According to Sir Francis Bacon, silence is the virtue of fools. Judging by the record spending on campaign ads –particularly for swing states— President Obama and Governor Romney certainly took that to heart during the recent presidential campaign.

While partisanship in Congress remains a concern for most Americans, our democracy thrives on dialogue –on engaging with your supporters and your opposition –on seeking to understand the positions of others as much as seeking to articulate your own. That’s true not only during elections or on a national scale, but during any given week on a regional and local level as well. And it’s not just true in politics –it’s true of for-profit and nonprofit organizations wanting to protect their reputation and strengthen their brand.

When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city’s Department of Health took a vote earlier this Fall to impose the now infamous “soda ban,” he probably expected some resistance from the beverage industry but also some pats on the back for taking a step against the obesity epidemic in our country. What he probably did not anticipate was for Coca-Cola to feature a story about the ban on its own website. Seem counterintuitive?

Well, maybe so, but it’s also an effective public relations strategy. While many organizations prefer to take the ostrich approach –if we just ignore the bad stuff, it will go away –strong brands, like Coca-Cola, address issues that impact their reputation head on.

Most hospitals and health systems would do well to follow Coca-Cola’s example. But for most, that will require a culture shift.

Despite the fact that technology has dramatically changed the way we communicate as a society, and even within the healthcare industry, many hospitals and health systems are still struggling to shift from the “push era” to the “pull era” in ways that more effectively engage with patients and communities in their health care. Like Mayor Bloomberg’s ban, no matter how well meaning a hospital’s health-related messages are, real change occurs when you truly engage with people where they are already are –the web.

In fact, according to a recent  infographic describing online health consumer behavior, 23% of people use social media to follow the health experiences of friends;  80% look for health information online; and, health-related searches on Google are up nearly 50% over last year.

Coca-Cola understands the power of story-telling. So rather than simply push out their message via a predictable Facebook post or tweet,  sharing their disagreement with Mayor Bloomberg and belief in consumer choice, they crafted a story and featured it on their own website.

Now imagine that a mayor in Anytown, USA issued a ban on a health procedure believed to contribute to the rising cost of healthcare. Most hospitals would be outraged and craft key messages about how those decisions would negatively impact the hospital, interfere with the patient/doctor relationship, and do little to put a dent in rising costs. And while there’s nothing inherently wrong with these tactics, they’re just not enough anymore.

Does your hospital want to “A.C.E.” it like Coca-Cola did? Here are three ways to help you avoid the pitfall of silence:

1. Acknowledge. Don’t be a scaredy cat. It’s okay to acknowledge your opposition’s claim. Whether it’s a mayor imposing a ban or a reporter outing your readmission rates, acknowledge the issue. Then, use it as a platform to tell your story. While you don’t want to dwell on your opposition’s claims, you do want to provide your perspective and resolve any misinformation that may exist.
2. Create. While proactive pitching to the media, and media responsiveness are important elements of a solid communications and reputation strategy, in this age of digital communications, it’s critical to create your own content. Whether you choose to develop a blog, write your own news article, create an infographic, or post a video, make sure you are creating and promoting your content in interesting ways using mutliple platforms. But that’s not enough…
3. Engage. Developing and promoting communications in ways that reflect an understanding of your target audience –their expressed needs, their unexpressed wishes, and their behaviors is vital. Most hospitals focus on only the first of these three imperatives –that leaves two-thirds of the engagement opportunity on the table. Use data about consumer online behavior, information about your current and potential patients, and best practices from other hospitals and even other industries.  Together, these tools can help you achieve meaningful engagement to support your business goals and strengthen your brand.

Do you know of a hospital that’s effectively broken through the silence and engaged people around their own message? What other tips would you add?

by Mike Mulvihill

 As the presidential election season ramps into a full-tilt boogie, energy will be a topic perking toward the top of the national discussion. While the GOP candidates beat up on one another, the incumbent come this November is beating the energy drum.

 While perusing Facebook, I was greeted by an online banner ad for Obama’s campaign touting the current administration’s progress:

• In 2010 domestic crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003.
• In 2010 natural gas production reached its highest level in more than 30 years.
• The U.S. has become a net exporter of fuels for the first time since 1949.
• A five-year offshore leasing plan will make more than 75 percent of undiscovered oil and gas resources off our shores available for development.
• Electricity generation from wind and solar increased nearly 71 and 40.3 percent between 2008 and 2010, respectively.
• The Obama administration issued a conditional loan guarantee for the construction of the first nuclear power plant to be built in the United States in decades, providing enough clean energy for 1.4 million people.

While it is certainly arguable how much of a role the current administration played in much of these accomplishments, I do have to credit Obama’s stated approach, as recently affirmed in his State of the Union address, “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”

 Oddly enough, Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, in his State of the Commonwealth address on January 11, invoked the same “all of the above” energy strategy. (So this approach has a hope of being one of the few bi-partisan initiatives in the country right now.)

 What does an “all of the above approach” include? Coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable/alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass all fall under this umbrella. While he didn’t say much about coal in his SOTU address, Obama reiterated support for offshore natural gas and shale natural gas exploration, and included a call to arms to not concede the clean-energy race to China.

 While I have blogged about the impact of China’s nationalistic, government funded/protected approach to green energy development, elsewhere in the world business continues to boom in the global clean energy sector: Reuters reported that deals in the solar, wind, and energy efficiency industries netted a record $53.5 billion last year – up 40 percent from 2010.

 The “all of the above” strategy was also reinforced by last week’s Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook for 2012. EIA projects that between now and 2035 natural gas production and natural gas powered electric generation will increase to 27 percent of electric generation from 24 percent. Meanwhile, coal is projected to continue to be our primary source of electric power at 39 percent, but this figure is well below the 49 percent seen as recently as 2007. The balance will be absorbed by additional green power production from wind, solar and other renewable sources. As a result, carbon dioxide levels are projected to remain below 2005 levels through 2035.

