Archive for category Public Relations

What if Chuck Knoll bought PR?

Most companies start shopping for PR well after they need it. I see it a lot and am sure you’ve also heard way too many times executives say things like “get in here and get some early wins” by “picking the low hanging fruit.”

If this was football and I heard my coach say that, I’d think this is not a team built for the SuperBowl and I’d be calling Jerry Maguire to get me on a Chuck Knoll-led team ASAP.

So many companies shop for a PR solution in the way you run to Home Depot for a generator. The lights are out, the milk is getting warm and the kids are getting bored with Monopoly. Emotions run high and that strategic thinking that should be driving the decision for PR to support your business for the next few quarters gives way to buying tactics and ideas that feel good today.

Those are usually sexy and fun ideas or trick hook and lateral passing plays that get everyone stimulated like chugging a Red Bull to get ready for work – when you probably should just eat better and get more sleep.

As anyone who has ever worked with me has heard me say: Ideas are like belly buttons, everyone has one and most of them don’t work. I’m more interested in creating the right organizational design from which to execute ideas that align against specific business goals. And I want people on my team who thought to buy the generator on a sunny day. Those people win you championships and have great ideas!

Chuck Knoll won four SuperBowl championships as head coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers and was famous for saying that “Three things can happen when you throw the football. Two of them are bad.” He was renowned for running the ball in a cloud of dust and punting on 4th and inches. What gets lost is the foundation he built as an offense and defense that allowed him to run any kind of play.

Oddly, I’m a lifelong San Diego Chargers fan and love the passing game. But when it comes to PR, I am more in Chuck Knoll’s camp than Don “Air” Coryell’s of the 80s Chargers — and so should you.

SuperBowl championships as a franchise:

  • Steelers: Six
  • Chargers: Zero

I rest my case.

– Jose Mallabo

, , , ,

4 Comments

13 Signs you might be an Internet entrepreneur

13. You know the up and down connectivity speeds to your house

12. You can rattle off your IP address faster than your SSN

11. Your focus and visualization skills are good enough to make beef jerky taste like steak

10. You keep your house at 68 degrees Fahrenheit to keep the server comfortable

9. Before you go to bed you move the laundry to make room for your iPad and laptop

8. When you travel, the first question in the morning is to your co-founder sleeping across the room: “Dude, what’s the Wi-Fi login?”

7. When you travel, you stay in the kind of hotel where your car is parked right outside the door

6. You know the current time in Delhi and today’s date but have no clue what day of the week it is

5. You think Tom’s Shoes is a great authentic story of doing social good but wouldn’t wear them

4. You know the exact cost of your healthcare coverage and what’s included – or read this and realized you don’t have any

3. Your mom sends you links to some site called Monster.com

2. You miss @arrington

Number 1 sign you might be an Internet entrepreneur:  All of the above is pretty much how you planned it except Arrington leaving TechCrunch. Still miffed about that one.

, , , ,

No Comments

The Message of Mitt

I’m not a political blogger.  I am, though, a voter and a PR/messaging guy with a blog who has been devouring the drama of the race for the G.O.P. nomination like bacon in the morning.

You don’t have to be interested in politics to appreciate the war of words that’s been playing out over the Republican debates the past couple of months.  But if you are a PR person it’s really interesting to wonder how Mitt Romney messages his campaign going forward.

He entered the race on the platform of:  “I’m not a politician, I’m a business man from the private sector.” The idea is that sets up the jobs creation narrative in what he did at Bain Capital.

Mitt Romney

He’s fed the American public a steady diet of messaging that argues we don’t need another career politician into the White House.  We need a business man who’s created jobs in the private sector.

I can see how that might be a tasty morsel for people to take home and kick around at the dinner table.

Not so fast.

Having spent 20 years in corporations, I can without any hesitation, say companies are not like countries.  In business, bosses fire employees.  In a democracy, the rank and file can fire their leaders.

Big difference, grasshopper.

More importantly the loss in South Carolina to career politician Newt Gingrich under the specter of his missing tax returns presents not just a chink in the business man messaging armor – it’s like a West facing wall fell off the house.  And here comes the storm that started in Iowa when Newt called him out with my favorite sound bite of all the debates: “Let’s be candid, the only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.”

