The Bailey Blog

As a public relations professional, I understand the value of explaining both sides of an issue.  This concept has never been truer than during an election season, specifically the 2008 election season which will (thankfully) wrap up this week.  The American public has been subjected to myriad messages, including mudslinging about a candidate’s character and convoluted facts about issues.  Consequently, many of my friends and family members are confused on who to vote for and which political party really is looking out for their best interests.

As I sat watching a news program with my two year old daughter the other night, a commercial came on television, it showed a picture of a cat and the voice over read “this is not a cat, it is a feline” and my daughter looked at the television and said “yes, it is a cat.”  At that point I thought, ‘a two year old can look at these political ads and realize that they are misleading.’  It was then that I realized that in PR when you are trying to get your message out to you audience, simplify, simplify, simplify!  Sure, my two year old wasn’t the target audience of the party that issued the ad but I was and it wasn’t until a two year old pointed out the humor of the ad that I really took notice. 

It was after that night, I went online to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan Web site and spent three minutes reading about the proposals on the Michigan ballot.  They were clearly explained and I easily formed my opinion and knew which way I would be voting on Nov. 4.  I couldn’t help but think, ‘why didn’t someone just say this in the beginning?’

As I said before, I understand trying to explain both sides of an issue but sometimes PR folks become so entrenched in an issue that their explanations become too complex to understand and in turn, people tune out the messages. 

This elections season has not been short of learning experiences for the PR industry, but I believe that one of the most important examples of effective public relations has been that people will respond better to a simple truth rather than a complex answer that leaves them more confused and feeling vulnerable.

Photo by Hoosierguy at flickr.com.

The first foray into live blogging and tweeting from a major conference went well.

One of the key decisions we made about three-quarters of the way through the planning process was to walk before we ran. I’m referring to the original idea that we would be posting photos and videos and podcasts, oh my!

The biggest concern I had was the availability of wireless connections and cell-phone signals on Mackinac Island, and I was right to be concerned. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many unsecured wireless connections at businesses around the island, but the signals were definitely limited in strength and reach.

As for cell phones, well, you might be able to make a phone call or get your email or send and receive text messages on Mackinac Island, or you might not. I found that it wasn’t the provider or the model of cell phone that mattered – it really seemed much more dependent on which way the wind was blowing.

So, suffice it to say, thank goodness we decided to scale back what we planned on offering to blogs and tweets – sticking with text only saved us a lot of headaches and embarrassment the first time out.

Looking back, I think we could have done more by providing additional bloggers to expand upon what we were seeing at the conference. I’ve bugged my colleagues to write post-event blogs now, sharing some insights they may have that I didn’t.

Another big test involved in this concept was the idea of being able to flood Twitter with an almost constant stream of information. All-in-all the site performed well. I think I only received the “sorry, too many tweets at once” error three times in four days. That’s not too shabby considering how many tweets hit www.twitter.com at any given moment.

I’ve heard from a few people so far that they thought the service we provided was worthwhile and should be tried again. I think it was a big enough success that we will.

Of the comments I received, this one summed it up best: “It was great for those of us who were stuck here in Lansing to keep tabs on what was going on.”

Hey, go figure. That was the whole point!

Deal or No Deal is coming to Michigan’s Capitol. Or maybe it will be The Price is Right.

Maybe it’s going to have more of an Amazing Race flair – or the knock-down drag out tempo of Survivor.

The $64,000 Question is all about whether the Democrats will hold another primary election in Michigan.

Back in January, both parties thought moving Michigan’s primary to early January would provide a Wheel of Fortune for the Great Lakes State. Turns out they were wrong and we’re just The Biggest Loser. Unless you count Florida, but then we all know how well Florida does with counting.

In case you haven’t heard, Democratic Party officials, political leaders and union bosses have decided that Michigan Democrats should get a mulligan – they want to throw out the results of the Jan. 15 primary and hold another one on June 3.

Here’s the rub: they need the approval of the state Legislature but they only control the House while the Republicans control the Senate.

This could be interesting to watch. Of course, there’s also an ancient Chinese curse that says, “May you live in interesting times.”

A few hurdles have to be jumped to make the June 3 primary happen – and by saying “hurdles” I’m being politely optimistic.

First, Democrats have to raise between $10 million and $12 million to pay for another election because the state taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell apparently are willing to help raise money. So, let’s say they raise enough private funds to run a public election – ok, on to the second hurdle.

The Legislature must then draft legislation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will agree to. Well, gee, that shouldn’t be too hard, considering how well their two camps have gotten along this election cycle, right?

The third hurdle is that once the legislation is drafted, it has to be approved by the state Legislature — that bastion of cooperation we’ve all seen handle things like the state’s main business tax and the state budget with aplomb. (Here’s where the Deal or No Deal and The Price is Right analogies kick in – get it?)

And, finally, we reach the fourth hurdle: approval of a delegate selection process by the National Democratic Party. That shouldn’t be too hard. Unless of course they don’t like something about the process and decide that the Michigan delegates shouldn’t be seated at the convention as a form of punishment. But, they wouldn’t ever do that, would they?

Cue the theme from Jeopardy…

Well, the hammer fell in New York and Gov. Spitzer will be “former-Gov. Spitzer” as of Monday, March 17.

The annual St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in New York may have a different feel this year, but despite everything that’s happened, New Yorkers have a reason to celebrate.

This line from Spitzer’s resignation statement sums it up best: “There is much more to be done, and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work.”

In the end, Spitzer stood up and did what was right. It doesn’t atone for the wrongs he made, but it reminds me of an old adage that I often use when talking about public relations with folks. It goes, “If you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging.”

