Will Obama fairness message stick?

Note: Every four years I start following political communications strategies they way some people follow sports.  Like sports, political strategies can be focused, executed with creativity and discipline, and inspire the fans. Similarly they can be a train wreck. 

I think President Obama is onto a potentially powerful message strategy in his campaign speeches. Now, he needs to support that platform  with emotional stories, and convey the three essential messages more clearly and consistently.

The platform is essentially about fairness.

In America we’ve always been greater together than on our own. We succeed when we’re all rising. This  big, inclusive, generous, bold, ambitious vision of America is what’s at stake, is what we’re fighting for.

  1. Every American gets a fair shot if they’re willing to work hard to get ahead.
  2. Every American needs to do their fair share.
  3. Every American plays by the same set of rules.

Our brains react to five threats or rewards: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. Choosing fairness is both an American value and connects with the 99 percent who are outraged at the inequities of the one percenters, which both Romney and Gingrich are.

Scientists have also found that fairness can be linked to achievement.  “Fairness between strangers at the individual level is what allows social organisms to thrive, and to out-compete more selfish societies, ” according to a Fast Co. article last year about a study done by evolutionary scientist Joe Henrich at the University of British Columbia.

While I think most voters want the “certainty” brain circuits lit in this election — more jobs, stable housing prices, assurances about no new taxes, withdrawal from Middle East — those are things that no politician should promise as he or she has so little control over those outcomes.

But fairness? Fairness provides an opportunity for all boats to rise. And who doesn’t want a better country for themselves AND their family, friends, neighbors and countrymen?

If I were running the Obama campaign I would support the platform by:

  • Share stories of Americans — famous and everyday — who have gotten a fair shot, succeeded, and give back.  Make the message real, emotional and aspirational through individuals’ stories.  Even the President’s own.
  • Highlight people who are doing their fair share — and then some. Social entrepreneurs. Small business owners committed to their employees and their communities. Community college teachers. Hospice nurses.  Tireless community volunteers.  Generous individual donors to vital non-profits. You can whine about how unfair life is, or you can do. Celebrate the doers.
  • Give concrete examples of distorted rules that need to be changed to level the playing field. Specifics make a message real.

During his first term President Obama has not emotionally connected as well as he could with Americans, and what he most believes in seems kind of vague to the average Joe and Jane. People don’t want wonk-ish  explanations. They want to be inspired.

While I am comforted to know that a leader has the intellectual chops to lead amid complexity, most people want a president who “gets them” — feels their pain, their hopes — and has the conviction to make things happen to address those pains and hopes.

Conviction is emotional, passionate, fierce and focused.

Obama potentially can deliver on this. Romney, not so much. Gingrich, potentially.

Let the election communications strategies begin in earnest!

Keep asking political leaders this one question?

I have an idea about how we regular citizens might be able to focus our political leaders on want we want and need — vs. what they need to get re-elected.

What if every time a political leader sponsored a bill, gave a campaign speech, or pronounced a campaign pledge/message, we asked them this question:

How does this do the most good for the most people?

I’m weary of how politicians of every party cater to special interests and the issues that rile people up — or at least get them the most media sound bytes.  I’m disgusted with the blame game. I’m embarrassed that leaders and potential leaders manipulate people around issues that have little to do with governing, but a lot to do with garnering support to be (re) elected.

I want clear answers to this one question so that I can understand what I’m voting for. Or shouldn’t vote for, as the case may be.

Our country, our states, our cities and towns have limited resources, and are likely to become far more limited as we reduce the rate of government spending. So given these resources, how do we make decisions and support programs and policies that do the most good for the most people?

I’m fairly educated, but man oh man, I can hardly make sense of what I hear and read from our government leaders. Isn’t it time we demanded clarity so more of us can understand what’s what? So that more of us can actively take a role in helping our elected leaders serve us — the big collective us, not fringe and special interest groups.

Asking this question is a small action, but maybe if we all get behind it (or something like it) we can make a difference.

Please take this idea and make it yours. If you think there’s a more powerful way to phrase the question, please share that.

I intend to use this question often and with discipline — during my senator and congressman’s town hall teleconferences, adding comments to politician’s blogs and sites and on general media sites, Tweeting after watching campaign stump speeches, writing personal emails and letters to officials while they are debating on potential legislation.

What do you think?

 

Courage to lead: Providence Mayor Angel Taveras

True leaders are rare. Especially among  elected government officials, who tend to make tough decisions based on how it will affect their re-election chances.

