s VP of Customer Advocacy.
I bought Quicken 2006 because the accounting professional who does our taxes suggested it, and uses it herself. Now, about a year later, Intuit (the maker of Quicken) sends us an e-mail saying this:
As of April 30, 2009, Online Services and live technical support for Quicken 2006 will no longer be available.1 To maintain uninterrupted service, upgrade to Quicken 2009.
To entice us to upgrade, we are offered incentives, including a discount, free installation help and shipping, and bonus software that we don’t need. There’s no mention of the fact that this upgrade will cost us another $80, until we click on the link that takes us to the download site. And not only that, but if we don’t take this upgrade option, we lose the ability to download data from our bank account online (among other services), which is critical to our ability to conduct business.
The wording they use to describe this form of customer blackmail is:
To provide the highest service levels and deliver leading-edge solutions at a low cost, we are discontinuing online support for older versions.
Nice words, aren’t they? “Highest service levels” and “leading-edge solutions” and “low cost” sound lovely. But no amount of talented wording can cover the reality of what they’re saying, which is:
Either you upgrade from Quicken 2006 to our newest version of Quicken, or you lose some of the most critical functionalities of the software you bought from us. Your deadline for compliance is April 30.
I have no doubt that the Quicken end-user license agreement states very clearly that they can gut their software of critical online functionalities at their whim. But I’m also pretty sure that customers don’t expect to be treated like this. Intuit’s e-mail to customers is the worst kind of public relations – the kind that has to make a bad management decision sound like it’s in the customers’ best interests.
One of my former colleagues – a PR veteran with decades of experience – had a saying that applies to situations like this: “You can polish that turd all you want, but you ain’t foolin’ nobody: it’s still gonna smell like a turd when you’re done.”
Filed under: Political | Tags: budget, communications planning, Obama, politics, public relations, reputation management, target audiences
Our country is at an interesting time in its history. Not only are we struggling through a recession that’s causing widespread economic hardship; we are also in the early stages of a new Presidency. These two factors have filled news pages and websites with political communications, as special interests and those with strong political convictions jockey to be heard, and to position themselves favorably with their target audiences.
For most of us, political communications are inherently interesting, because we all have a vested interest in outcomes: lower or higher taxes, better or worse healthcare, accessible higher education… the list is endless. But as hard-working people who are interested in the success of our own businesses or organizations, political communications are interesting in terms of what they can teach us about successful (or unsuccessful) messaging.
There’s nothing like huge amounts of money to make a political fight interesting, and the Obama administration — displaying its typical communications savvy — presented its initial budget proposal as a fight in the making. That’s why his unveiling of the budget — and the Republican response to it — is an interesting case-study in communications, with plenty of lessons.
On the White House’s official website, the very first words they wrote in the days after the budget was presented to Congress positioned them for battle: “President Obama explains how the budget he sent to Congress will fulfill the promises he made as a candidate, and assures special interests that he is ready for the fight.”
Lesson: If you know your messaging will face critics or competitors, acknowledging that — or even embracing it — can be a good way to highlight your strengths. For example, if you sell goods similar to what’s available at a national chain store, but at higher prices, your messaging can incorporate your community ties, local commitment, and unsurpassed expertise, while pointing out that the lack of these benefits make competitors more costly in the long run.
The Obama administration also highlighted parts of the budget that delineate specific benefits that it says will accrue to the American people: expanding health insurance, reducing carbon emissions, improving education, creating jobs, and increasing taxes for those higher up the income scale.
Lesson: Always have proof-points for your main messages. Simply saying you have a great product or service is useless unless you prove it. Make sure every proof-point is something you can demonstrate as true, and impresses your target audiences. The key difference here, however, is that politicians (no matter their party) can promise benefits that may never materialize and blame other factors; we in the private sector, in businesses and non-profits, will actually be held more accountable.
The manner of the President’s presentation of the budget proposal is a time-honored, smart approach for two important reasons. First, presidents always must portray themselves as being on the side of the people, and vilifying special interests is one of the best ways to do that. Second, almost anyone in the U.S. can benefit from an image as the tenacious advocate who’s ready to prevail against the odds. Americans are hard-wired to admire anyone who fights against “entrenched powers,” and they support it.
Lesson: Know what your audience wants. If your audience values price above all other considerations, then talking about quality, craftsmanship, or a tradition of excellence is a waste of your effort.
