Measuring Up

How “privileged” is your client/agency communication?

There’s an interesting legal trial taking place which digs deep into an important issue involving public relations agencies and their clients. For as long as I can remember, clients, agencies and lawyers have questioned whether communications between client and PR agency would be deemed privileged information (as it is between lawyer and client) when challenged in a legal setting.

This current case is an interesting one because it brings this very issue to a head. Reyes is the former CEO of Brocade Communications Systems, who was convicted and then sentenced to 21 months in prison for backdating options a decade ago during the dot com days. His sentence was then thrown out in an appeals court because it was proven that the prosecution had knowingly made false statements during closing arguments.

Now, the case is being prosecuted again. But, this time, Reyes’ former PR firm, Sitrick & Company, is on the hot seat as prosecutors have subpoenaed client files held by the firm. These documents could provide damning information which would hurt Reyes’ case. It becomes a little confusing because Reyes now has new attorneys for this second trial. These attorneys (Cooley Godward Kronish) are claiming that the PR agency client files should be protected by the attorney client privileged code because the agency worked so closely with Reyes’ former attorneys (from Skadden Arps) during the first trial. They argue that they jointly created a responsive PR strategy and executional approach to combat the negative assault by the Justice Department. The government (prosecution) counters that Sitrick performed the sort of “standard public relations work” for which there is no attorney client privilege. 

Yikes. This is a very sticky issue that certainly has no black and white answer because there isn’t a real legal precedent to follow here.

We’ve dealt with topics like this over the years. To ensure that we don’t end up swimming in subpoenas and legal costs (like the agency in this trial is,) our strategy is usually straight forward if we’re about to enter into a crisis situation. Normally, we’ll be actually retained by the attorney representing the client so that our firm will be under the same privileged and confidential arrangement as the law firm is with its client.  So, technically, the law firm is then our client.

Of course, it isn’t always this easy. Many times we’ve represented a client for years. And, crisis situations which involve legal matters just sprout up out of nowhere. In these cases, it’s hard and many times inefficient, to simply change official representation during these chaotic times. And often, no one really knows if our communications will lead to the type of scary situation that Sitrick & Company is now involved in.

Anyway, this is a good article to read. And, one that certainly has me thinking about how we can prepare better for issues like this that could easily arise.

Very little “Spirit” at this airline

I just got back from a relaxing week long vacation in the sun.

Trying to save on costs (like many others,) we decided to fly Spirit Airlines for the first time. It was an interesting, mixed-bag experience for us. More to the point of this post, I’m not sure that the company’s description of what it uniquely offers and its positioning vis a vis other airlines is entirely accurate. That should create long term branding (and business) problems because customers (like me) won’t experience what the brand (or company) is promising.

Here’s Spirit’s positioning (highlighted on its Web site): "Spirit Airlines’ ULCC (Ultra Low Cost Carrier) approach liberates customers from being forced into paying for services they do not desire or use. When customers are seeking the best value in travel they can choose a low fare at spiritair.com and select the services and options appropriate for their travel needs. Spirits ultra low cost model driven from numerous efficiencies, new aircraft, advanced technology and dedicated staff allows the airline to take this approach offering savings to millions of customers…"

The statement also highlights key messages such as: "friendly staff and clean, new airplanes."

Let’s start with some of Spirit’s positive attributes (although spelling isn’t one of them. The word “Spirits” is a typo in the positioning statement above.) It is an inexpensive, absolutely no frills offered airline. And, those first few rows of seats are more comfortable because of their excess size (kind of feels like being in first class seats without actually having a first class). From what I experienced, the airline did an adequate job of getting us from Point A to Point B, on time, without any major headaches. That (in itself) can be considered a successful trip.

But, does it really “liberate” customers from being forced into paying for services they don’t want? Hardly. That’s 100 percent pure spin. And, it comes across as a company trying to sell me snake oil. I don’t know about other air travelers, but to me those little comforts that come with flying (like a free soda/bag of peanuts) and checking one or two bags at no cost (Spirit charges $25 per bag) are taken for granted. I paid $100 extra at the airport because we had four bags for five people. That seems an awful lot like being forced to “pay for services” to me.

It took me half a flight to figure this out. But, those efficiencies that Spirit mentions in its positioning statement are merely added charges that it makes from its passengers on items that every other airline offers for free.

