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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

Political advertising goes Broadway

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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….

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter

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.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Twitter