Will Chick-fil-A CEO Ever Learn?

Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy just can’t keep his mouth shut about his conservative stance on hot-button issues. Last summer he spoke out against gay marriage. This week, he did it again, although there may be evidence that he’s slowly learning a lesson.

When the U.S. Supreme Court this week ruled on several issues related to same-sex marriage, Cathy tweeted, “Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies.”

A short time later, the tweet was removed. Chick-fil-A released a statement that said, “He realized his views didn’t necessarily represent the views of all customers, restaurant owners and employees and didn’t want to distract them from providing a great restaurant experience.”

That is exactly the issue with CEOs using their positions to express political or religious views that have absolutely nothing to do with their business. That’s why CEOs should resist the urge to let their egos take control and keep their views to themselves.

Finally, it appears, some public relations professional at Chick-fil-A headquarters is giving the boss some good advice. It’s just too bad Cathy didn’t seek that advice before the fact.

 

 

 

 

A Lesson in Social Media: Turn Off the Robo-Tweets During Tragedy

You can forgive us Americans if our nerves were a bit raw yesterday. An iconic sporting event turned into another senseless tragedy when two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon finish line.

So, as people turned to social media to get updates from news organizations, to console each other and even to track down friends and family who were near the scene, very few were in the mood to get run-of-the-mill marketing pitches in their Twitter streams — especially from a widely followed social media guru.

That’s what happened, though, as Guy Kawasaki asked his 1.2 million followers, “Ready to get your writer’s edge?” and then linked them to the sign-up page for one of his upcoming events. Kawasaki bills himself as the “former chief evangelist of Apple” and now is an independent social media consultant.

Many of his followers were incensed. Clearly, the spam that continued from his feed as news spread about the deadly blast was auto-generated. But as a number of people pointed out, he could have — and should have — cut the damn thing off for a while.

Soon, it became apparent that Kawasaki himself was back at the controls, but it didn’t help. Rather than admit appearing insensitive — even if due to a technological miscue — Kawasaki was defensive and arrogant. “Loving how people with less than 1,500 followers are telling me how to tweet.”

Ouch.

The outcry only grew louder, and deservedly so. “Because that is a measure of knowledge??” tweeted one follower. “It’s nice to see that having a million followers does not guarantee a person will have any sense of humanity, tact or humility,” posted another.

The lessons here should be obvious, but for the record:

• Technology is great, but it still requires a human touch. There are some decisions a computer just can’t make.
• Social media is about building relationships. You can’t build relationships with a machine.
• Part of building relationships is not coming off as an insensitive jerk at a time when your audience calls out what it deems to be offensive behavior.
• Sheer number of followers alone does not make you an expert or automatically confer good judgment.
• There still seems to be a mystical aura around social media, even after several years of it becoming part of the business communication mainstream. This is propagated in part by self-proclaimed experts in the field. But really, the principles governing social media are essentially the same as any other vehicle, including: Build and maintain relationships. Be transparent. Treat your audience with respect.

Want to Quash the Rumor Mill? How About Joining the Conversation?

The age-old employee communication challenge for organizations has been how to contain the employee rumor mill. It’s an issue that predates formal employee communication programs and it’s even more vexing with the prevalence of social media.

These days, instead of gathering around the water cooler or hitting the local bar to gripe about their bosses or workplaces, employees often take to Facebook or Twitter, which of course gives greater reach to those complaints. Employees can do a lot more damage to organizations by hitting “send” than they ever could do over a beer.

As a result, many organizations have created social media policies that seek to restrict what employees say about them in social media. That seemed to put a little muscle behind employers’ expectations of their employees’ online activities. However, the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that there is a limit to which organizations can restrict employees’ free speech. (Hat tip to Les Potter, integrated marketing communications instructor at Towson University, who blogged about this issue at More With Les.)

According to The New York Times, which covered the rulings, the NLRB “says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook. … ‘Many view social media as the new water cooler,’ said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. ‘All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.'”