I know it sounds as if I’m complaining (guess I am). But, those were really minor issues compared to what’s coming next. Spirit Airlines offers its passengers shoddy, run down, filthy cabins. And, that’s unacceptable. The seats are absolutely grimy with food, ink and God knows what types of stains. And, the floors beneath the seats are even worse. Ultra Low Cost Carrier should not mean – “the place is disgusting.” But, once again, it’s clear that this is probably another one of the many efficiencies the airline has concocted to save money. I guess, if no one cleans the plane, then the company doesn’t incur any added hard costs for cleaning.

Let’s move on. Spirit promotes its dedicated and friendly staff.  That’s a complete fallacy. The first flight attendant we had was simply disinterested in all the passengers. I could accept that. But, the last one who served us actually had a frown on his face the entire trip and acted as if he shouldn’t have to do anything because we were flying the cheapest airline in the world. This guy was genuinely pissed off and it came across in every function he performed (including the dubious task of figuring out seat assignments when the flight was overbooked).

Here’s the problem with Spirit (in a nutshell). Many people appreciate having a low cost alternative (especially during tough times like this). But, no one wants to be forced to feel like third class citizens who could only afford the lowest cost alternative living in the Steerage compartment of the Titanic. I heard many passengers mention that they were embarrassed to fly this airline because of what it represents. They certainly could have gotten over it pretty quickly though if the entire experience was at least adequate. Instead, so many  customers bitched and moaned about how schlocky everything was.

In this economy, airlines such as Spirit need to exist and my guess is that this one will continue to operate just fine for a while. But, I wonder how things will change when life changes for the better. People understand that they get what they pay for. The problem that will hit Spirit down the road is that no one pays for unsanitary conditions and rude service. Ultimately, this brand will pay the price for that.

For the record, now defunct, economy-class airline Zoom, is a former Peppercom client.

Is any sponsor safe anymore?

As the Tiger fall out continues (I think it's something like day 17 or 18 now), the business stories have begun to focus on which of Tiger’s many multi-million dollar sponsors will terminate their relationship with him. Of course, now that the shock of his transgressions has worn off, this is the most natural issue to turn to. Today, Gillette announced that it will severely limit Tiger's involvement with company endorsements. No surprise, Accenture has removed him from its Web Site and pretty much every other sponsor has stopped promoting Tiger in any way.

That's all par for this course. Yet, I believe there is a larger, more significant issue that all marketers need to be thinking about:  If Tiger Woods, the ultimate gold standard role model for kids and adults alike can fall from grace like this, then is any athlete or celebrity sponsorship safe anymore? And, should the sponsorship industry make wholesale changes to its strategies now when it comes to focusing on singular celebrity endorsements to build brands?

My answer is no... and yes. Here's my deeper explanation.

Tying a brand (or company's) image so closely to one (or even two) celebrity endorsements(s) has always been a risky proposition. Over the last 20 years, I've heard many a client tell me that his/her worst fear is to receive that call (or email) from some reporter who has the scoop that their corporate sponsor has been caught using drugs, abusing his wife or living out some other illegal or unethical act that will surely create big customer/investor problems. Still, in the past, the reward has clearly outperformed the potential risk for some very smart marketers like Nike, Gatorade and Accenture (which have achieved major business gains through singular endorsements). I believe that part of the reason for their success is because they seem to be highly selective with whom they allow to represent their brand (one would think an accounting firm has a very sophisticated risk analysis process for vetting endorsement candidates). And, when their celebrities got themselves into real troubles (think Michael Jordan as Nike's face when he had serious gambling issues), this 24/7 digital landscape (which never allows for stories to die) either didn't exist, or wasn't nearly as powerful as it has become today.

The latter point is what marketers should really be concerned about. For the heck of it, I googled the words 'Tiger' and 'Nike' just now. Something to the tune of 1,700 stories, blogs, tweets and other discussions/articles came up. Many have threads of content which question Nike's decision making behind associating Tiger as the "face and ethics of its brand." Unlike what happened in the "old days" of Michael Jordan, Nike's stock and sales have now taken a real hit because it's so closely associated with Tiger. The power behind digital communications is that it allows for anyone to push out opinions (like me), create more gossip and in this case, initiate a continually growing "mob-like," virtual attack that has clearly played a major supporting role in hurting this sports apparel company's core business.

Tiger stood for all those wonderful qualities (commitment, professionalism, can do attitude, winning, pure and ethical, etc.) that its sponsors believed would never fail them. In many ways, Tiger was a no-brainer...the ultimate safe sponsorship.  So now, there is no one or nothing that truly is a safe bet.