One of those rare leaders is Providence Mayor Angel Taveras,  guiding the city and its people through some exceedingly painful yet necessary decisions in order to fill a $110 million  deficit.  And Providence isn’t just any city. It’s been historically  fraught with corruption, closed-door wheeling and dealing, and an unhealthy influence of self-serving insiders.

I often hear people excuse leaders’ inability to lead, saying things like, “Well he’s got a complicated situation to deal with.” Or, “It will take years for anyone to be able to change this place.”

Yet Taveras is deftly guiding the city through difficult change in order to get on firm financial footing. Imagine being a first-time urban city mayor and having to make tough decisions like closing schools and laying off community teachers, firefighters and police?

Despite these always unpopular decisions, Traveras is earning respect and collaboration from his constituents. The reason? He’s focused on doing what’s right, and working WITH diverse constituents. He isn’t dictating how to get to financial stability; he is collaborating in the true sense of the word with the people in the city who best know how to make changes on a tactical level.

Six critical leadership competencies that Taveras brings as mayor:

  1. Focus on a clear, shared goal: restoring the city to a sound fiscal foundation. Taveras’ message is clear about the urgent need to solve the deficit crisis.  Period.
  2. Honesty: revealing the city’s dire financial situation right after his election. No spinning bad news. No taking time to socialize ideas and tend to politics. Taveras has been a straight shooter, presenting the reality, and calling for people to come together to figure out solutions.
  3. Transparency, sharing: sharing the data to help everyone make better decisions.  Fire union president Paul Dougherty recently said that previous mayoral administrations would withhold financial information and often say, “Find it yourself.”  Taveras’ negotiators, however,  have “been straightforward, and they give you information when you ask for it.”
  4. Admitting missteps: acknowledging mistakes and learning from them. “They’re right,” said Taveras of crticism from the teachers union on how the city revealed teacher layoffs. “We certainly could have done a better job with our teachers and I learned from it.”
  5. Not having the answers: great leaders set goals and ask people with a stake in the outcome to create the best way to achieve those goals.  This approach speeds change. The solution isn’t dictated from above, it’s created by the people closest to the issues who know the issues, and will  be responsible for executing them. Taveras doesn’t claim to have the answers, and believes that Providence’s leaders have the ability to create the “how” now that the why is so vitally clear.
  6. Belief and fortitude: Taveras has a steadfast belief that the city will solve its problems, and he’s steadfast in his belief and his values. “He’s showing me intestinal fortitude that I didn’t think he had,” says Joseph Rodio, a lawyer for the police union. “Most politicians, in their first 60 days in office, become somebody different. He hasn’t.”

Quite simply, Mayor Taveras seems to have the courage to govern for the people and with the people.  That’s the type of leader — not politician — we should be supporting if we really want to make our cities, states and country a better place to live.

 

Egypt erupts: leadership lessons in the six freedoms

As I watch Tunisia and Egypt erupt, I’m reminded that leaders — of countries and of companies — can be extraordinarily successful or dismal failures by how they involve people in creating change.

Management consultants Diana Whitney and Amanda Trosten-Bloom believe that there are six conditions for the liberation of power in organizations — and as we’re seeing today, for liberating power in countries.  The “six freedoms” are:

  1. The freedom to be heard.
  2. The freedom to dream in community.
  3. The freedom to choose to contribute.
  4. The freedom to act with support.
  5. The Freedom to be positive.
  6. The freedom to be known in a relationship.

Social communications are activating and empowering people  in  countries, in companies, in government, in activist organizations.  Whether you agree or disagree with Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, it’s another example of how  social technologies are  liberating power when there is a desire for these six freedoms.

Great leaders always ask an essential question: What of the dreams of the people?

Extraordinary leaders involve people in making those dreams real. They create corporate or civic cultures that encourage and support these six freedoms.

My hopes and dreams are for the people of Egypt today — that they  can quickly and peacefully begin the collaborative journey to the type of country they dream of.

________________________________

To learn more about Diana and Amanda, check out their excellent book, “The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change.”

Bringing Ben Franklin’s Junto to business

Where is Ben Franklin when we really need him?

After a long election season with candidates bashing one another in unhelpful ads, and after a few too many meetings where organizational politics seem to block progress, I’m thinking maybe it’s time to model our civic and business conversations around Ben Franklin’s Friday night Junto club. The Junto was a  small group of local businessmen who got together to discuss current business, scientific and political topics.