It begs the question if being a politician is pejorative, why would you want to be president?  Someone please ask him that. Because I just don’t think it’s an effective messaging platform.  In my lifetime, only one president has won with a hint of the business man platform – W.  And, clearly no one in the G.O.P. race is tying themselves to that messaging boat.

Romney’s speech and messaging people have to seriously consider this business messaging platform because with his wimpy response to the tax return question makes it clear they broke into jail on this one.  That’s what my favorite media messaging trainer calls it when you raise an issue or topic then run away from the follow on questions that ensue.

Maybe I’m wrong?  A few years ago the idea ‘POTUS’ referring to a black man seemed implausible.

Perhaps there is ‘hope’ for a Mormon venture capitalist.

 – Jose Mallabo

Photo credit: Vanity Fair magazine, Feb. 2012

, , , , ,

No Comments

Social media complements search and email marketing (for now)

Looking at this Forrester post almost a year later feels a lot like going back to high school after your first year in college. You thought it was a good idea to visit but then you realize by the end of it — not so much.

The blog post’s conclusion is to draw your own conclusion about social media’s impact on holiday purchasing. The post meanders from having an opinion that the ForeSee research was limited to having no point of view whatsoever. How am I going to join a conversation or rebut your point of view if you don’t have one?

While there are no official rules to blogging – the universal and unspoken rule is to have an opinion.

Here’s mine: The idea of social commerce (buying stuff on Facebook) is still a pipe dream. Rather, social media can drive brand, product and deal awareness and therefore serve as a complement to a retailer’s larger search and email marketing programs.

Since this post in late 2010, LinkedIn and Groupon have gone public. Facebook’s IPO has been delayed – but will be the biggest one in the history of ever. The point being, these companies are all well capitalized, have hundreds of millions of subscribers and are not going anywhere. So industry pundits and luddites alike need to bite down on the reality that marketers will continue to throw marketing dollars at them to hock their wares regardless of whether we have any proof of a causal relationship between the social media consumption and clicking the “buy” button on a shopping site.

At 2.9% e-commerce conversion rates there is no proof needed.

While this question of “Was social media a big factor in holiday purchases?” will come up again and again over the next few weeks and months, I encourage marketers and PR people to do one thing:   challenge the question.

As Augie Ray correctly points out social media is a mere infant and it will take time to prove its correlation with purchasing behavior. In the meantime it serves a lot of other organizational needs that are no less important than shopping cart clicks. Don’t get suckered into the conversation about social media and its impact on transactions because you’ve got more to attend to with your 2012 social and media dollars such as:

  • Reputation management
  • Product and corporate branding
  • Influencer relations
  • Partner relations
  • Customer service
  • SEO
  • Issues management and crisis communications
  • Recruitment and workforce engagement

While the analyst community continues to look under the hood for purchase conversion evidence, what they’re missing is that the owners of these social media programs may not at all be focused on driving holiday (or non-holiday for that matter) transactions.

Pause.

Bite down. Chew. Gulp.

And therefore, there might be some reason why the transactional or purchase conversion evidence is not to be found.

In fact, most brands and retailers I know are still investing more in tried and true search and email marketing initiatives to drive transactions and conversion online and in stores –- while using Facebook and Twitter as complements to those initiatives and for all of the other communications objectives listed above. That explains why search and promotional email remain the primary drivers for purchasing behavior for the holidays.

There. I said it.

Don’t go back to high school. But do take my poll on LinkedIn

-Jose Mallabo

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Has social media already won?

Everyone wants to be on the winning team. It just takes longer for some people to see the winning.

I remember walking my first Bay to Breakers race about a decade ago.  I had a very broken arm and lugged around a cast that ran from my fist to my armpit. An hour into the 7 mile race someone with a bullhorn was yelling to the masses: “The Kenyans have already won. Go home!” I laughed and limped along with the thousands of others — appreciative of the update.

Social media isn’t too different. The early adopters have been claiming victory over traditional marketing channels since Facebook and Twitter were mere puppies. Search, email and general multi-media marketing/advertising might have a few things to say about that.  But if you just look at the growth of Facebook and Twitter memberships over the past year — they’re signing up more people now than they were two or three years ago — you can start to see the not-so-early-adopters getting on the bandwagon.