Smart companies have learned that in order to rein in the wild-west atmosphere of social media, it’s important to engage with consumers and members of the news media covering their industries and organizations. However, it seems fewer companies have discovered how to engage with employees via social media. I’ve heard of some companies that try to do so, even creating Facebook groups where employees can share information and knowledge. But that’s still company-sanctioned media (like the newsletters and intranets of days gone by). What about engaging employees where they are? That would be risky, for sure, but could also go a long way toward taking some steam out of the rumor mill.

When it comes to the principles of effective employee communications, I’ve always believed there’s not a lot new under the sun. Communication should be two-way and symmetrical, meaning both the organization’s leaders and employees can initiate it. It should be open and transparent and it should focus on helping employees engage in the business. But when it comes to best practices, we still have a long way to go. Engaging with employees where they are — online — just might be the brave new world.

 

Social Media are Stressing Us Out!

As if managing the expectations of friends and family in the real world wasn’t enough, a study from the University of Edinburgh School of Business in Scotland indicates that the more types of friends we have on Facebook, the more stressed out we are.

Our anxiety increases because of the greater potential to offend someone, according to the study. Specifically, we’re afraid that our swearing, partying, smoking, drinking and engaging in other embarrassing or activities will be looked down upon by our co-workers, bosses, neighbors and parents.

“Facebook used to be like a great party for all your friends where you can dance, drink and flirt,” says Ben Marder, a marketing fellow at the university and the report’s author. “But now with your Mum, Dad and boss there the party becomes an anxious event full of potential social landmines.”

So, what is a Facebook over-sharer to do?

That’s what I talked about in an interview on the funny new weekly podcast, “Constant Crisis News & Opinion,” hosted by fellow communicators Chuck Hansen and Hamilton Holloway. (If you haven’t checked out their podcast, you should. As their tagline indicates, they poke fun at a world gone nuts, taking the ridiculous things we humans do and deconstructing them in an entertaining and often thought-provoking way.)

Chuck and Ham asked me to talk about how we can keep our sanity while continuing to be active on social media. As I said in the interview, it comes down to turning on that internal editor that social media have an inexplicable yet effective way of shutting down.  I confess during the interview that not many people overshare on Facebook better than I do. Some of my more introverted friends are horrified at the things I choose to share, though to me, crowd-sourcing my problems is cheaper than therapy.

Now, it’s not like I engage in risky or potentially career-ending behavior and post the evidence for all my 250 friends to see. But I do share my triumphs and heartaches, some of them quite personal, with my friends and family on Facebook — some of them professional colleagues. I don’t believe doing so has stressed me out, but I like to think I know the boundaries pretty well.

Some folks don’t think twice about posting what-happens-in-Vegas-worthy details of their lives and then wonder why their parents look at them disapprovingly at the next family dinner, or why they suddenly were disqualified to receive that promotion.

There’s more to the story than that, so go take a listen to the podcast. The entire episode is great, so if you have about 40 minutes to spare, grab a cup of coffee or listen to it over lunch like I usually do. If you’re pressed for time, or if you just can’t wait to hear what priceless pearls of wisdom Chuck was able to salvage from our conversation, jump to the 20:40 mark.

 

Like-A-Hug: Happiness is a Warm Laptop

The day is coming when human beings will no longer need actual physical contact. If trends continue, we will be able to get it all from social media.

Three MIT students have created the Like-A-Hug, a “wearable social media vest” that inflates whenever someone “likes” a photo, video or status update on your Facebook wall,  “thereby allowing us to feel the warmth, encouragement, support, or love that we feel when we receive hugs,” according to inventor Melissa Kit Chow.

Since hugs are intended to go both ways, the students also developed a means for users to return the favor by squeezing the vest and deflating it.

This development comes on the heels of the Kissenger, a device that — despite its decidedly unromantic-sounding name — allows long-distance lovers to send virtual smooches.

What’s the next logical product to emerge from this line of thinking? I don’t think I want to know.