President Obama’s budget messaging has the added benefit of adhering closely to the campaign themes that swept him into office: hope and change. “Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington,” he said of his plan.
Lesson: Be consistent in your messaging. If you have always positioned your auto repair shop as ASE-certified and master-mechanics only, then suddenly switching to a low-price message could severely undermine your image and damage your business. Accordingly, you’ll find hope and change is a theme that will continue throughout the President’s term.
But what about those who opposed the President’s proposed budget? They too are a group of polished communicators, and they did essentially the same as the President: positioned themselves as protectors of the people. But their positioning is based on protecting people from what they characterize as profligate spending by irresponsible bureaucrats.
House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say in response to the President’s proposed budget: “This budget taxes, spends, and borrows its way toward a bigger, more costly federal government at the expense of small businesses, family farms, middle-class families, retirees, every American who owns a 401(k), and anyone who flips on a light switch.” There wasn’t much else released from him on the matter.
If we look at the lessons we have observed so far, the above message doesn’t necessarily adhere to any of them, except the admonition to be consistent. There’s little acknowledgement of the competing message, there are no proof points, and it doesn’t really offer anything of real value or specificity to the target audience.
On the other hand, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republicans’ official response to the proposed budget, made a much longer presentation. He repeated essentially the same message as Rep. Boehner, but took it an important step further by incorporating an alternative vision to the Obama budget: We believe Americans can do anything, and that they can pull us out of the recession if government stays out of their way.
Simply pointing out that the Obama budget would raise taxes is inherently negative and offers nothing for people to believe in. Gov. Jindal’s message, however, pointed out specific Republican proposals that counter the president’s, and addresses the very same issues: healthcare, taxes, education, job-creation and more.
Lesson: Present specific benefits to your target audience. When it comes to your business or non-profit organization, you need to adopt the same approach as President Obama and Gov. Jindal. Whether it’s a smooth-running vehicle, a leak-free roof, or their house selling quickly, your target audience should be able to see themselves benefitting from what you have to offer.
Whether it’s political ideas or the benefits of products or services, properly communicating them to target audiences can be complicated. If you happen to work in an environment in which you can expect directly competing ideas to assault your own, then it’s even more critical that you carefully plan your communications.
The core of your communications rests on knowing your target audiences and what moves them as intimately as you can, and presenting something of substance and value to them. The rest of your planning — the “how” of reaching your audiences — is a series of questions with many possible answers. That’s why the folks who are able to navigate the communications landscape successfully are much sought-after, in the public and private sectors alike.
Filed under: Business columns, Customer relations, reputation management | Tags: public relations, reputation management, public relations ethics, Customer relations, UBS Bank, Swiss banks, peter kurer, IRS, corporate ethics
At its most basic, public relations is an effort to achieve the intimacy and trust of interpersonal communications. What makes it so difficult is to achieve this goal while targeting tens of thousands, if not millions, of people. But there are strategies you can adopt to make your tactics more effective. One of the most important is to behave ethically at all times: do the right things, and when you stray from the straight path, own up to it completely and without excuses.
Whatever misdeeds Swiss bank UBS is guilty of, this is the tack they are taking now. The bank has admitted wrongdoing on a large scale, according to the NYT story about it:
In a striking admission, UBS said that from 2000 through 2007, some of its private bankers and managers had “participated in a scheme to defraud the United States” and the I.R.S. by helping American clients set up and conceal offshore accounts. The scheme involved falsifying or not properly obtaining or filing certain tax forms required of both the bank and its clients.
Another important step in the PR process is to have a high-level executive perform the mea culpa, to demonstrate the organization’s commitment to avoiding malfeasance in the future. UBS can cross this off its list as completed; the words of its Chairman, Peter Kurer:
“UBS sincerely regrets the compliance failures in its U.S. cross-border business that have been identified by the various government investigations in Switzerland and the U.S., as well as our own internal review. We accept full responsibility for these improper activities.”
In a nutshell, that’s what’s required. A statement admitting not just guilt, but summarizing the extent of the guilt. Then, the statement of regret/remorse from a high-level executive, to humanize the statement and make it resonate with target audiences.
If you ever find that you or your organization has abrogated the trust of its target audiences (clients, customers, shareholders, etc.), do NOT prevaricate. Come clean right away, so that you can salvage your image and reputation, and move on to bigger and better things.