And that’s OK. We all can’t be died-in-the-wool Yankees, Patriots, Red Sox or Phillies fans. Someone has to get on the bus last. So grab your licensed apparel and get on the social media express. But to the newcomers to social, I’d caution you from drinking solely from the awareness pitcher. Check that box and skip ahead to finding out how social media can drive lead generation and business development — because that’s the Kool Aid pitcher the cool kids are filling up from.

It can look a little like this one that I know was used in generating ~$200 million on software/solutions business leads for an enterprise facing company with a big blue logo.


Not as sexy as a Facebook page with videos of the trendy people at your company doing fun things in skinny jeans.  But it works.  And it will take this kind of coordinated approach to driving business for social media to run with the Kenyans.

-Jose Mallabo

, , ,

1 Comment

Why hasn’t PR made measurement core to its function? Q&A with Forrest Anderson

I’ve been kicking around the idea of doing a post about research and measurement in PR for some time. Namely, I really want to ask why PR hasn’t done a better job making this core to the function when there are scads of resources on the subject.  Frankly, I’m not the expert on this subject as I’ve spent more of my career creating content than measuring how it impacts the audiences its intended for.  Despite having an advanced degree in this area, I’m guilty as charged.   Instead I reached out to my former colleague — Forrest W. Anderson who is not just a measurement expert but one of the sharpest communications strategists I’ve been around in my career.

Below is an un-edited Q&A I had with him this week.  My questions.  His answers.  My parenthetical interjections.

Q: What is the single most important thing people need to remember when looking to measure the impact of communications programs?

A: The single most important thing people need to remember when looking to measure the impact of a communications program is their definition of impact, which should come from the initial, measurable objectives of the program.  If you’re trying to change behavior (increase sales, reduce employee turnover, etc.) you should try to measure that change in behavior.  If you’re trying to change awareness and/or attitudes, you should measure changes in awareness and/or attitudes.  Most likely you would do this with a pre- and post-program survey.  If you’re trying to increase media coverage, then you might measure clips.  If you’re trying to increase positive media coverage, then you need not only to count clips but assess the tone of the content in those clips.

Q: What is the most common mistake you see companies making in buying measurement and research?

A: To me, the most common mistake I see companies make when they do invest in measurement and research is they focus more on evaluation (or measurement) and less on the research they should do to plan the program. The first step in any program should be to articulate a measurable objective.  The next step should be to do research on the target audiences and the business environment so you know what kinds of messages and concepts will appeal to the target audience, which media reach the target audience and what’s going on in the world that might affect the way your target audience will react to your intended messages.  The evaluation piece is fairly straightforward, if you’ve created a solid measurable objective for the program.

The measurable objective is a big stumbling point.  Without one, you cannot evaluate.  This is why so many companies that invest in media evaluation systems that use online data bases are disappointed after a year of using the service.  Neither the client organization nor the evaluation system vendor thinks out what the measurable objectives should be for any given program.  It frequently turns out, then, that there is a mismatch between what the tool measures and what the organization wants to achieve.

Q: Communications research has been around a long time, why haven’t PR people done a better job making it core to their programs and the industry?

A: I think there are a number of reasons.

  • In the past it has been expensive relative to the investment in the program, so there was a question regarding whether you should spend the money trying to get more results or measuring what you achieved.  The online systems have made clip analysis less expensive than in the past, and we can also do surveys online for much less than in the past.
  • Some communications professionals are afraid of what they will find out if they measure.  An agency, for example, might not want its client to learn that a program had not achieved the goals the client requested or the agency promised.  This is a very unprofessional point of view because there is no way anyone can improve as a professional if they do not measure the effectiveness of what they do, learn from it and try to do better.  The same situation exists for some internal communications departments, with organizational executives taking the client role and the communications departments acting like agencies.  Again this is too bad.  There is a fair amount of anecdotal and some scholarly evidence that communications departments that do evaluate are more highly thought of by the CEOs of their companies than are those that do not evaluate.
  • Last, but certainly not least, I believe many people go into public relations to avoid having to deal with numbers and numerical analysis.

(So true. I’ve lost count how many PR people have said to me “I’m not good with numbers.” Cop out.  Reading cross tabs isn’t that hard. And who hasn’t had a client that was BS-ing his boss about results?)

Q: CEO’s often just want to pay for clippings and see their names in headlines, how do you get past this?