I’m also not sure I want a hug every time someone “likes” one of my Facebook posts. And no offense to my Facebook friends, but I’m not sure I want to give all of them the ability to give me a hug, virtual though it may be. I mean, I’m an affectionate guy, and I’m choosy about the people to whom I grant Facebook friend requests, but couldn’t we develop something a little less intimate? Say, a virtual chest bump or high-five?

I’m no Luddite — I appreciate all the good things that social media can provide — but I believe I’ll stick to real hugs from real people, and only for worthy reasons. Not for posting a picture of what I made for dinner.

 

4 Reasons Big Bird is Still Cool After All These Years

Who would have thought that the “Saturday Night Live” performer getting the most laughs this week would be Big Bird?

But there he was, all 8 feet of his yellow plumage, seated next to “Weekend Update” segment host Seth Myers, yawning because he was up way past his 7 p.m. bedtime and nearly stealing the show from guest host Daniel Craig.

Big Bird suddenly became the talk of the U.S. presidential campaign last week after Republican Mitt Romney suggested withholding federal support for public broadcasting. Romney promised he had nothing against Big Bird, but the damage was done. The next day, from Sesame Street’s Twitter account, Big Bird tweeted, “My bed time is usually 7:45, but I was really tired yesterday and fell asleep at 7! Did I miss anything last night?”

Big Bird was retweeted more than 12,800 times and has been the talk of social media and news programs ever since.

How is it that a puppet from a children’s show manages to remain so cool and so relevant — not with kids, but with grownups — after more than 40 years? The answers provide some good lessons for brands everywhere.

1. Stay true to the brand. Big Bird doesn’t try to be something he’s not. He, like all the Muppets from “Sesame Street,” remain in character — and more important, true to their characters — no matter what situation they’re thrown into. It would have been tempting for Carroll Spinney, the main inside the bird, to knock off a few double entendres or attempt some “grown-up” humor, given the setting. Instead, he kept it clean: “I’m a bird! Tweeting is how we talk!”
2. Know your audience. Big Bird’s appearance on “SNL” wasn’t geared to children, most of whom share a bedtime closer to his. He knew his audience was the parents of those kids, many of whom grew up watching him on “Sesame Street” themselves. He also knew his audience would never forgive him if he delivered a line not in keeping with his character.
3. Don’t take yourself too seriously. The whole reason Big Bird’s appearance worked is because Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit production company behind “Sesame Street,” has a good sense of humor about itself and was willing to play along — as long as the brand’s integrity remained intact. That’s the sign of a strong brand.
4. Remain relevant. “Sesame Street” has managed to do so after all these years, even with many of the same beloved characters. A child-like 8-foot bird that’s active on Twitter? Now, that’s hip.

PR Pros and News Media: Truth Emerges from Tension

Social media have forever changed the way information is disseminated and shared. The relationship between public relations professionals, whose job it is to reach audiences with their organizations’ messages, and the news media, who own many of the communication channels, has always been tense because of the sometimes conflicting agendas and a degree of distrust between the parties.

That tension is healthy in a free society. It’s not that one side is right and good and the other is wrong and bad. It’s more an issue of checks and balances. Our systems of free enterprise and a free press work best when no single entity holds all the power and control.

Recently, law enforcement leaders from around the country came to Richmond for the sixth annual Social Media, the Internet and Law Enforcement (SMILE) conference. Through panel discussions and workshop sessions they learned how to use social media — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms — to reach the public directly with their information. Organizations around the world, from for-profit corporations to nonprofits to government agencies, increasingly use social media as a way to engage with their audiences and to share information.

This is a positive development because, especially in a free society, information must flow freely. Truth emerges from transparency. However, as we see every day on television, radio and the Internet, it is sometimes difficult to discern the truth from all the information that is out there. After all, our system of the free flow of information depends on some degree of honesty and fairness from both the press and providers of information including public relations professionals.