 All in all, the body of information would indicate that we are making progress in “turning the QE” of national power and energy consumption to reduce coal dependency, reduce foreign oil dependency, increase use of renewables and hold or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All in all, I would categorize the “all of the above” approach and the progress being made as pretty encouraging news. Now if we can just get a new tax code put in place.

 Photo: pokerfanatics.net

by Mike Mulvihill

As a House Subcommittee probe into the collapse of Solyndra, Inc. widens (Solyndra received a $535 million federal loan guarantee), a second clean energy company with a $43 million Department of Energy loan guarantee has filed for bankruptcy. Beacon Power, which also received a $26 million in stimulus grant from DOE, was working on a new technology (fly-wheel based energy storage) that would allow the nation’s electricity grid to store wind and solar generated power, as demonstrated at a “a state of the art energy storage facility in Stephentown, New York.”

These bankruptcies are a travesty and also emblematic of what is essentially still a very embryonic alternative energy industry. In the case of Solyndra, the company’s business plan created expensive solar panels while the overall solar panel market saw a 40 percent price drop. These market conditions also were a harbinger of the collapse of two other solar companies – Evergreen Solar Inc. of Massachusetts and SpectraWatt of New York. Whether these conditions could and should have been anticipated is subject to debate.

While the reasons behind Beacon Powers collapse are not yet evident, (conjecture is that Beacon had product problems that were not addressed quickly thus resulting in lackluster investor interest) Republicans will waste little time adding fuel to a Solyndra probe designed to damage the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, the reality is that new technology companies fail all the time (more often than not) because they are risky start-ups. That is why government subsidies and incentives are needed in order to help an embryonic clean energy industry become a burgeoning one capable of attracting private investors. However, changing the rules of subsidies and incentives mid-stream has just the opposite effect on the risk profile for private investment. As stated in many prior blog posts, this is why a consistent, long-term U.S. energy policy strategy is badly needed.

And that is where these events become emblematic. Alternative energy is not ready for prime time and won’t be for another 20 to 30 years (if we invest in it NOW). Alternative is not the answer to energy needs short-term. For the next few decades, we need to harness all of our energy resources – traditional fossil fuel (coal and natural gas), nuclear, wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. Nuclear plants, as we know them today, are so large, complex and costly that one project gone awry can take down even the most financially stable investor-owned utility.( However, new technology smaller, “distributed” nuclear plants employing nuclear power plants similar to those used in the U.S. Navy for more than 50 years could be game changers for nuclear.) And solar and wind simply can’t address the technical issues of bringing energy to market at a price that is not two to three times what we pay per KW today. Notwithstanding the public process complexities of adopting wind and solar on a large scale, which will require addressing the realities of multi-jurisdictional permitting, zoning and public planning that could add decades to bringing any project onto the grid. The reality is that we need to update and replace the nation’s workhorse coal and natural gas power plants while we develop the next generation of clean energy generation, storage and transmission. Allowing Congressional subcommittees with political agendas to set this course, however, is the biggest mistake we could ever make.

In a nationally broadcast speech last week, President Obama announced his $447 billion American Jobs Act plan. Unlike prior speeches, he didn’t mention clean-energy jobs once, but if you read between the lines, there are areas where the sector could gain.

Putting that aside for a moment, it is also worth noting President Obama’s decision to omit traditional energy from his jobs plan. This is despite Labor Department figures (and Wall Street trends) that show the oil and gas industry (along with the technology sector) has been creating jobs as the economy has been losing them. Since the recession started in December 2007, the U.S. economy has lost 105,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the oil and gas sector has worked to add 20,300 new American workers. Perhaps the President believes he should leave well enough alone.

Meanwhile, the clean energy is on an upward trend as well. In fact, clean energy jobs grew 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2009, nearly double the rate of the economy overall.

The Obama jobs plan could continue to help cleantech economy growth and energy jobs creation in a number of ways – most indirect.

Infrastructure Investment. A direct investments of $50 billion to modernize America’s decaying infrastructure, including support for major new energy projects such as smart grid and transmission as well as transit and rail projects.

In addition, the proposed first National Infrastructure Bank, capitalized at $10 billion, would leverage at least $100 billion in private capital investment, financing new plants and new projects to boost American competitiveness. Off-shore wind projects are one example of stalled clean energy infrastructure, with no projects built to date. But there are 488 megawatts of new projects already permitted. The backlog could be cleared with seed capital from the new infrastructure bank. (It is worth noting that the offshore wind industry created 60,000 jobs between 2004 and 2008 in Europe.)

Modernizing pubic schools. Upgrading 35,000 schools and classrooms to relieve overcrowding can save energy as well. Making schools more energy efficient and using recycled materials would create thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs. (Materials used in building energy retrofits are 90 percent made in America and 91 percent of typical companies involve are small businesses.)

Extending 100 percent expensing in 2012. Extending 100 percent expensing will allow firms to take an immediate deduction on investments in new plants and equipment. This measure doesn’t single out clean energy but does allow plants to modernize through advanced practices such as “co-generation,” which uses waste heat to cut costs for manufacturers even as it cuts pollution.

While Republicans won’t like much of the Obama Jobs Plan, let’s hope they can find enough common ground to move job growth to the front burner of the U.S. agenda and perhaps salvage some of the public distain that has brought the Congressional approval rating down to a mere 6 percent.

After a week of speculation, by the time this post is viewed BP will have likely announced that Tony Hayward is headed to Siberia. Fitting that Hayward would be sent to Russia, where he will help manage BP’s joint venture there.  Perhaps the most deviled person in America, Hayward is the guy who after 11 men lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon rig said, “I’d like my life back.” Who referred to the worst oil spill in history as only a “relatively tiny” amount of oil.  The top exec of BP’s who in the midst of this giant crisis whisked back to England to race his multi-million yacht while Louisiana’s working class fisherman watched their livelihoods wash away.