A: If a CEO is that shallow, you’re going to have a number of operational problems in the organization that probably will outweigh communications issues.  These will only be the tip of the ice berg.  That said, the best way I know to influence CEOs is with data.  If a senior communications person believes the organization should be doing something, he or she should look for data that supports their point of view and present it to the CEO.  For example, if our communications executive (CE) believes the main competitor is winning partly because of the good media coverage it is getting vs. the poor media coverage the CE’s company is getting, a quantitative report demonstrating this would be more likely to sway the CEO than just saying “I think we should do this.”

I once did a $200,000 communications audit for the U.S. subsidiary of a European owned company.  The whole purpose of the audit was to demonstrate to the European owner that the U.S. subsidiary needed to invest in public relations.  The study made the case and HQ supported a major increase in PR funding.

Q: Is social media helping or hurting research and measurement in communications?

A: I would say social media is confusing research and measurement in communications.  What it is helping is dialog. In the past, there were very few direct communications channels open between an organization and its stakeholders, so market research gave management insight into who comprised a stakeholder group, what they cared about, what they thought, etc.  However, with social media, organizations can actually communicate directly with stakeholders, assuming stakeholders wish to communicate with the organization.  This is great!

The danger comes when an organization begins to believe that a handful of active users of social media users represent the entire stakeholder group.  There can be a big difference between what a few vocal individuals think and what most the population thinks. So, I believe social media is a wonderful way to get some insight into stakeholder groups, but I also think we need to be very careful about extrapolating that insight to larger populations.  I do not believe social media is a replacement for research.

(I agree with that. And think the hype and sex appeal of social has done a lot to distract companies from focusing on the basics — like research and measurement. People are off building Facebook pages when they haven’t even studied their core audiences to see how they interact with existing PR content and programs.)

Q: Is agenda setting theory still valid?

A: Unless I misunderstand your question, the agenda setting theory is based on the idea that the media sets the news agenda by choosing which topics to cover.  Thus the news media exerts great influence over not only the topics its audience thinks about but also how the audience thinks about those topics.  I’m not sure I ever completely bought into this theory, because I believe good journalists tried to choose topics that were of interest to their audiences and did some research with their audiences to determine what these topics were.  So, the influencers were influenced by those they influenced.

Whether this last bit was true in the past or not, it is certainly true now.  Anyone with access to the Internet can publish now, and very many do.  Tools such as Twitter’s “Trending” will tell you which topics (or key words) are being discussed the most at any given time, and journalists can and do use those kinds of tools to choose the topics they cover.  I would say the influenced are influencing the influencers more than ever before.  However, this is just a theory.  I don’t have data on this.

Q: If you could build a strategic communications program for Facebook, what would it look like?

A: This sounds like what should be a paying gig.

I told you he was sharp.  It really should be a paying gig.

-Jose Mallabo

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments

Middle Management is…

A few weeks ago I posted about giving employees their due. Time to move up the food chain a bit. Let’s go to middle management, alternately seen as bottlenecks, conduits, or a*#holes depending on your position beside, below or above them.

Since Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the end all for defining what we don’t want to ourselves, let’s see what they have to say.

Middle management is a layer of management in an organization whose primary job responsibility is to monitor activities of subordinates while reporting to upper management.”

Wow, that doesn’t sound like something you’d study at Harvard! Sounds more like something the secret police would have been doing in any Middle Eastern dictatorship currently in the throes of being overthrown.

Lest you doubt, it only takes a few word substitutions to make my point:

“The Secret Police is a layer of control in a government whose primary job responsibility is to monitor activities of its citizens while reporting to the king/president for life.”

Middle management or secret police?

It’s hard to believe no one from middle management has caught this “big-bro-like” wiki entry so far. Maybe it’s because they’re too busy monitoring subordinates and reporting on their activities. Or maybe it’s because they’re busting their chops and other parts of their body trying to motivate staff, oversee budgets, and communicate increasingly complex information with fewer people, less money and time, and often incomplete or even incoherent data. Yet, US companies have been hedging much of their success on the ability of this mid-level to do it all, while the people they manage are wondering why they can’t.

Over the past year, I’ve managed communication effectiveness projects for some of the best known companies in the US and two themes have been most prevalent:

  • middle management is seen as being ineffective communicators, and
  • employees want to get more information from their middle managers.