Corporate marketers need to change their "bet everything on the farm" endorsement strategies now. They might want to take a page out of the pharmaceutical industry's drug development strategy play book instead. These giant companies invest billions of dollars on dozens of drugs with the hope that just one or two might eventually make it to market as a block buster seller. They have to hedge their bets across many drug investments because each one has such a low risk of ever baring real fruit. And, the risk is simply too great to place a company's future behind one miracle cure.

In this same vein, corporate marketers cannot look at one beloved athlete as its "miracle cure" anymore. Instead, they should create many, smaller, but equally focused endorsements which allow for brands to achieve more modest benefits from attributes that each celebrity brings to its products or company. And, they can bypass all the unavoidable risk and eventual disasters that one endorsement will probably bring someday. Remember, one face associated with a company or brand completely ties the two together in almost every way. On the flip side, any one of 15 or 30 faces which are far less promoted with said company or brand, can be extricated so much more painlessly should the need arise.

You really do get what you've paid for....

This is the oldest cliché. And, call me naïve. But, I’m really not sure why it's taken me so long to believe that it's almost always true. In this case, it has to do with buying the annoying, yet necessary product called car insurance.

Like most consumers living though this recession, I've tried to be smarter about personal finances and have cut costs over the last year. Considering I rarely ever have an insurance claim with any of our family cars, finding a carrier with a cheaper policy seemed like the natural thing to do. I should preface this story by stating that I've always had pretty high end insurance (from Chubb.) The service was always top of the line and the few claims that I submitted (I think two over last 10 years) were handled in a first class way. The issue at hand was simply how expensive it was to insure three cars on a Chubb policy.

So, I went comparison shopping. That's an interesting experience. When price becomes the main consideration in buying this product, it's pretty easy to understand why companies like Progressive and Geico are key players in this ball game. With very little change in my deductable and general coverage, very friendly customer service representatives on the phone, and close to $800 per six month period (or double that per year) savings, Progressive made my choice to switch very easy.

So, we cancelled our Chubb policy and handed everything over to this low cost provider. And, I felt pretty darn good.

Then, the trouble began. To obtain Progressive's low cost, every customer has to install this "thingamajig" (that's what I call it) under the dashboard of each car. Basically, it's a monitor that allows the insurer to become "big brother-like" to see how fast you are driving and what types of turns you are making. Theoretically, I had no problem with this. But, these thingamajigs are difficult to snap into the cars and they always seem to keep falling out. It started to become a real hassle when the one in my car fell out every week and Progressive started sending me email after email pleading with me to put them back in. My point in all this: Progressive's initial friendly customer service wasn't all that customer centric after all and caused me to waste a lot of time dealing with an issue that I should never have had to think about.

Next issue: Someone smacked my wife's car. It wasn't too bad, except the front right bumper/side was smashed in. My wife went through the process of filing a claim. This meant taking the car to the one, middle-of-no-where garage that Progressive deals with and getting a quote on how much it would cost to fix. What we found out is that the garage basically offers up a low ball quote on what Progressive will pay to fix it, not what the actual cost will be to do it right. There was a $700 gap between those two variables. That really annoyed me. In the end, we simply sucked it up, went to the Honda dealership and paid for them to do it the right way. Now, I was starting to experience firsthand how a low cost provider could make real margins.

The final straw that broke my camel's back was when the six month initial insurance coverage period was over. I don't have a lot of time to continually search for new insurance providers, so even though I wasn't feeling good about Progressive, canceling my policy wasn't an option yet. That was until they sent me a new quote for the same coverage. It was almost $600 higher... for no real reason. I called them to inquire why and received nothing substantial for why the price was so much higher. That's when it became clear to me that this initial cost was really a way to reel me into their world. Then, when they had me, they could change everything and make some real money.

Many people rave about Progressive. Clearly, I will never be one of them. But, I'm not sure that I have any real lingering negativity towards the company because of my experience (although I am changing carriers.) Instead, I've looked in the mirror and hopefully have learned enough to not be fooled again to think that cheaper could be better (or at least just as good.) Whether it be around insurance, healthcare, consumer products or even PR services, you get what you pay for in life. If you decide to go really cheap, then you better reset your expectations on what the outcome will be.

The pot calling the kettle black

Ever notice how many famous (or highly regarded) public figures who go through scandals (or are disgraced) rehabilitate their image only to jump right back into the spotlight a few years later? I’ve always been intrigued with the ease that most gain acceptance. And, although their lapses aren’t forgotten… typically they are forgiven.