In his place is the first American to ever run BP – Robert Dudley, a steady-spoken Southerner who’s quietly become the BP face in the Gulf since he took over that role from Hayward in June. Ironically, Dudley, who grew up in Mississippi, is best-known for being CEO of the Russian business TNK-BP, the very same unit where Hayward is being exiled. There, Dudley performed well until he fled the country in a visa dispute that is said to have been a Kremlin-inspired campaign to destabilize BP there and put it under more Russian control.

So what does Dudley need to do to salvage BP’s position in the U.S., which happens to be home to 40 percent of both BP’s assets and its shareholders?  His prospects aren’t promising. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the Gulf will spend years recovering from Hayward’s failed leadership. “The new leaders of BP will have an uphill climb to correct the legacy left by Hayward, indelibly inked by the disaster in the Gulf.” John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, said Dudley’s job is so onerous “I’m not sure if one person can do it all,”

Regardless, here are the things he must try to accomplish:

• Rally the Troops – The new chief must persuade thousands of employees to embrace a culture of safety that Hayward apparently failed to instill.  BP has one of the worst safety records in the off shore oil industry. The U.S. business has suffered three calamities in the space of five years—a fatal blast at a Texas refinery in 2005, an oil spill in Alaska in 2006 and now the Deepwater Horizon incident. The UK’s Times Online ran a November 2009 story, that “Ruthless cuts by (Hayward) have produced results in higher than expected profits… More than 6,500 jobs have been eliminated and overheads have fallen by a third….Having already cut $3 billion from costs, he predicted that another $1 billion will be eliminated by the year end.” Perhaps it is time to invest in people, in safety and in rebuilding employee confidence in BP.
• Show Up, Be Human, Be Credible – The first item Dudley has already done by running the Gulf operation since June of this year. Dudley, an engineer by trade but a businessman by profession, recently served in a position some at BP refer to as the Foreign Ambassador. “Bob Dudley is the only senior executive who is totally untainted by any of the problems that have hit BP for the past five years,” says Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst with Oppenheimer & Co.  Untainted though he may be, he’ll need all that diplomatic training and some on-the-ground, face-to-face visibility from the Louisiana up to Capitol Hill to mend fences among BP’s partners in the Gulf and convince the U.S. government and public they can trust it to safely do business here.
• Assurance and Stability – It is critical that a change in leadership does not signal anny wavering in BP’s commitment to take care of its own mess. If anything, it should signal a more fervent commitment to see this thing through for years to come. People in the Gulf, business partners and local, state and U.S. government need to know BP will stand by its commitments no matter how large they may be.
• Housecleaning – Several top U.S. executives have been tainted or have soured their relationships with the public and government. Dudley will need to clean house and replace his team with leaders and managers who can cultivate trust with critical stakeholder groups inside and outside of BP.
• Be Forthright, Compassionate and Honest – Dudley needs to be the anti-Hayward. When he makes a comment or a commitment, he better under promise and over deliver. He needs to connect with the public like they’re his neighbors. He needs to be humble and homespun, not smug, flip and hubristic.
• Businesslike and Pragmatic – The Gulf wants to get back to work. The oil industry wants to get back to work. And BP shareholders want the company to get back to work.  BP shares have dropped $77 billion in value since the April 20 rig explosion that set off the spill, even with a recent rally. And the stock market will be watching carefully for any sign of financial trouble — or to see if BP won’t resume its dividend — and sudden flight from the stock could erode Dudley’s internal support.

A tall task for one man to take on – but as PR and change management practitioners, it could be one of the most challenging and rewarding gigs of the decade. Hell, if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger.  Oh, and, buh-bye Tony.

Photo of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester from Aidan McRae Thomson

The following article by Robert J. Samuelson appeared in the Washington Post on January 21, 2010. The tone of the article is a bit political for my taste, but the facts address many of the realities about our nation’s “addiction” to traditional energy sources and speaks to the reality that we’re not about to change that dependence in the near future. So, in the spirit of many of my prior posts, let’s find a way to use our current energy sources more efficiently, while we develop alternative fuel sources.

Obama’s Energy Pipe Dreams

by Robert J. Samuelson

“For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. . . . Time and time again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

– Barack Obama, June 15 address on the BP oil spill

Just once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn’t that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control — his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the “clean” energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn’t going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.

For starters, we won’t soon end our “addiction to fossil fuels.” Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 85 percent of America’s energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that’s still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.

Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.

There are physical limits on new energy sources, as Robert Bryce shows in his book “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.” Suppose an inventor “found a way to convert soybeans into jet fuel,” Bryce writes. “Even with that invention, the conversion of all of America’s yearly soybean production into jet fuel would only provide about 20 percent of U.S. jet fuel demand.” Jet fuel, in turn, is about 8 percent of U.S. oil use. Similarly, wind turbines have limited potential; they must be supported by backup generating capacity when there’s no breeze.

The consequences of the BP oil spill come in two parts. The first is familiar: the fire; the deaths; coated birds; polluted wetlands; closed beaches; anxious fishermen. The second is less appreciated: a more muddled energy debate.

Obama has made vilification of oil and the oil industry a rhetorical mainstay. This is intellectually shallow, if politically understandable. “Clean energy” won’t displace oil or achieve huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — for example, the 83 percent cut by 2050 from 2005 levels included in last year’s House climate change legislation. Barring major technological advances (say, low-cost “carbon capture” to pump CO2 into the ground) or an implausibly massive shift to nuclear power, this simply won’t happen. It’s a pipe dream. In the EIA’s “reference case” projection, CO2 emissions in 2035 are 8.7 percent higher than in 2008.

Rather than admit the obvious, Obama implies that other countries are disproving it. “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America,” he said in his address. If China can do it, so can we! Well, whatever China’s accomplishing on wind and solar, it’s a sideshow. In 2008, fossil fuels met 87 percent of its energy needs, reports the International Energy Agency. Coal alone accounted for 66 percent. China represents about half of the world’s hard coal consumption. Usage grew 10.7 percent annually from 2000 to 2008.