This is quite a dilemma – it’s almost like saying my elected officials are doing a crappy job, but I want them to be better at telling me that. Oh wait…

About twenty some odd years ago, upper management decided computers and automated business decision software would make middle management obsolete. Then the economic downturn of the late 80s became a well-timed trigger for massive lay-offs of middle managers. What upper management failed to realize is that while computers are good at managing data, they’re really bad at managing people. Guess what, they still are. But it’s as if no one above the equivalent of a staff sergeant pay grade in the Army remembers that. Just look at how many mid-level managers lost their jobs in this last go round!

So what’s the solution? Match the tools with the expectation. If you want mid-level managers to be good to great mid-level managers, give them the management, communication and financial tools to do that. Reward them for using them, instead of punishing them for not having the time to ask where to find them.

More importantly, change up that definition to something more compelling and less “big bro-like.” How about this: “Middle managers are role models to their employees.”

Anything more than that and you might as well head to the Middle East.

-Aaron Heinrich

No Comments

Social vs. professional graph: Are the days of separate online identities numbered?

About 6 months ago I posted something on my Facebook account that had nothing to do with work.   It was a rant about a sales guy trying to sell me something completely unnecessary for my motorcycle.  Two days later, a friend on Facebook and superior at work asked me about it at work – the implication being that I was ranting about the workplace – where we ironically extolled that the social graph (or identity/profile) was and should be separate from the professional graph.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been emphatic about a singular online identity – which obviously paves the way for Facebook Connect to be the way people log in anywhere online.  He’s quoted three times in The Facebook Effect saying: “You have one identity.”

And that…“The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.” Further challenging the current separation of the social and professional graphs by saying: “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Well, we know how he feels about it.

In turn, LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner has maintained that the separation between social and professional graphs is vital to professionals and to LinkedIn.  At last fall’s Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco — in his “keg stand” interview — he told John Batelle:

“While many of us in college probably were at parties having a good time, doing things like keg stands, or being exposed to keg stands, I don’t know that many of us would look forward to having a prospective employer have access to picture of those events.”

Who’s right? I’m less confident in the separation between the two than I was just 24 hours ago.

At a recent Ragan social media conference I attended, Shel Holtz echoed Facebook’s stance in his own inimitable and convincing way.  Of course, I Tweeted at him about this while he was presenting.

If I’m answering Shel literally, I’d say “see the first paragraph of this post.”

But I had to test this just a liiiiittle bit more.  The attendees of this conference were a better cross section of U.S. professionals than the early-adopting, Banana Republic-wearing, all technology-loving dot.com crowds that populated the early social media conferences. Insurance. Federal and municipal governments. Universities. Healthcare organizations. And, even the country’s largest cemetary.

They were all in the house — represented by professionals from every generation in the workforce today.

These are people working for really big, very regulated, widely and deeply impactful organizations from never-go-away industries — all there trying to figure out where to place their social media bets and budgets.  Shel’s point may be the most thought provoking point made out of all the sessions.  Because none of us are over-staffed or walking around with extra dollars pouring out of our back pockets, picking one may be a choice we’re forced to make.

So I put the question to the attendee group to see what they thought about the separation or blurring of social and professional graphs.  That group was on Facebook.  I’ll post the comments as they come in.

I’m not a Dead Head, but as I sit here during business hours while at the dealer getting my car repaired working on a post that has benefits to both my professional and personal brand, it’s hard not to think that maybe Shel has spoken for many of us.

My car is ready.  Back to the work.

– Jose Mallabo

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Comments

Social Exuberance

I’ve lived through a couple of bubbles in my time – dot.com and housing come to mind, anyone?  And something tells me the longer I’m around the more I’m going to have to live through.

Is social media another one of them? Maybe. Is a market cap of $80 billion for Facebook rational? Alan Greenspan must be trying his damnedest to make those old thumbs Tweet #social-exuberance.

Exuberant smile? Greenspan retired a while ago.

It strikes me that my framed Pets.com certificates and my wall have more than a nail in common – both were worth a hell of a lot more when I bought them (yeah, that was a stretch, thanks for sticking with me on that one). So now that I’ve said it, let me compare the stock market bubble to the housing market bubble to see what these bubbles might have in common.

There are basically three ways to value a stock, and they are pretty much the same as how the real estate market valued my wall.