Filed under: Customer relations, reputation management | Tags: bloogger relations, budget, Dartmouth, media relations, Nancy Fontaine, public relations
Somewhere out there on the Web, most of us – individuals, sole-proprietorships, companies, non-profits – have a “data cloud,” comprised of all the many contexts in which we appear online. When somebody uses a search engine to search our name, or elements thereof, they access that data cloud. Most entities have very little control over their data cloud, and this is especially true for large organizations. That’s why they try to shape that cloud as best they can.
Prominent organizations, like Dartmouth College, for example, can’t possibly engineer every reference to them online. But they certainly can – and do – search for mentions of their institution relative to hot-button issues. This is what happened yesterday, when I posted the blog entry immediately preceeding this one. In it, I discussed Dartmouth’s handling of its budget cuts and layoffs; my conclusion was that they did a great job of segmenting their audiences. I was contacted the same day by Nancy Fontaine of Dartmouth Public Affairs, who pointed me toward the college’s comprehensive budget website.
This is an example of extremely astute public relations: finding out what is being said about your organization, and helping those sources to do a better job. Examination of the website reveals that the college has put out an enormous amount of information about its budget; the subtext is therefore that Dartmouth is committed to complete openness about its financial situation and ongoing fiscal management.
If you have the resources to help shape your data cloud by reaching out to bloggers and others who contribute to it, it’s a smart move and can pay dividends in the long-run. Blogger relations is growing to in importance, and someday will rival media relations as a critical tool for image and reputation management.
Filed under: Customer relations, Economic, reputation management | Tags: Dartmouth College, James Wright, layoffs, public relations, recession, target audiences
Dartmouth College announced recently that it is responding to the economic downturn by trimming its budget by tens of millions of dollars through 2011. For an ivy league institution to announce something like this is difficult; it has an incredibly diverse array of audiences to think about when crafting its communications, and so its messaging must reflect a recognition of these disparate, and sometimes even conflicting, expectations.
The announcement on Dartmouth’s website shows us clearly who they are talking to; going straight to the source is the best way to discern their intentions. The first sentence of the release – presented as a subhead of sorts – notes that Dartmouth President James Wright has put the excellence of the academic programs at the top of the priority list, along with maintaining the college’s ability to admit highly-qualified students regardless of their ability to pay tuition.
The primary audience for the overall statement, therefore, are prospective qualified applicants – those who, upon hearing that Dartmouth is cutting back, might consider a “competing” institution that’s in the same league as Dartmouth in terms of prestige and selectivity. Despite the many other audiences – trustees, alumni, faculty, staff, parents, community members and more – the life blood of the institution is the flow of intelligent, motivated students whose activities during and after their Dartmouth experiences bolster its image and reputation.
One of the rules in PR is that an organization must always express its disappointment at having to lay off employees. I don’t mention this as a merely rhetorical device to be used by cynical administrators – I remain convinced that managers hate having to let people go during economic downturns, and genuinely feel bad about the effect it has on those people. And I believe this should be communicated.
But the Dartmouth statement mentioned almost nothing in this regard. President Wright noted that the cutbacks of staff are “one of the most difficult” of his presidency, but that’s about all the release offered in terms of sympathy for employees. The statement did, however, give us an indication that employees received communications directed specifically at them, obviating the need to divide the focus of the main statement.
The statement noted that laid-off employees will be given a generous severance package including some pay, continuation of medical benefits, career counseling, and special consideration for re-employment over the next year. In other words, they probably received this offer couched in a very nicely-worded letter that expressed the administration’s dismay at having to take this step.
This is based only on inference from the statement, and from my interaction with some Dartmouth personnel, which has given me the distinct impression that they truly, deeply care about staff at all levels. The fact that it doesn’t come through in their statement indicates only that the primary audience is their immediate concern, since laid-off employees have already been reached.
The lesson: Using completely different channels to communicate is wise if you have widely divergent interests among your various target audiences. As long as you aren’t giving contradictory messages to the different audiences, segmenting them is sometimes the best way to proceed.
Filed under: Political | Tags: Associated Press, Liz Sidoti, media relations, messaging, Obama, political communications, public affairs
Although political communications is a field of endeavor distinct from the type of public relations I typically practice, I’d like to point out lessons you can draw and generalize to your own business or non-profit needs. Two of the most important are the quality of your media relations skills and the power of your messaging.
Barack Obama, as we have all seen, is an absolute genius when it comes to both of thise critical factors.