The Public Relations Society of America has a code of ethics that it expects its members to follow. Among its principles are the protection and advancement of the free flow of accurate and truthful information and honesty and accuracy in all communications. Ethical practitioners of public relations will adhere to these principles, but as with any profession, there are those who will test the boundaries or outright ignore them.

Likewise, the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics encourages reporters and editors to test the accuracy of information they receive and to distinguish between advocacy and journalism. Ethical journalists will engage in balanced reporting, but of course there are journalists who will skew toward one party or another.

We should expect that the free marketplace of ideas will weed out the unethical public-relations practitioners and the biased journalists.

When it comes to information the public has a right to know, a free and independent press plays a crucial role. That’s why remarks from Rick Clark, the police chief in Galax, Va., who was a panelist at the SMILE conference, disturbed me. While he was correct in encouraging law enforcement agencies not to hide from the truth and to tell the bad news along with the good, he also apparently feels that a town with no independent press is a good thing. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s story about the conference, “Clark said he was lucky to work in a town without a daily newspaper or television station. He said he thought his department’s website was his town’s news source, at least on police information.”

Even in the age of social media, no organization — especially a government organization — should attempt to be the public’s sole source of information. While I would hope Clark’s department adheres to the standards of ethical public relations, he should appreciate the vital role that a free and independent press also plays in disseminating information the public needs to know.

Without a doubt, social media present an opportunity to put more information in the hands of more people. Social media also give organizations a chance to interact directly with their stakeholders — whether they are consumers, stockholders, government agencies or other businesses. However, we should also embrace the positive tension that exists between organizations and the press. It is that tension through which the truth emerges.

Chick-Fil-A: From Frying Pan into the Fire

Chick-Fil-A, the fast-food restaurant chain famous for its chicken sandwiches and for being closed on Sundays, is in the midst of a media firestorm over its CEO’s remarks about traditional marriage. The company seems to have gone from the frying pan into the fire in a matter of days.

A few observations about the communication implications:

CEOs need to learn to keep their mouths shut about hot-button issues not directly related to their businesses. The real head-scratcher for me is why Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy felt he needed to speak out about his personal support for traditional marriage (interpreted by most as anti-gay marriage). He made the remarks to a Christian news organization in the context of discussing how his beliefs influence how his family-owned company approaches business. But surely he had to anticipate the impact his remarks could have on the bottom line. CEOs – even those who take seriously their personal faiths – have an obligation to be good stewards of the companies they lead. That means not saying or doing things that put the company in a precarious financial position.

Corporate values are fine, but beware crossing over into personal values. Ever wonder why most company values include overused words like trust, respect for individuals and integrity? It’s because they are values everyone can agree on. Who doesn’t want to work for a company that’s committed to excellence or honest in its dealings? The problem is not with corporate values, it’s with the trickier personal values that some company leaders choose to communicate. Mr. Cathy is a devout evangelical Christian. He makes no bones about the fact that the personal values his faith has led him to espouse spill over into how he runs his company. (And, by the way, he can run his privately-held company however he wants to, guided by whatever personal values he wishes to follow.) But confusing the two is treacherous. Companies can impose and even enforce their corporate values on employees and customers (“this is how we do things around here”), but their leaders can’t and shouldn’t try to impose their personal values on stakeholders.

Social media add tremendous fuel to PR firestorms. Part of the reason the backlash toward Chick-Fil-A has been so strong and so fast is because the story has taken on a life of its own online. Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Social media is the great equalizer. It gives people who are otherwise relatively voiceless an enormous advantage in communicating with the public.” Not only do stories like this spread quickly online, but it can become nearly impossible to steer the conversation. So much information is shared so quickly with so many people, anything a company says in its defense is likely too little, too late.

We live in a hypersensitive, polarized, information-overloaded world in which public debates quickly reach a fever pitch. And companies need to understand that’s the public audience they’re dealing with these days. I don’t know if this I’m-good-you’re-evil mindset is a new phenomenon or if it’s always been there and is just now being exposed by social media, but it’s real. I’ve been watching discussions about the Chick-Fil-A story on discussion boards for communicators and among my friends on my Facebook feed. It’s amazing how quickly a civilized, grown-up discussion can deteriorate into name-calling and ostracizing. Anyone who happens to like a Chick-Fil-A sandwich is called a bigoted hater. Anyone who supports marriage equality for gay people is called an anti-family radical. This polarization and pent-up hostility is a force that communication professionals must reckon with. Ignore it at your peril.