The outlines of a pragmatic energy policy are clear. A gradually increasing tax on oil or carbon would nudge people toward more energy-efficient products, including cars. Any tax should be part of a budget program that includes major spending cuts. This is a better approach than the confusing cap-and-trade proposals — embraced by the House and the administration — that would inevitably be riddled with exceptions and preferences. Finally, research and development should search for cheaper, cleaner energy sources.

Meanwhile, it’s imperative to tap domestic oil and natural gas. This creates jobs and limits our dependence on insecure imports. Drilling advances have opened vast reserves of natural gas trapped in shale. Human error and corner-cutting by BP seem the main causes of the spill. Given the industry’s previously strong safety record, Obama’s six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling isn’t justified and should be shortened. It’s not industry lobbyists who sustain fossil fuels but the reality that they’re economically and socially necessary. A candid president would have said so.

General McChrystal

“Our specialty for years has been long-form journalism, deep reporting and politics. I’ve had a strong passion about having a say in national policy,” the ever-modest Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner told The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz this week. Well, he certainly got his wish. General Stanley McChrystal, arguably one of the best warriors of our time, and one who gained respect from our allies (“Where McChrystal Led, Britain Followed” – Robert Fox), was canned.

Say what you will about Obama losing control of the Afghan policy. Or about the incredible arrogance of the staff around McChrystal in spite of the modest success the surge has brought.  What’s interesting to me is the a) total collapse, or b) expert execution of Army’s public relations machine around this media relations disaster/victory. I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I believe that some folks are as smart as they say they are, but this mess leaves me firmly of two minds.

Some part of me wants to believe that it was just serendipity that brought RS freelancer Michael Hastings together with McChrystal for a visit that began with two days and morphed into about a month – stranded in Europe by the Iceland volcano, traveling to Berlin together and then on to Kabul. In this version of my public relations analysis, I could see Army Public Affairs challenged by the extent of the accidental access, possibly, or not having the right seasoned veteran traveling in the public affairs capacity with the McChrystal posse. A few beers, an unobtrusive tape recorder, some “aw shucks” leading questions from a skilled reporter, and BAM!

The Christian Science Monitor’s Christa Case Bryant, has posted a great story “The McChrystal Rolling Stone article: the story behind the story” on the subject of Hastings, who is not one of those  reporters that strive for balance or objectivity by his own admission (this is in the great Rolling Stone tradition). So, the Army PA folks saw some red flags, you would hope. This reporter couldn’t have snuck up on them with his press credentials from a generally anti-war publication, my reasoning goes.

“Public Affairs fulfills the Army’s obligation to keep the American people and the Army informed, and helps to establish the conditions that lead to confidence in America’s Army and its readiness to conduct operations in peacetime, conflict and war,” says the Army’s website. I wonder if the savvy Public Affairs leader Brigadier General Lewis Boone had his own “aw, s***” moment over morning coffee or evening cocktail when he got the news of this breaking story?

The other part of my brain, the more political and sinister, sees in all of this some potential that the General is pushing  back against civilian control that is a key cornerstone of our democracy.  What if this was part of a public relations plan to further paint President Obama as generally incompetent in all things war-related? I’m a little wary of raising the issue, but could it be that this unusual access to the General was planned, and that the comments by his staff were made generally with the permission of the head man in charge (with him adding some spice of his own to the mix)? This probably wouldn’t be the first time that such political machinations have been attempted, I think.

Just to take it one more step on down this path, General McChrystal is going to get a massive payday for his book, just like Octamom or any of a number of self-made celebrities. He had nothing else to prove in the Army, and I’m going to assume the pension is secure. Why not create a little celebrity notoriety that will play well with a large number of the folks back in the states?

Regardless of what is appropriate in the chain of command, there are plenty of people who would be OK with insubordination to this president, the General may have reasoned, and some of them are in a position to offer him vast riches. Being ousted in a tilt with Obama certainly will warrant a good look by Fox News (see News Hounds posts) for an analyst position, at the very least. And, what about the compensation and lifestyle for a celebrity General? He can receive pension benefits if he leaves the military, and enjoy the largesse of capitalists of all stripes, in jobs ranging from technology and manufacturing to media. Boards of Directors, interviews out the wazoo and lofty op-ed pieces all await him.

Celebrity-seeking PR smarts or naive miscues? We’ll see soon.

 by Mike Mulvihill

How much is your company’s reputation worth?  In the case of BP, apparently the U.S. government’s estimate is $20 billion. That’s how much the government has told BP it must set aside in an escrow account to restore public trust in BP, and, oh by the way, to expedite payments to help clean up and provide relief to Gulf Coast claimants.

However, I suspect that like me, the U.S. believes even a behemoth like BP may crumble under the financial weight of the massive clean-up effort the spill requires. So President Obama is making sure money is set aside now before BP ends up bankrupting its U.S. operation to cap financial obligations much like Johns Manville did in the face of asbestos-related mesothelioma claims and pharmaceutical firm A.H Robins as a result of the Dalkon Shield.

 The Associated Press reported on June 14 that BP’s costs for responding to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have risen to $1.6 billion. A mere pittance compared to what it will take to clean marshes and entire eco systems, but much more than $750 million cap under current U.S. law.

 BP’s stock, which has fallen by 50 percent since the spill began, is considered an income stock (i.e., invest for the quarterly dividends more so than the share price appreciation). Rumors are BP will delay its normal stock dividend payout or two in response to the Gulf oil spill.

Meanwhile, BP has found more ways to foster distrust than a pathological liar at a revival meeting.  The latest is hidden among the goods news that BP’s will ramp up current oil collection efforts made possible by its Top Hat maneuver to capture more of the oil spewing from the deep sea rift.  They say the collections will increase from 15,000 barrels a day to 40,000.  Only problem is that the 40,000 barrels is more than BP has stated the well was gushing mere weeks ago.

And, The Wall Street Journal has spotted the rats fleeing the sinking ship. The Journal reported today that Chevron and other oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from BP.  In the article, Chevron CEO John Watson wouldn’t directly criticize BP, but he said that even before the current disaster, Chevron had in place policies and procedures that might have avoided the oil-well blowout that caused the spill. “This incident was preventable,” Watson said.