With all the “private failings” affecting public officials these days, it’s nice to see one of them finally put down the shovel.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer called a news conference Monday afternoon soon after the news broke in The New York Times that he was linked to a high-class prostitution ring.

Of course, there was no news at the news conference, but that didn’t stop the governor from sharing a few thoughts.

The statement’s available at the governor’s Web site, but here it is after being run through the News Conference-to-English Translator:

Over the past nine years, eight as Attorney General and one as Governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that will rebuild New York and create opportunity for all.
Translation: Look what I’ve done! Well, don’t look at everything!! Just look at what I’ve done that you’ve liked. Haven’t I done good things? See? I’m a good guy!

We sought to bring real change to New York, and that will continue.
Translation: Hell no, I won’t go! You can’t make me leave! Oh wait, well, technically, I could be impeached, but, um, I’ll just leak stories to the media about other politicians in New York and all the things they’ve done that people won’t like…yeah, that’s the ticket!

Today I want to briefly address a private matter.
Translation: This is private. See, it’s between me and my family. I’m just a guy. Guys have needs! It’s not about being governor. Did I mention I’m just a guy? With needs?

I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family, and violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong.
Translation: I’m trying to sound sincere and apologetic – golly, I’m just a guy and guys make mistakes, but I understand that and I’m really sorry. Is that sincere enough?

I apologize first and most importantly to my family.
Translation: Maybe I didn’t sound sincere enough in the last paragraph. Plus, my wife is going to take me to the cleaners in the divorce but if I show remorse, maybe some judge will take pity on me.

I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.
Translation: You voted for me! This is your fault, not mine! I’m a guy with needs and you gave me power and the power to get those needs fulfilled. Ha! Don’t you feel bad for me? Look what you did! This is your fault!

I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what’s best for the state of New York.
Translation: Hillary didn’t know anything about this. You can still vote for Hillary!

I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.
Translation: I’m a victim! I’m a victim! Have mercy – my gosh, would you want to face my wife? Look at the look on her face. I’ll be lucky to get out of the house intact. I’m definitely not turning my back on her anytime soon!

I will report back to you in short order.
Translation: Let’s see how this plays out in a few days. I really don’t want to resign and maybe I can dig up some dirt on my rivals that I can leak before I have to make a decision. Or maybe I can drag this on long enough that some other big news story will happen and then the media will be all over that instead. We all know they can only cover one big story at a time…

“The pundit police never go off duty.” That’s a great wake-up call from a recent piece by David Bauder at the Associated Press .

It’s all about political commentators right now, but what about the future? Is it just the political pundits who will be watching what everyone says closely or will we end up with a type of word police? Being insensitive has suddenly reached the same level as being a bigot. I’m not justifying either one, but at some point the current hypersensitivity and outrageous scrutiny of every single word you use seem a bit much.

It’s a little frightening since suddenly it’s not government censorship we have to worry about, but “activist censorship.”

Mark Twain reportedly once said, “The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.”

What worries me is that before long it’s not going to be about using the right word, but using the approved word.

Certainly we can’t approve of bigotry and hatred, but remember that this country was founded on things like the First Amendment – you remember, the right to free speech – ever heard of it?

Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

You said it buddy. Count me in.

If all you ever knew about swimming pools was that you can drown in them, you probably wouldn’t be envious of the one in your neighbor’s back yard.

But if someone told you the whole story about the exercise benefits, the entertainment value, and the good chance of being nominated by your kids as “Parent of the Year,” I’m pretty sure you’d be looking at how to get one even bigger and better than your neighbor’s.

What if people opposed to the growth of the swimming pool industry decided to start a campaign to stop the spread of swimming pools? What if all you ever saw were brochures and newspaper columns touting the danger lurking in the form of cool, blue, chlorinated water?

If the swimming pool industry had its act together, you soon would have information coming your way about the benefits of swimming pools – you’d be receiving facts that corrected the misinformation being spread by others.

In the business world, you must be constantly vigilant about what your opponents are saying about you. To be successful, you also need to be ready, willing and able to call them out if they unfairly characterize your position on an issue.

Recently, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan was attacked by an opponent on the Lansing State Journal opinion pages. Now, of course, your competition is only going to say bad things about you and virtuous things about themselves – but when they cross the line and publish things you know to be untrue, you have an obligation to defend yourself.

The Blues deserve a pat on the back for how they handled this situation. They were able to draft a response, get it through their internal approval process and have it printed in the State Journal only two days after the original column appeared.

The task may seem daunting but calmly reviewing what has been written and taking a logical approach to pointing out the misinformation can help you create a solid response very quickly.

In the Blues’ case, they merely needed to point out the positive aspects of some legislation they are trying to get approved in Lansing – and in so doing they easily poked holes in what the competition had written.

For example, Blue Cross CEO Daniel Loepp pointed out that at least 34 other states have passed similar reforms, showing the public that this is nothing new hatched up by the Blues. He was able to point out that the legislation will help provide for fair, uniform rating standards across all insurance carriers. He noted that BCBSM will continue in its long-standing role as Michigan’s insurer of last resort who accepts everyone regardless of medical history. And, among other things, Loepp pointed out that the legislation caps all health insurance company profits by requiring carriers to pay out at least 70 percent of their premium revenue for health care claims.

By detailing each of these items in his response, Loepp was able to counter every argument made by the BCBSM competitor who wrote in opposition of the legislation. At the same time, he was able to face the competitor head-on, correcting misinformation and helping the public see that those opposed to the legislation may, in fact, have their own agenda.

Providing accurate information, explaining the context within which decisions are made, and standing up for your reputation seem like important tasks that everyone can agree should be done.

The question is, when your turn comes to be fired upon, will you be ready to fire back quickly and accurately?

If not, you could find your reputation at the bottom of the pool. And have you heard? You can drown in those things.