The “rules” of the club are as relevant today as they were in the 1730′s.

To join the club, you had to stand up and pledge to these four questions:

  1. Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer: I have not.
  2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer. I do.
  3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.
  4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.

Imagine if political candidates had to pledge to these? And how about if we pledged this before the start of some business meetings — especially those where we have to make difficult choices? Talk about setting a new context.

Franklin also came up with some fascinating questions to guide the Friday night discussions. Here are some of my favorites. Additional ones can be found here.

  • Do you know of any fellow citizen, who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation? or who has committed an error proper for us to be warned against and avoid?
  • Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?
  • What new story have you lately heard agreeable for telling in conversation?
  • Have you met with any thing in the author you last read, remarkable, or suitable to be communicated to the Junto? particularly in history, morality, poetry, physics, travels, mechanic arts, or other parts of knowledge?
  • Do you think of any thing at present, in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind? to their country, to their friends, or to themselves?

We talk a lot lately about conversations and authenticity. Maybe we need more good questions like these to guide us, along with a pledge to be open and respectful to other people — and other ideas. Why? Because we “love mankind.”

Humanizing diplomatic communications

What was remarkable about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia last week was that it showed an innovative approach to diplomatic relations and communications. Rather than just the formal meetings with dignitaries Clinton showed a much more human communications style, both in style and actions, making time to speak at universities to talk with female students, to appear on a popular television show,  to go to church.

Clinton told reporters that she is determined to make a connection to people “in a way that is not traditional, not confined by the ministerial greeting and the staged handshake photo…I see our job right now, given where we are in the world and what we’ve inherited, as repairing relations, not only with people.”

Fantastic.

Better yet, the previously overly cautious, overly messaged Clinton, has seen the light about the value of straight talk.

Mark Landler of The New York Times reported on Saturday: “Mrs. Clinton raised eyebrows among journalists and analysts with a frank assessment of how a succession struggle in North Korea could undermine talks over its nuclear program. She said she was baffled by the reaction.”

“Maybe this is unusual because you are suppose to be so careful that we spend hours avoiding stating the obvious,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I think it’s worth, perhaps, being more straightforward, trying to engage countries on the basis of the reality that exists.”

This straightforward, human approach to communications is what all people are craving — in foreign relations, in government, at school, in business. In fact, one of the effects of social media has been to amplify this desire.

Gary Hamel recently posted “25 Stretch Goals for Management” on the Harvard Business Publishing blog –  summarizing a two day summit of business leaders tackling the topic of how to reinvent management.  My favorite goal, which underscores Clinton’s recent style, is #24:

Humanize the language and practice of business. Tomorrow’s management systems must give as much credence to such timeless ideals as beauty, justice and community as they do to the traditional goals of efficiency, advantage and profit.”

Mrs. Clinton has come so far in changing her leadership communications style over the past two years to be more real, more human, more direct.  Now let’s help our business leaders do the same so they can be more inspiring leaders vs. merely effective managers.

Political advertising goes Broadway

The twisted language of politics

The language of politics is fascinating when you look at it as linguistic science and infuriating when you look at it as manipulation and persuasion.  My friend May Kernan, an accomplished communications strategist, shared this today as an attempt to “see” better.

I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

  • If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re ‘exotic, different.’
  • Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.
  • If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
  • Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.
  • Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
  • Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
  • If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor,  spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a  state of  13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
  • If your total resume is: local weather girl,  4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
  • If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.
  • If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
  • If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
  • If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you’re very responsible.
  • If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.
  • If you’re husband is nicknamed ‘First Dude’,  with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

Hillary's speech fails

Hillary’s Clinton’s speech last night was intended to unite the Democrats, persuading those who voted for her in the primaries to support Barrack Obama. As a communications analyst I can tell you that the speech did not succeed.

The intent of Clinton’s speech was not to garner support for Obama. Instead, Hillary talked about Hillary. The speech largely recanted her experiences on the campaign trail. It was Hillary’s swan song to Hillary and her almost-successful campaign.

While her style was articulate and strong, it failed to affect behavioral changes because it was too controlled and too clinical. Her gestures of support for Obama were clearly stated, but not deeply felt. Reason without genuine emotion rarely succeeds in changing people’s minds, never mind their actions.