All I know is if this was Bedford Falls, I’d likely be among the throng lined up at the good old savings and loan to get my last dollar out before the thing failed.  Sorry, George Bailey.

Photo courtesy of mueredecine

Young climate activists, who worked to mobilize voters in order to elect President Obama, are expressing great disappointment in the President’s recent announcement to expand oil leasing into large areas off the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico,

It’s Getting Hot in Here (dispatches from the youth climate movement) dismays their generation is getting screwed over by Obama’s offshore drilling plan.  “It’s like a kick in the face” says Jonathan Ruiz, a Florida International University student who spent 14 months campaigning for Obama..

Oh ye of little faith. Obama has learned how to play politics quite well in his limited time in national office.  His concession on off shore drilling is both a “chit” is his plan to pass a comprehensive climate bill and a concession that in reality may never yield a single drilling platform.

In a Forbes.com blog, Michael J. Economides, editor-in-chief of Energy Tribune, leading energy analyst, consultant, educator, petroleum engineer and author, compares Obama’s approach to a poker hand.  He postures that Obama’s movement on off shore drilling, while a positive step for increasing domestic energy resources, is just part of his strategy in a bigger game to gain passage of a climate change bill in Congress.  Furthermore, he correctly postulates that the EPA can kill or place so many hurdles in the path of increased off shore drilling as to effectively stymie any efforts.

Some, like America’s NewsOnline, have a more Machiavellian viewpoint.  They believe the Obama administration has no intention of increasing oil and gas exploration and is only using this announcement as a carrot for movement on its Cap-and-Trade bill (which off shore will eventually fall under as well).

Enough political drama, let’s look at this pragmatically.  In my adopted state of Virginia, newly minted Gov. Bob McDonnell has pledged to make Virginia “The Energy Capital of the East Coast.” He and our legislature have passed a number of green energy initiatives, including the creation of the Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority, as well as voicing support for expanded drilling in the Atlantic waters off Virginia.

But both the Navy (which has the world’s largest naval base in Norfolk) and NASA, which houses a rocket launch facility on Wallops Island on the Virginia Eastern Shore, have sent letters expressing concerns about offshore drilling in recent years. And both the Navy and NASA are just as likely to have great concerns with offshore wind farms disrupting their sensitive business.

Regardless of your political persuasion or environmental stance, the grim reality is that a gauntlet lays in front of any off shore drilling and, for that matter, off shore wind production with the heaviest odds laid against any new drilling initiatives ever coming to fruition.  So greenies have some faith.

Toyota Taking its Lumps

The Lean Manufacturing approach at Toyota puts standard parts into a wide variety of vehicles in their lineup, and by doing so raises the risk that failures will cause havoc to the company’s public relations, or worse, harm to its customers. So, how do you balance the additional profit per vehicle with the increased risk that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong big-time?

As Daisuke Wakabayashi reported in The Wall Street Journal last week, the Lean Manufacturing technique is seen as risky even by its promoters. David Meier, co-author of “The Toyota Way Fieldbook” and a consultant on the approach, was quoted in the Journal: “The cost may be decreased in the short term, but the risk is increased.”

Some experts say that Toyota’s perceived quality score could fall 20%, leading to a 4% drop in the residual value of its cars. The company could face difficulty borrowing for its operations (Fidgety Fitch put the company on negative watch recently).  Some analysts predict impact on sales of over $1 billion. Add to that the lawyers’ fees, the increased advertising and incentive costs, and you have the makings of a true corporate crisis.

Now, Consumer Reports has a dedicated page of blogs on Toyota issues.

Another overlooked-but-important question, then, is “How much is this going to cost me when I sell or trade my Tundra pickup?” Toyota had about 17% of the 10.7 million car and truck sales in 2009, according to WardsAuto.com. In recent years alone, their huge share increases mean that they’ve put millions of us at risk of experiencing a drop in the value of our vehicles. 

Does a company engaging in this risky business of Lean Manufacturing have an obligation to tell customers and investors of the risk? Or, is it caveat emptor? Toyota lists 10 risks of doing business in its 2009 annual report’s automotive section. Lean Manufacturing didn’t make the list. While it may not be material to Toyota in an accounting way, what about reputation and brand risks based upon exposing Toyota owners (both of their vehicles and of their shares) to such significant costs?

Roger Vincent and Ken Bensinger, reporting in The Los Angeles Times this week, focused on the “public relations blitz” begun last Sunday, quoting some PR professionals saying that the recent communications represent a “too little; too late” approach. In their reporting, Vincent and Bensinger characterize CTS Corp., manufacturer of the pedals, as apparently “taken by surprise” by the recall.

Was the Toyota PR team surprised, also?

Regardless of what happens to Toyota sales, it is important for the company to look at this incident with its legendary attention to detail. While the recall certainly has an impact on the seven wastes that are so high on the Toyota Production System radar screen, there is an even better reason to analyze and address the circumstances that led to this foulup.

The confidence of consumers can be a fragile thing. The discipline of disclosing risks to consumers and investors has to include revealing risks like the one coming from Lean Manufacturing practices. This means that a very deep look into operations should be married with a propensity to overdisclose; both to the company’s public relations, risk and sustainability professionals, and other, external stakeholders.

Toyota will survive and even thrive. The bigger opportunity here is to rewrite the book on how a manufacturer tells the rest of us about our risks due to its way of doing business. Toyota is in a great position to change the rules in favor of such transparency.

by Geoff Livingston

What better way to role into the Thanksgiving holiday than to poke a little fun at some turkeys? We can all use a laugh.  The following list represents some of 2009’s biggest Turkeys in social media.

1) Ashton Kutcher: Really? Really?  Did we really make this guy into the Twitter icon of the year? Dear God, help us all.

2) Jim Edwards, a Ketchum executive, who bagged Memphis on Twitter before rolling into FedEx HQ for a big meeting on digital media. Whoops!