Don’t get me wrong. In many cases, these former politicians, dignitaries or celebrities come back even stronger and have every right to do so because their new found visibility has little to do with past crimes or indiscretions. One case in point is Martha Stewart. Martha went to jail for insider trading (actually the official crime was lying to the government.) With her jail term served, those who cherished Martha’s wise home living advice and tips before, accepted her quite affectionately again by enthusiastically watching her shows, reading her magazines and books and maintaining their overall fan status.

Take a look at Eliot Spitzer and we see a completely different scenario, albeit an interesting storyline. It wasn’t so long ago that the former Governor of New York went through this state’s largest political scandal in recent history when the news broke that he was caught red handed frolicking with an expensive call girl. The governor quickly resigned from office and then created his own Richard Nixon-like, self exile scenario. We thought that would be the last of Mr. Spitzer, until 18 months later when he appeared on many talk shows to offer his very relevant commentary on the plummeting financial markets and Wall Street’s blame in the economic disaster that had resulted. Yes, people were shocked to see the disgraced governor in the spotlight again. Some were even outraged. Yet, in the end, this was most likely the smartest move Mr. Spitzer could have made to rehabilitate his image because the only positive and credible piece of his reputation that still existed was forged over a 12 year period as having an Elliot Ness approach to fighting Wall Street corruption and greed by standing up for all those ‘little people’ who needed to be protected.    

Then, there exists a few hypocrisies that I simply don’t understand. These include real life examples of larger than life successful people who fell from grace because of some misdeed, or simply because their success was built on a lie. Yet, somehow, they managed to come back in the most credible and public way to provide counsel or advice on the very same issues or manners that caused the controversy in the first place. One such example I’m thinking of is the former dot.com super star analyst Henry Blodget.

Do you remember Henry? I certainly do. Think back to 1998 or 1999. This young buck was seen as a God within the investment/technology community for his outlandish Internet investment picks. At that time he worked at Merrill Lynch and instantly reached star status after predicting that Amazon would rise to become a $400 stock (which it actually did.) Every technology or Internet company wanted to get on the radar screen of young Henry after that. He was paid at the highest Wall Street levels, treated like a rock star in all public circles and seen as a new sage on Wall Street. This all worked beautifully well until the Internet bubble busted and it was later found out that Henry and others from Merrill’s research/analyst department were conducting questionable activities within the firm.  He was sharing information (and more importantly) helping Merrill’s investment banking customers prosper by writing favorable financial reports on questionable business models. The Wall Street Chinese Wall relationship between research and investment banking was torn down because Henry (and others) helped Merrill make lots of money through these investment banking relationships at the expense of individual investors. In return, top analysts like Henry also received special early investment considerations into a number of the firm’s hot IPOs.

In the end, Henry’s picks all went south and his conflicted relationship within Merrill caused then New York State Attorney General to investigate him. Though he wasn’t ever convicted of anything, Henry was later barred from the securities industry and paid a fine of $2 million.

That’s why it makes no sense to me and truly comes across as the ultimate hypocrisy when I see that Henry is a top anchor and host on “Tech Ticker,” a heavily watched Internet news segment which dissects and analyzes the latest developments on Wall Street and within the technology world. I’ve watched these videos for over a year. While they are entertaining, it’s absurd that Henry actually plays the ‘heavy,’ watchdog role at times by beating up Wall Street executives and their companies for having ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

I’m not sure how Henry could be seen as credible by any audience on this topic based on a history laced with suspect decisions himself. Talk about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black…

All the news that isn't fit to be relevant

Check out this photo. You see it, and, of course, you're led to believe that because these two Phillies are high fiving, their team won the World Series game on Saturday night. Right?

Not so. That high five took place in the early innings when the Phillies advanced to take a 2-0 lead. In the end, the Yanks caught up and won the game. Too bad the New York Times sports writer and photographer had probably already gone to bed, though. If someone had stayed to report the full game, we might be viewing a different photo.

This is just bad journalism. I rarely ever say or write this about The New York Times. But, it's Sports section has always been a cut below standard. Although there is some small print below the photo which tells the reader to go to NYTimes.com for the latest news. No reader wants to be unintentionally misled about the game results (a pretty important game) with the largest photo on the front page.

For years, The Times advertised that it had the best sports section around. What a crock that is. Yes, the articles are well written and the section does provide the reader with lots of important statistics and data. But, one area it always failed miserably in is providing the most recent, relevant news, like other rival papers do. And, I for one, have always had a problem with that.