My house:

  • Price per square foot (adjusted for how nice the stuff in my square footage is)
  • How much an identical house in my neighborhood sold for
  • Make shit up

A stock:

  • Discounted cash flows (predictions of how much money a company will make in future years, adjusted for how fast they will grow and how long they might last)
  • What comparable “peer” companies are trading at (adjusted for cash, debt (including options), assets and risks)
  • Make shit up

Both Facebook and Amazon have market caps of around $80 billion ($82.9 billion secondary market estimate for Facebook on 1/28, $76.8 billion actual market cap for Amazon on 1/28).  So if they were houses, and I was pre-qualified for an $83 billion mortgage, I could take my pick (well, my wife would, let’s stay grounded here).

As far as revenues go, estimates for Facebook for 2010 are around $2 billion while Amazon is on track for something north of $30 billion. In housing terms, Facebook is listing a very funky two bedroom loft conversion while Amazon is listing a 30-bedroom ancestral estate. So, there are either some really, really nice upgrades in that loft or there are 28 secret bedrooms priced into the deal.

Yes, an $80 billion estimate for Facebook is likely high. And yes, Facebook and Amazon don’t have identical business models.  But yes, the same people who sold me Pets.com shares are the same people who collateralized my mortgage and are the same people selling Facebook shares to foreign investors to avoid SEC regulations.

That must be one amazing loft.  I need to go check it out, I do need more wall space.

-Reid Cox

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Giving employees their due

I’ve been at this business of communications longer than I sometime care to consider. Longer if you count the first mono-syllabic utterance that escaped from my infant lips that was in no way tied to the gaseous expulsion resulting from lactose intolerance. (That would come later in life, but I digress.)

It's not that much of a stretch to talk to your employees

Consequently, what has struck me the most often is the chasm that exists between external and internal communications or the utter lack of integration between what gets communicated externally with what gets communicated internally.  When it comes to big news and even bigger campaigns, employees are often “brought up to speed,” then forced to sit on the sidelines as they hear the news after the fact.

While the irony of missing the boat with the company’s “greatest asset” has often seemed evident, it often also didn’t seem to matter. That chasm between external and internal comms was too great and most likely would never be crossed without some incredible stretching super powers like those of Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four…or real collaboration between the heads of employee communications and marketing.

The sad part is that the chasm appears to show no signs of closing except in the halls of the companies that sit somewhere in that nirvana of management otherwise known as enlightenment. The economy continues to give many organizations an excuse to do really stupid things.

What’s the problem here?  It’s not as if the situation has gone without a considerable amount of attention. Management gurus have been making hefty consulting fees trying to solve the problem for decades. MBA programs at prestigious universities have raised millions over the years to study it. And enough trees have been cut and ink run to publish a library of reading material large enough to fill the state of Delaware. The best that seems to have come out of this predicament is a somewhat heightened recognition that employees want to know what’s going on with their place of employment before their 14 year- old nephew sees it on YouTube and creates an anti-authoritarian themed mash-up.

Lest you think I jest, look at the intranet of any major company(although doing so would mean you’d have to either be an employee, a consultant or a university professor in a prestigious MBA program writing about it.) They’re often poorly organized, lacking in design and the search function was better on the internet in 1994! Yet that same company could very well have the latest in interactive gizmos and whatchacallits on its corporate internet site, along with Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, and yammer. And the search works!

Is most of corporate America clueless when it comes to the potential power of integrating an internal employee communication program with that of an external branding campaign? Is it too hard to consider that employees want to be an advocate and will be if you give them the tools and rewards for doing so? It shouldn’t be that difficult. Even airlines still treat their frequent fliers better!

While in an era of high unemployment and economic uncertainty, the easy route for the less enlightened might be to not give this a thought, a quick look back at history proves that nothing lasts forever. The economy will start to drift up again, more companies will start hiring, and employees who’ve not been engaged will more than likely pick up and leave. There goes the corporate gene pool.

You have to ask yourself…is it really worth it to risk keeping your employees on the sideline with a lack of information and inclination, or do you want them out there more informed than your best customer and more enthusiastic than your best salesman? Give them their due and they’ll more than likely give you their all.

I know there are examples out there of companies who “get it” – Nike and FedEx come to mind. But I could probably stop counting the number of big corporations that “get it” in full measure by the time I reach the middle finger of my second hand.  And that’s not the finger you want to see when your employees leave to work for a company that “gets” the idea of integration.

-Aaron Heinrich, Communications Consultant

, , , , ,

2 Comments