3) Social media experts who got relentlessly bagged throughout the year, and rightly so. They never got beyond Twitter or Facebook.

4) Michael Arrington: I’m getting tired of the theatrics, from Le Web to the endless embargo drama to the libel thing.  Hell, the guy even hangs out with adults that still play with puppets. C’mon!

5) The Obama Administration: The promise of Gov 2.0 was overwhelming, and the incoming president and his team did nothing to quell the hype. The end result? Real bureaucracy crushed hopeful audacity. Now Obama has to deal with the Nobel Peace Prize fallout. Poor fellow.

6) Social media conference organizers and agents who continue to turn the other cheek on potential female speakers. Big ole turkeys!

7) Miley Cyrus for the Twitter quitting rap song. I hear you, Miley, but was all of this drama really necessary? Just quit and move on.

8) Corporate America: For continued failures in social media adoption.  This one came in via an anonymous DM on twitter: “No one I work for gets (or even wants to get) social media.” All bark, no bite. Control means more to CxOs.

9) The NFL: The league that likes to control it all (pull up those socks!) goes even further! I’m not a football fan, but as a marketer does banning Twitter really make sense? Fans love real sports identities and their updates! 

10) Peter Shankman for taking Jim Edwards to task about his Memphis tweet, then doing the exact same thing to Rochester, NY nine months later for the 2009 Northeast Regional PRSA Conference. Shankman spent the first five minutes of his lunch keynote apologizing for his hypocrisy. Fortunately for Peter, it didn’t get widely tweeted.

Photo: voxefx

 I have lived in several places throughout the east and Midwest, but I spent my formative years (8 to 18) in the garden spot of the Garden State and I have now lived in Richmond, Va., for the past 19 years (my longest stint so far in one city/location). So I have a special interest in the odd fact that New Jersey and Virginia have the only two gubernatorial races in the country this year.

And they are pretty telling races. Historically Democratic “blue” New Jersey has incumbent Jon Corzine running neck-to-neck with Republican Chris Christie, a former U.S. Attorney (who apparently has little respect for copyright law).  The polling difference between the two candidates falls within the statistical margin of error making it’s anyone’s race.

In Virginia, which as a one-term limit state never has an incumbent candidate for governor, Attorney General Bob McDonnell has a commanding double digit lead in the polls over Democrat Creigh Deeds, a long time state politician. A Republican win would end two back-to-back Democratic administrations in a traditionally Republican state.

What national implications should we read into these two races? Has Obama lost sway and, in turn, Democratic candidates? Well, according to the SmartPolitics blog, there’s a far less knee jerk story to all this. To quote the blog “A Smart Politics analysis of historical election returns in the Garden and Old Dominion States finds that the two states have voted in tandem during the last five gubernatorial elections dating back to 1989 - and always electing the party which is not in control of the White House. (If it’s not too late, find a bookie and put all your money on Christie in Jersey!)

From a social media standpoint it is interesting that in Virginia McDonnell has outspent the Democrat Deeds 5-to-1 in social media (a number which far exceeds the Republican spending advantage in traditional media.) As blog site bluevirginia  reports, ”That’s inexcusable…that the McDonnell campaign has blown Creigh’s campaign away in new media.”

But perhaps the most telling statement here is the naïve assumption that social media is the domain of the Democrats. The success of the Obama campaign taught both parties a lesson. If the Democrats want to learn something valuable this November for the 2010 midterm national elections (especially for U.S. House seats), it’s that social media, like liberty, is accessible to all.

 By Mike Mulvihill

Transparency is certainly top of mind in the SM world as a result of the FTC ruling on endorsements and testimonials (i.e., pay-to-blog). The ruling has drawn commentary from far ranging sources such as the Council of PR Firms to Chris Brogan. Like Chris, I don’t know what’s so hard to get on this topic – if you are given product or paid to blog, you better divulge it or your voice won’t have any cred (because sooner or later you’ll be found out.)

 I’m more interested in how transparency is making the news in a spat between the Obama administration and FOX News. OK, so back in the early 2000s, FOX pretended it was “fair and balanced” when it was anything but. Now, FOX is stoking up its ratings to unprecedented levels as what White House Communications Director Anita Dunn calls “a wing of the Republican Party.” The White House, which is essentially a wing of the Democratic Party, has said it is done talking to FOX News.

While I find this more than a bit disheartening from a societal viewpoint, as a communications consultant I say right on. From the White House viewpoint, FOX is a troll (photo courtesy of Doug Wildman), which Wikipedia defines as “…someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” One of the first bits of advice I received about blogging was don’t feed the trolls. And that is true in traditional communications as well.

Where do I get off calling FOX News a troll (at least to those who do not share its ultra-conservative agenda)? Let’s review a few pieces of history:

• FOX was founded in 1996 and is still headed by Roger Ailes, who was for years a Republican political operative, including a stint as the elder Bush’s media strategist during which he helped create the famous “Willie Horton” attack ad. 
• FOX is home to the conservative viewpoints of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others. They recently added John Stossel and are rumored to be recruiting Lou Dobbs.  Granted Beck and O’Reilly have “shows” (i.e. editorial) while much of the FOX News programming is “news.”  However, that line is a bit too gray for the White House.
• Before Obama even announced his candidacy, FOX started the false claim that Obama had attended an Islamic school (which was retracted).

 There are more but you get it – FOX is decidedly “conservative.” But, to their credit, at least they admit it these days. And the NY Times, NPR and others are “liberal.” So do you watch/read/hear news to broaden your horizons or to reinforce what you already believe? As a society, these days we seem more interested in the latter.

 Most successful issues management situations recognize that the secret to success is to mobilize supporters to help woo the large middle of the bell curve to your side of the issue. The two tails of the bell curve are either staunch supporters or staunch adversaries. Supporters you must avoid alienating. The adversaries are trolls – you won’t change their mind regardless of what happens. There is no need to include them, just make sure you know what they’re up to and don’t get baited into a fight. Because as FOX’s pugnacious Mr. Ailes has reportedly said, “Don’t pick a fight with people who like to fight.” 