Just as it was born in the free marketplace of ideas, this issue should be settled in the free economic marketplace. Given that Mr. Cathy has spoken his mind, and given that the debate rages on in the traditional and social media, the ultimate judge in this case should be consumers. Let those who are opposed to the CEO’s remarks boycott the restaurant. Let those who support him buy an extra sandwich or two. Let the Muppets find somewhere else to market their characters. Let the marketplace decide whether or not this fast-food chain will survive. But don’t let government intervene, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston would like. No laws have been broken – so far – and both sides are busy communicating to their constituencies. Let communication happen and let the public decide who wins.

Birth of a Tumblr

Oh, to be 25 again. And rich. And the founder of one of the fastest-growing social media platforms in the world.

David Karp, the founder of Tumblr, arrived 10 minutes late to speak to a sizable audience of students and professors at VCU’s School of Mass Communications on April 2. Nobody seemed to care that he was late. Dressed in black skinny jeans, a plaid shirt and a gray hoodie, Karp looked more like one of my son’s friends than the leader of an Internet upstart. Actually, maybe this is what leaders of Internet upstarts do look like.

One student tweeted that Karp “looks like the long lost 5th Beatle.” (You can read more of the live-tweets in this Storify account of the event.)

But all similarities to either my son’s friends or to the Beatles ended there. The guy is brilliant. He started selling computers at 15, dropped out of school at 16, learned the ropes of web development here and in Japan (to which he escaped after a girl broke his heart), and caught the blogging bug in 2005. The problem was that he didn’t like the limitations and the “big, empty text box” of standard blogging platforms. So he created one of his own that emphasizes the sharing of multimedia — photos, videos and music.

Today, Tumblr has more than 50 million users who post 600 new items every second. There are creators and there are curators who share the creations with the broader audience — 9 out of 10 posts are shared items. Although unintentional, communities began to pop up across the platform and today Tumblrs of all ages can be found all over the world.

Two principles guided Tumblr’s creation and growth: let people share anything and customize everything. So simple, yet so effective.

The takeaway for me was that David Karp identified a need and found a creative way to meet it. And it made him a millionaire. It’s a formula that has worked millions, if not billions, of times over the years. It’s just that most of us don’t tap into such an enormous need with such a creative solution before the age of 20.

Does Culture Matter? Ask Goldman Sachs

If you think company culture built on solid values isn’t important, take a look at what Goldman Sachs is dealing with today.

In a New York Times op-ed, company executive Greg Smith tells why he is leaving the company — and it isn’t pretty. He delivers a scathing indictment of the company’s culture, which he says has devolved from one of integrity and doing the right thing to one in which the only thing that matters is making a profit. As if any financial services company needed this kind of press right now.

“It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you,” Smith writes. “It doesn’t matter how smart you are.”

He adds:

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

A company’s culture does matter — not only to the people who work there, but ultimately to its customers. Garbage in, garbage out. If your business is built on the sands of profit at any cost, it will eventually come crashing to the ground.

This op-ed also serves as a warning to business leaders who think they can keep such betrayal of corporate values inside the family. The age of social media has made employees a lot more brazen. They will air your dirty laundry and it will go viral, just as this article is.

Years ago, I parted ways with a company I believed in because my boss asked me to do something that violated my professional standards. What he asked me to do wasn’t illegal, but I just couldn’t do it and continue to function in my role with a clear conscience. I strongly believed my boss’s behavior — and my dismissal after challenging it — also violated the company’s stated values.

If enough people feel that way often enough, sooner or later a company will see talented and engaged employees looking to work elsewhere. And that is a real business problem.