First, the media relations. This story from AP is about as close as a news story can come to being a press release right from the White House’s public affairs office. The transfer of messaging from the Obama administration to the news story is almost total, with almost no countervailing opinions. The lead paragraph is positively glowing:
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
This is stunning stuff, for PR people to get such clear messaging into a wire service story. It’s as if the reporter, Liz Sidoti, cut and pasted the top three key messages from the White House PA staff’s vision document. This could conceivably be due to Sidoti’s personal bias, but that would require the collusion of her edito(s) as well. While not impossible, as a former journalist I would hope it’s unlikely. So what we’re left with is that the PA staff is really good at its job.
The second factor is the power of the messaging. In Obama’s case, as is the case with any President of the United States, the issues he’s addressing are weighty and of concern to virtually everyone. When it comes to our sinking economy, our standing in the world, and the ethics of politicians (appointed and elected alike), there are plenty of low-hanging fruit to pluck when it comes to improvements, and Obama’s administration has leveraged them to great effect.
When powerful messaging is used, it can translate into very positive news coverage. It also can serve as a shield against criticism. If one frames the discussion in terms of saving the economy, repairing our damaged international image, and cleaning up government, there are few counter-messages to worry about. Nobody is in principle against these things, and therefore critics are put in the difficult position of trying to counter the messaging with detail-oriented messaging.
So a visionary president can propose saving the economy, while critics have to counter by saying, in essence, that they also want to save the economy (making them sound like “me too!” afterthoughts), but they disagree on the way it’s being done. Then the visionary messagers can counter by dismissing the critics as “nitpicking” or practicing the “politics of divisiveness.”
Messaging that allows you to set the agenda and frame the discussion, therefore, is critical to success. Repeating the messaging and ensuring that you have plenty of proof-points is also important. As you keep up on news coverage of politics, look for these tactics among politicians… that can inform your decisions in the much more civilized world of business or non-profit communications.
Filed under: Customer relations, crisis communications, reputation management | Tags: Austin Quality Foods Toasty Crackers, crisis communications, Food and Drug Administration, Kellogg Co., Kellogg's, Kris Charles, media relations, peanut butter, peanut corp., public relations, salmonella
The huge peanut butter recall that has dominated headlines over the last several days offers a great illustration of how important it is to be proactive and engaged with the media when an incident threatens your organization’s core. The salmonella outbreak linked to Peanut Corp. in Georgia has affected many brands that have had to pull their products due to the contamination, but the Kellogg Co. is one of the biggest food companies impacted, and has garnered the most media attention.
The odd thing, however, is that Kellogg has come out of this looking pretty good, despite having to pull a long list of products from store shelves. The key is how they handled it, and how they communicated their handling of it.
First, they started pulling products from the shelves before there was any report of illness linked to any Kellogg’s products, and they framed it in terms of their highest purpose: We’d rather be safe than sorry; we want to ensure that our customers can remain confident of their safety when they buy a Kellogg’s product.
This is a critical element of branding: every point of intersection between a consumer and a particular brand must be positive in some way. So even in dire circumstances surrounding a salmonella outbreak, Kellogg’s is keeping to the brand values.
Second, and just as important as pulling product early, Kellogg’s has engaged the media actively. This recent story is a prime example, because most of the information comes from Kellogg’s Co. spokespeople and statements, rather than from the FDA:
On Monday, the company based in Battle Creek said that contamination was confirmed by the Food and Drug Administration in a single package of Austin Quality Foods Toasty Crackers with Peanut Butter.
And here:
It was not immediately clear how many packages of Kellogg crackers had been tested, if more tests were being made on other products or if some had already been found not have salmonella, Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles said. A spokesman for the FDA said the agency was not providing any new information Monday.
This latter passage is particularly good, because the Kellogg spokesperson is providing information, which contrasts nicely with the FDA’s refusal to comment. Even if the casual reader doesn’t discern such detail, you can be sure the reporters do. In the world of reporting, those who help them do their jobs well and make deadline are heroes; by building up a bank of good will with journalists, the Kellogg spokesperson is laying solid groundwork for future media relations efforts. And, if she’s done her job well in the past, what we’re seeing could be the result of long-time relationships she has established with these journalists.
It’s often the case that crisis situations bring out the worst tendencies of a company, and only those who have a truly superior crisis communications plan – one that they have practiced over and over – will come out of a terrible incident looking good. Kellogg’s is in that position… so far.