 The next few months will tell whether the White House has silenced a troll or picked a fight. If nothing else, it will pump up FOX’s ratings.

Much ado has been made this week about America’s growing lack of civility.  Kanye dissing Taylor Swift; South Carolina Congressman Wilson calling our President a liar; Serena Williams dropping the f-bomb; Obama himself calling Kanye a jack-ass.  Is this something new?  Has incivility been escalated by social media because now we can – and should – say what is real whenever we feel like it?

The seeds of negativity have been sown for years.  Abortion, religion, politics – well before social media emerged from its primordial ether, we’ve been practicing a lack of tolerance on things we don’t all agree on.  But social isn’t helping the issue. 

 As Geoff Livingston said earlier this week, it is easier to grab a following around negative commentary than a positive post simply because we’re human.  I don’t disagree (in Shakespearean times that double negative was meant to show emphasis) that social media makes it easier to be uncivil, to sow negativity as we hide behind our keyboards. So like most things social, it exacerbates a situation for good as well as bad. 

 I’m not a conservative, but I like some of Thomas Sowell’s writings (see his columns link) – though perhaps less so as both of us have aged.  One column he penned a few years back asked, “What has happened to debate?”  You know, you have a point of view.  I listen to your POV.  I disagree, but perhaps I learn something by listening.  And vice versa. 

 I feel like we have de-evolved to the point where if I disagree with your point of view, it is incumbent upon me to tear you and your position down, to denigrate, annihilate and alienate – sometimes the more viciously the better.  And that’s a whole lot easier to do sitting behind my keyboard at the coffee shop than when I can hear or see my adversary.

 So what’s the point?  Let’s decide to re-evolve.  How about posting a point of view without a cheap shot?  Accepting that we may agree to disagree – and that’s OK.  Step away from the keyboard.  Step away from the abyss of the jackass.  Despite war, global warming and ACORN brothel loans, the world will be a better place.  If nothing else, you may actually feel better about yourself.  It’s a start.

In every big city there’s an underground, and in every large online movement there are undercurrents. In the Government 2.0 space that undercurrent is taking place on GovLoop, a relatively new, Ning-based social network with more than 8,000 public sector or related members. The man behind GovLoop is Steve Ressler, who also was one of the organizers behind last weekend’s highly successful GovCamp. We took a moment to interview Steve about his efforts and his thoughts on the current state of Government 2.0.

Q: Why did you start GovLoop?
SR: Necessity is the mother of invention.  After creating Young Government Leaders, a professional organization of over 2,000 young federal government employees, I was invited to speak at tons of conferences from Harvard to Brookings where I met a ton of interesting people from various associations, universities, state and local agencies, and more.  We would have these great conversations and I kept thinking it was a shame that not everyone could join the conversation.  Maybe your boss wouldn’t approve the trip, maybe the training budget was broke, maybe you coldn’t travel because of family. 

In winter 2007, I moved to Tampa, Florida as my lady started a new tenure-track professor gig.  And suddenly I was one of these people who could no longer go to conferences, events, and work happy hours.  So I took my earlier idea and just did it.  I wanted an online home for people around government to connect and share ideas to improve government.  And it wouldn’t matter if you were junior or senior, federal or state or local, in Alaska or D.C.  So I spent a few months researching the technology and on Memorial Day 2008 I launched GovLoop to about 10 friends.  Now we have over 8,400 friends on the site :)

Q: What do you hope GovLoop will achieve?
SR: I hope GovLoop becomes a hub for the government community where we work together to improve government.  Instead of working in silos or always turning to contractors for advice, I hope government turns inward to the repository of brain power residing in the 30 million federal, state, local, and english-speaking international govies. 

So if you are working on a project to implement a wiki knowledge management solution in your agency, you should turn to GovLoop and ask if anyone has done the same thing.  That’s a real example that received over 30 responses from GovLoop members.  I have about 50 similar examples of people using GovLoop to improve their job or project.  I would like the number of examples to explode exponentially – let’s see 10,000 flowers bloom

Q: Where do you see GovLoop fitting in with the whole Government 2.0 movement?
SR: I view Government 2.0 as defining the next generation of government.  This next generation of government is built around the Obama principles of openness, participatory, and transparency.  GovLoop specifically is a new model of participatory and collaboration among the government community.  Government has always worked in silos whether by agency, job title, hierarchy, or association (young, retired, webmaster, public affairs, etc). 

GovLoop provides a home for Government 2.0 participation and collaboration where you can connect and share ideas and best practices with brilliant minds across government.  And it’s actually fun – you can debate Gov 2.0 and WhiteHouse projects and then switch to debate Battlestar Galactica in the “Geeks for Government” group

Q: How long will it take the Obama Administration to make social media systematic and why?
SR: Funny – that’s the question I’ve been asking people lately.  The answer I’ve been getting is 2-3 years – 2011 or 2012.  When I talked to the O’Reilly team, they said it took 2-3 years after the first Web 2.0 Expo for the term to really take off and experience exponential growth. 

Personally, I think “Gov 2.0″ is in the same place – senior management are starting to hear the word and asking people to investigate.  Once the OMB Open Government Directive is announced in late May, I think that will get the ball rolling.  But change is hard and it will take some time.

Q: GovCamp was deemed a success.  What were your take-aways?
SR: Don’t wait around waiting for permission.  Don’t wait around for White House to grant everyone permission or sign a memo.  Get started now.  Find other people interested in your agency and other government agencies and find a way to get the job done.  Yes, legal and security will give you a hard time.  Because change is hard.  But Gov 2.0 is needed – so just do it.
 
Q: You have had a pretty successful start on Ning.  What’s it like working on the open platform?
SR: I’ve been happy with Ning.  They provided a basic technical foundation to get your own social network up and running.  I also like their moves to integrate with Open Social – I see a lot of potential.  However, I always tell people that the technology is the easy part – the real trick is building community.  That’s hard and takes a lot of work and a lot of time.  Never underestimate the soft skills.
 