In this case, it would have simply been better to not put any World Series photo front and center on the cover page. At least it wouldn't be wrong.

I never understood why this paper can't find a way to report any game played late at night in the next morning's paper. I guess with shrinking staffs and resources, this reality will never change. That's life. I just hope The Times understands when news isn't reported the next morning, it isn't really news at all.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big  cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits,  is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV?  I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

Homeless Doll Breaks from American Girl’s Model

Today's guest post is by Laura Mills, Account Executive, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Growing up, Samantha was my American Girl doll of choice.  She had brown hair and eyes (just like me!), with a back-story that was an allegory of having good character.  As a premise behind the original American Girl dolls, the company created strong, female characters, incorporating toys with a series of books and matching accessories.  The dolls are role models, exhibiting positive traits that modern girls can relate to, regardless of the historical context they are presented in.  

This role model position became a method by which American Girl has built a thriving franchise across many years, and business has expanded to include a new generation of role models from a variety of ethnicities and historical eras, while appealing to new audiences, collectors and Hollywood producers.  Some of existing characters include Addy, a fugitive Civil War era slave, and Rebecca, a Jewish Immigrant from the turn of the century.  Most of the dolls have a heartwarming story of how odds can be beaten – after all, role models are so frequently personas overcoming high obstacles.  But the recently launched character Gwen Thompson certainly has the most to overcome: she’s homeless. 

It suffices to say, Gwen has generated her fair share of controversy.  Media outlets such as the New York Post are attacking the concept, especially the mixed message of a $95 price point for a doll aimed to educate children about poverty.  But, regardless of whether the doll is ‘too real’ or if it is overpriced, there is a larger branding issue at hand.  Addy and Rebecca are role models.  Gwen represents a social topic with polarizing points of view.  There is a significant difference between inspiring good character (an outcome of role models) and inspiring debate (an outcome of educators, politicians and reporters addressing social topics.)  Of course the target market for American Girl should understand the issue of homelessness.  But the concept of Gwen Thompson stretches the American Girl brand beyond its foundation and emotional definition.  With the article mentioned above, the brand is now part of a national debate.  For a brand built on creating universally aspirational characters, that departure could negatively affect it as a whole. 

American Girl carved itself a sustainable position in the saturated doll landscape, an accomplishment enjoyed by few brands beyond Barbie.  It would be a shame to see the ‘Gwen’ endeavor have an adverse impact, especially when there are options that might be a better fit for the brand.   With many real life role models for young girls, the company could have licensed the name and likeness of known female advocates and philanthropists such as our client Dr. Jane Goodall, Susan B. Anthony or even Oprah Winfrey.  Having written their own success stories and overcoming personal challenges, these women would be a more strategic extension of the company’s mission to “help girls find their inner star by becoming kind, compassionate, and loving people who make a positive and meaningful difference in the world around them.”

Who's really to blame for our healthcare mess?

Take a look in the mirror. It may be you.

That is, if you're one of the millions who are considered obese, then you're also playing a role in the whopping $147 billion annual cost to our health care system. That translates into $1,250 per household. And, it's mostly accounted for in taxes and insurance premiums... which we all have to pay for.

Let's face it.  Our American society is fat. And, this single factor alone is bending our healthcare system to a near breaking point.

So far, the debate over healthcare reform has revolved around how insurers, drug companies, doctors, nurses and politicians/bureaucrats should be persuaded to change their behaviors (and costs) for the common cause. No doubt, some of that is needed. But, I find it interesting that very little is actually said about how those unhealthy, obese Americans should be forced to change theirs as well.

We all know that too much extra weight is a sure fire cause for diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. All of which cause early deaths. But, did you know that the Institute of Medicine has estimated that while genetics is responsible for 30 percent of these early deaths, the biggest contributor (at 40 percent) is behavior?

So, if this is the case, should we expect Americans to take on more personal responsibly for staying fit and keeping our healthcare system... healthier?

It seems only logical to me.

The problem is that obesity isn't viewed like other vices such as smoking or drinking alcohol. When either is consumed (or smoked) in excess these days, our societal norms typically force moderation (family, friends, etc.) to set in. If that doesn't happen, certain rules (i.e. being able to get life insurance) and/or laws (i.e. not being able to smoke anywhere in public these days) often provide the same outcome.