Michelle Obama’s speech on Monday night, on the other hand, was effective. She was articulate, passionate, accessible, and aspirational. Unlike Clinton’s detachedness, Michelle Obama combined reason and genuineness. No wonder there are so many Tweets and posts flying around that say: “Michelle Obama: 2012.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFsB09KhqI&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/michelle[/youtube]

Campaign 2.008

“Campaign 2.008: Politicians Have Yet to Realize the Full Potential of New Media,” featured in the current issue of The Public Relations Strategist, offers some diverse perspectives on how social marketing is effecting the U.S. Presidential campaign. Written by former political reporter Ed Cafasso, managing director of MS&L, the article includes views from:

  • Randy Kluver, communications professor, Texas A&M University
  • Bill Rice, president, Web Marketing Association
  • J. Barbush, associate creating director at at ad agency RPA
  • And yours truly, Lois Kelly

Unfortunately the magazine, published by the Public Relations Society of America, isn’t available online, but if you click here and scroll down to Articles you can get a PDF.

Tony Snow: communicator extraordinaire

[photopress:Tony_Snow.jpg,full,pp_image]

Tony Snow, former White House press secretary who died Saturday, was a true communications professional, devoted to helping people understand even the most complex issues. I will always remember what I learned from him:

  • Communications is about making meaning and helping people understand. People may come to a different conclusion and not agree with you, but they will never see your view or agree if they don’t understand the context and relevance of the issue in the first place. Tony was first and foremost a meaning maker, not a political spin doctor.
  • Be helpful and open. Tony wanted to be helpful to the press — more so than any other press secretary in recent years. Most others have been defensive and annoyed with the media questions. Not Tony. He answered questions vs. dancing around and throwing empty answers back. He was positive, optimistic, and seemed to genuinely like and respect the media — despite differing points of view. I think he knew that that democracy is based on debating and discussing, not issuing statements and refusing to engage in dialog.
  • Living in a world of optimism and possibilities is a good life. Though ill for many years, Tony’s optimism and energy was a constant reminder of how rich life can be. University of Chicago educator Robert Hutchins once said, ‘The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” Tony was the antithesis — engaged, passionate and constantly nourishing.

Who are the up and coming Tony Snows and Tim Russerts? We need them now….

Social media and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

I was recently invited to share my views on the effect of social media on the 2008 Presidential Campaign for an upcoming feature article in the Public Relations Strategist.

Here are a few highlights:

Is the use of social media mainly tactical or strategic?

  • If a goal of the candidates has been to convey a message of change, the use of social media represents a clear change from traditional ways of reaching out to and engaging voters.
  • If a goal has been to engage with young voters, the use of digital has been a hugely successful strategy. According to Rock the Vote and CIRCLE (Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement), voter turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds has doubled and tripled in almost every state primary and caucus. These young voters’ preferred way of learning about candidates and participating in the campaigns is through social media and word of mouth marketing. According to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press study that looked at voter behavior, two-thirds of Web users under 30 use social networking sites, and only 25 percent watch television news for campaign news.
  • If a goal has been to manage positive and negative feelings about the candidate – and help people connect with candidates’ personal characteristics — social media has been strategic for Obama, but far less so for Clinton or McCain. Obama has shared more about himself- and social media is about people wanting to connect and share with people. He has also used a relaxed conversational communications style vs. speaking in “message points” during interviews and in videos. Clinton and McCain have used social media more as a channel, filling it with traditional “produced” videos and ads. Clinton and McCain haven’t adjusted their content or communications style for the new medium nearly as well as Obama, although Clinton has done a better job than McCain.

How has social media changed the game of the campaign so far?

The three biggest impacts of social media on the 2008 campaign:

1. Fund raising: Changed the game on how candidates raise money, putting more power with the everyday people than in any previous race. In March alone Obama raised $40 million, largely from the campaign’s 1.5 million Internet donors. According to Clinton’s campaign she raised $2.5 million after winning Pennsylvania primary and asking people to go to her site and donate. According to the most recent Federal Election data, 43% of contributions to Obama’s campaign have come from donors of $200 or less, compared to 27% for Clinton and 20% for McCain.

2. Traditional media: Changed the influence and role of traditional media, with more and more people going direct to hear and read about the candidates – viewing speeches on YouTube vs. TV, and going direct to sources vs. reading journalists’ coverage and analysis. For example, after Obama’s speech on race in March, the transcript of the speech “ranked consistently higher on the most emailed list than the articles written about the speech,” according to The New York Times (“Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass it On.” )

3. Advertising: Showed the diminishing effectiveness of “packaged” TV advertising. Leading up to the Florida primary Mitt Romney spent $29 million on 34,821 ads, more than three and a half times as much as John McCain who spent $8 million on 10,830 ads, according to analysis of data through Jan 27 by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. The effect of the big advertising spend? No lift for Romney who soon pulled out of the race.