Q: Why did you choose Ning over a unique community in a larger social network?
SR: Part of the reason I created GovLoop is that I used to run groups in LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace for a non-profit I created called Young Government Leaders. 

And there are 2 things I noted: 
1) We were building silos again – the Young Government Leaders people were still not talking to other government people like Federally Employed Women, State and Local, International, and people who didn’t know about us
2) The conversations were not very rich – the blogs and discussions were very limited and didn’t take off.  And the other features were also limited. 

But I still have have GovLoop groups in Linkedin and Facebook as another way for members to stay in touch.  So feel free to check them out.

This post may seem a little bit off the beaten path, but as one of the leading marketing blogosphere outposts from the Capitol Region, it seemed appropriate to shed a little light on a once in a lifetime phenomenon happening here. The Obama inauguration is transforming DC into a gigantic celebration similar to a New Orleans Mardi Gras or a New Year in the Big Apple.

This will be my fifth inauguration since moving to the district in 1992 (I’ve live here for 16 of the last 17 years), and none of them have been as celebratory as this one. Longer term residents, including some who saw Kennedy inugurated, say that this is a completely unique event.

Consider the parties. The usual events — dubbed inaugural balls — feature several black tie parties. This year, in addition to the ten official inaugural sponsored balls, wide swaths of congressional delegations, political bodies and special interests are throwing their own balls and parties. Further, the District has passed a temporary waiver on late night bar hours for the four-day festivus weekend.

It’s to the point that the city will pretty much shut down next Tuesday for security reasons as 1-3 million visitors flood the National Mall to witness the 44th president taking his vows. We actually are closing for the four day inaugural weekend as the preceding Monday is MLK day, a federal holiday, and most of LComm lives across the bridges and could not come to work on inauguration Tuesday anyway.

I will be attending my first ball on Sunday night, the Lincoln 2.0 ball sponsored by the District of Columbia. This one is particularly fitting as the inauguration has taken on the Lincoln theme, celebrating the other famous president from Illinois. Lincoln 2.0 is being held at the same place as Abraham Lincoln’s 1865 Inaugural Ball, what is known today as the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Then there are the floods of celebrities and performers coming in to witness history. It may as well be Oscar night!

Every administration seems to affect the city (Washington Post’s Linda Davidson photo shows Obama visiting Washington institution Ben’s Chili Bowl). The Bush I years were conservative yet solid. The Clinton years, well, they were wild, but open, fun, and sometimes contentious. The Bush II years were just downright repressive at times. I’ll never forget driving across the Key Bridge months after 9-11 and seeing a tank pointing its canon across the bridge from Georgetown.

Like the rest of the country, Obama’s win seems to have set off a sigh of relief in DC. And one hell of a big inauguration party. Only time will tell how the cultural feel of the city will change, but until then all eyes are on O.

What about your neck of the woods? Any special inaugural activities planned?

It’s either that or keep looking the other way.

There are only two weeks left to send a message to President-elect Obama for Darfur. We’ve already collected 70% of the online postcards needed to reach 1 million.

A movement of voices matters. Please, take 30 seconds to fill out this very brief message to Obama: www.addyourvoice.org. Add your voice. Tell your friends. Stop the Darfur Genocide.

As stated by Jerry Fowler, President of the Save Darfur Coalition:

We cannot let this moment pass. President-elect Obama may never be in a stronger position to launch a sustained peace process.”

Take time to ask others to add their voice. This Blogger Toolkit includes Facebook and Twitter tips, video embed code, badges, and an point of contact at Save Darfur for questions. Additionally, Beth Kanter wrote up a case study on this multi-channel campaign, and Geoff blogged about our role in the effort.

Thanks, on behalf of Darfur.

Confederate: United in a league, alliance, or conspiracy (image by Geoff Livingston).

Creating social media strategies for large organizations can be unwieldy. Disparate divisions, brands, product launches, autonomous departments, budgets and line items can give corporate communicators a tough time as they bridge their companies into the social era.

Some organizations can manage their organizations well enough to federate their social media efforts under one roof. Now some very basic best practices are arising. According to the Fortune 500 Business Blogging Wiki, 62 of the country’s largest companies are already engaged. But others cannot, and they must look to create a different model, one we have started calling the confederate model.

There are many organizations that simply cannot get all of their parts to agree on a unified strategy. For example, consider national non-profits that have local autonomous chapters. Other corporate structures where this problem can arise include partnerships like large law firms, franchise models that feature local owners and undefined marketing structures, and automobile dealerships (Star Alliance image by Nergiz).

For all intents and purposes, these loosely organized bodies can do what they like. This creates enormous challenges online, in large part because of the disparate efforts can confuse customers, as well as fracture brand conversations. Indeed, a communicator needs to acknowledge that there will always be a healthy majority of internal stakeholders who will never engage in the larger social media stratey.

Building a Confederated Model

Instead of trying to control the social media effort under one roof, confederated models try to empower individual stakeholders in the larger organization. A confederated model for a company or non-profit assumes and includes the following:

In addition to building the actual framework, a great deal of the effort involves internal alliance building and communications. Local stakeholders need to be made aware of and convinced about the effectiveness of the social media tool sets.

Of course, what would a proposed stategic model be without a case study? One needs to go no further than the Obama campaign’s social media efforts. This is an ongoing effort.

Partisan politics aside, Obama’s campaign communications involves intense grassroots activities using social media tools. Tens of thousands of Obama campaigners, advocates and even casual voters are enabled to spread the message.

At the heart of the effort is activism on more than a dozen social networks, as well as the Obama campaign’s web site. Bloggers using the Obama platform have even posted negatively against policies or Obama actions.

Not your average political campaign, but one that does fit into the confederated model. The Obama campaign is less concerned about individual flare outs and control, and much more oriented towards word of mouth and viral grass roots activism. The results have been self-evident.