Go visit an all you can eat country buffet in rural West Virginia at dinner time. You'll see that the exact opposite norm exists there. Customers are encouraged to pile their plates three or four times with the most fattening of foods, and, that's true just about everywhere you go across middle America.

I don't have a healthcare protocol solution for this problem. And, I certainly am not advocating making anyone who is overweight pay more for his/her own healthcare. (Maybe a positive financial incentive would actually work better.) But, I would suggest that our society has to change what we now consider acceptable norms (i.e. over eating) pretty quickly.

To improve both their health and well being and to play an important role in fixing our broken system, it's time that we outwardly frown on these behaviors that elicit this outcome.

This means that a whole lot of self control has to take over as well. Normal sized portions of meals, learning to actually work out to burn off excess calories and eating better and, healthier foods are the ways to go. Although it might throw a monkey wrench into the unhealthy lives of millions, at least they will be alive to complain about it.

Twitter’s been unmercifully exposed… but is it all bad?

For those of you who haven’t been following this story, it’s a wild one. Seems that digital phenomenon Twitter  was recently hacked into in the worst of ways. Some thief who goes by the name ‘Hacker Croll’ found the easiest way to break into the email accounts of Twitter employees, including co-founder Evan Williams. It seems that Croll didn’t even have to work too hard to do this. No, all he did was guess or figure out new passwords as they were reset and… viola… he was in.

The damage that incurred is simply scary. Many of the company’s most sensitive business strategy/finance/competitive approaches documents were stolen and the popular tech blog/quasi media outlet TechCrunch decided to actually focus on two of them in this article.

Reading through this article is a bone chilling experience. Twitter’s business strategy and some of its deepest secretive deliberations and possible next moves are simply laid out for anyone to see. These include: How it plans to compete and/or partner with Google moving forward, real details on its goals and strategies (i.e. should it get into the licensing content game,) how it plans to deal with any possible identity crisis (not sure I get that one, but planning for this is certainly smart,) it’s acquisition strategy (according to rough notes, it has no intention of being acquired,) what it’s financial goals are (reaching $4 million by end of year,) how RSS is the enemy and what it intends to do about it, etc., etc. etc. I think you get the point.

There are many different story angles that I could pursue through this post. For starters, how ethical was it for TechCrunch to exploit Twitter’s misery by publishing all of these very confidential approaches to attack the market? Some would say that this is fair game. Even though Twitter was victimized by a theft, once the media/bloggers obtain something, it’s in their purview to report on it. Others would question the tactic since this had nothing to do with documents being leaked by an employee or someone just being careless at the company. No, they were stolen. My feeling is that (because of the special circumstances surrounding the release of this information) TechCrunch should have backed off. Of course, some other ambitious Woodward/Bernstein wannabe media outlet or blogger would have just picked up on what TechCrunch passed on. So, this issue really doesn’t matter.

We could discuss the technology ramifications behind what happened. I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to offer any views on what security platforms should have been used by these executives to ensure greater safety within their accounts. But, it does seem like the company didn’t take a whole lot of much needed precautions by allowing a hacker to break in so easily by just obtaining new passwords.

Then there’s the topic that I’d like to focus on… which I find most interesting. As I read through the excruciating details of Twitter’s thinking on so many key business and reputational issues, I cringed thinking about how the company will clearly lose a step in its competitive race to maintain dominance on the Internet because so much of what it plans to do next will be reacted to and mitigated. But, I also got to see how this global tech phenomenon thinks. And, it’s pretty damn impressive.

Many companies in Twitter’s enviable position would be more than happy to simply focus on how to maintain their current status. (I would refer to that as being complacent.) Not Twitter. Its executives are clearly thinking about hundreds of ways to move this organization (and what it offers) into the next stratosphere. From finding ways to capture even more market share, to fending off enemies, to developing various types of strategies to deal with the other Web giants (i.e. Google and Facebook,) Twitter has clearly created a fast moving, incredibly strategic, ‘what’s next’ culture that is made to compete and won’t accept anything less than success. (Just review the notes from so many of the strategy meetings laid out in TechCrunch and you can see that.)

So, while the company might feel like it is standing in front of the world, naked right now, there are also thousands of followers who are that much more impressed with its business savoir faire and who now recognize what a special organization it is.

And then, there’s one last (but important) positive here. Not all bad publicity is actually bad publicity. Yes, Twitter feels foolish. But, through this major incident it also continues to remain top of mind for millions because of the all publicity and viral chatter that surrounds it. Everyone was talking about Twitter before. And, the masses certainly won’t stop now.