In addition, millions of people are tuning into candidates via video vs. TV ads – on their campaign sites and on YouTube and other video sharing sites. Obama’s speech on race, “A More Perfect Union,” has been viewed by almost 4.5 million people on YouTube since March.

Goodbye to Hillary: voting on feelings

[photopress:Hillary.jpg,thumb,pp_image] Hillary Clinton is extraordinarily intelligent, ambitious, and tenacious, but many people just can’t connect emotionally with her. As Prof. Drew Weston, author of The Political Brain, says:

“After party affiliation, the most important predictors of how people vote are their feelings toward the candidates.”

Here’s my view on Hillary’s failure to connect, excerpted from Beyond Buzz:

Bill Clinton gave an inspiring, emotionally charged, off-the-cuff speech at Coretta Scott King’s funeral, peppered with one-liners that the audience boisterously applauded, including “You want to treat our friend Coretta like a role model? Then model her behavior.”

According to many observers, Senator Clinton’s remarks were more formal than her husband’s, delivered in a measured, restrained, and deliberate style. The contrast between the two Clintons was vivid, as was the audience’s reaction. They cheered Bill, while they respectfully listened to Hillary.

“I think Bill Clinton delivers inspiring addresses,” explained Theodore C. Sorensen, one of John F. Kennedy’s best-known speechwriters, wrote in The New York Times. “Hillary is more likely to deliver learned lectures.”

A few years back, I had lunch with the late MIT professor Michael Dertouzos who had just returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he had heard Mrs. Clinton speak.

“She was absolutely brilliant,” he said. “Her understanding of complex issues and her ability to get up and talk about those issues was remarkable. I don’t think anyone else at Davos came close to her in being able to articulate such cogent perspectives on today’s social, political, and economic issues.”

Yet, because Mrs. Clinton speaks formally, in full paragraphs and with little emotion, it’s often difficult to see things from her point of view and to connect with her as a person. Like many CEOs and marketing programs, Mrs. Clinton’s knowledge is substantive, but because her style lacks emotion and the language of conversations, it often fails to move us.
To succeed in a conversational world, we marketers (much like Hillary Clinton) need to reset our style so people can more easily understand our points — and get who we are as people.

Activating change needs an emotional connection.

Sen. Reid's "new site" just another one-way vehicle

 [photopress:Reid_message_jpeg.jpg,full,pp_image]

Sen. Harry Reid , the House Majority Leader, sent me an email today about his new site:

“I believe it is important for you to stay updated on the work I am doing on your behalf in Washington. As part of this effort, my website has been completely redesigned with the latest online tools available to help keep you informed about the issues I am addressing and the services my office can provide for you. “

I checked out the site, but it misses something very, very big: there’s no way for me to talk back. No way to post comments. No way to see what other folks have to say and connect with them. If I want to send Sen. Reid an email I have to fill out a long form. Geez.

Social media has fundamentally changed our expectations. We don’t want to be communicated to; we want to be able to connect with.

Sorry, Harry. Hope you didn’t spend a lot of our money on just prettying up a Web site and adding a couple of videos.

PS — When I have sent Reid emails with questions and concerns, he sends back form emails saying he can’t respond to me as I’m not a Nevada citizen. If you’re the Majority Leader shouldn’t you be willing to listen to more of us?

Update: What candidates' language saying about them

What is the candidates’ language saying about them? This excellent CBC story provides some in-depth analysis. Here are highlights:

Using his text analysis software program University of Texas professor James Pennebaker, says that:

  • Barack Obama, through his use of language, appears cognitively complex, socially skilled, genuine and sensitive, though he appears more emotionally volatile than the other two candidates.
  • Hillary Clinton and John McCain seem more emotionally stable than Obama.
  • McCain comes across as quite optimistic.

Using his model that determines the amount of deception and spin in candidates’ language, Queen’s University computing science professor David Skillicorn believes:

  • Obama is the king of spin.
  • McCain is the most forthright.
  • Clinton speaks more or less candidly, although lately, she has been using more and more spin.

The language analysis science is fascinating. The question, however, is whether voters will detect the same conclusions as the software and how it will influence their decisions.

(Hint: It did in the last U.S. presidential election, as this post explains.)