Measuring Up

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.

The Foxes who live in this hen house

I really get nauseous every time I see another article and caption describing how Senator Chris Dodd and  Congressman Barney Frank are overhauling our financial system.

Weren't these two jokers part of the gang to blame for getting us into the housing mess in the first place? If memory serves, both men (who sat on banking/finance committees way back in the Clinton Administration days) pushed hard on opening up first home buying opportunities for those who never could afford to own before. They were quite successful because they forced Fannie Mae to significantly lessen its mortgage standards for who would be deemed credit worthy to buy a home. Their laws created opportunities for banks everywhere to drop any and all ethics they had left. The result was something called subprime mortgages. You can read about the rest in any good history book.

What's my point (you might be asking)?

I'll tell you. Our political system stinks. And, one big reason why is because guys like Dodd and Frank have become professional career politicians. Because of this, they can (and have) entrench themselves into committees that have absolute power. Incredibly, this allows them to remain in charge after they facilitated creating the biggest economic disaster in 80 years.

How are these jokers still in leadership roles charged with changing banking regulations now? It's just amazing. They continue to feast on power because our system allows it. And, that's just wrong.

I have a solution. And, I’ve said it (and written it) before. We, the people, should create a new law that prohibits any American from serving more than two terms in office. That would pertain to any public office.

Wasn't this the true concept that our founding fathers had over 200 years ago? Back then, Americans served their fellow man by taking public office for a brief period in their life. This ‘sacrifice’ away from their careers and/or livelihoods was deemed very important because it helped preserve (our ever so delicate) Constitution and these public servants created new laws that were needed to establish rule and order.

I know we live in a different world now. But, think about it. If politicians could only serve two terms, then they probably wouldn't need to spend all their time shoring up power and votes (i.e. always worrying about the next election). And just maybe, our system could simply focus on passing laws that a new breed of politicians actually think will do well for their fellow citizens versus what will keep them in office.

I think this new political system could also bring more ‘fresh blood’ and innovative thinking into our stale, corrupt pockets of government, as well.

Sure, I’ve thought about the negatives with my concept. We'd clearly lose lots of institutional knowledge on important issues within key committees (Military and Armed forces are two highly specialized ones that come to mind). Still, I'd  rather end this current system (and live with that sacrifice) when it allows two hatchet men like Dodd and Frank to remain in complete power, bumbling around the same issues that that they helped screw up more than a decade ago.

Oh, to live the life of Tiger Woods...

Tiger Woods was in a car accident. It was serious enough that a neighbor had to call 911 and an unconscious  Woods (lying in the middle of his street) had to be rushed to the hospital.

Over the last few days, the police have tried three times to interview Tiger about the accident. This is normal protocol for any U.S. Citizen. But apparently nothing about Tiger is normal because he is above our law. Er... that's at least what Tiger seems to believe.

Wouldn't it be just peachy if we could all pick and choose which laws we want to follow, like Tiger does?

From what I read, Tiger is upset with gossip reports questioning his fidelity. The latest statement on his Web site asks for privacy during this personal time and does a fair job of lashing out at the media who have covered this fairly typical celebrity tale.

I have no idea whether Tiger's supposed affair has anything to do with his accident or not. But, the world's number one golfer looks like a big, spoiled brat right now. And by the way, everyone (even those who don't like golf) have now tuned into this bizarre story because Tiger is stonewalling the authorities. And, we all want to know why.

Talk about creating your own public relations disaster. The man's image is sinking by the hour because in the absence of information from Tiger, (any details would be fine,) he is leaving himself wide open to all kinds of speculation. And, this makes little sense coming from a living legend who has spent many years carefully sculpting his professional image for kids and adults alike.

Is he simply frustrated and needs time to stomp his feet and cool off? Or, is there something more insidious to this fire hydrant car wreck story?

Either way, I have a few basic public relations suggestions for Tiger that might help to stop his image from crashing and burning. (Sorry for the pun, but i couldn't resist.)

For starters, I’d recommend that he immediately remove his lawyers, agent and managers from being his mouthpiece. This entourage comes across as cold and too calculated. More to the point, it makes us feel like Tiger can't deal with every day crises or problems at all (which is clearly the truth.)  I'd also tell Tiger to break his silence now. Speak to the police and let the world know that you don't truly believe celebrities (like you) can live by a different set of rules than all the regular Joes who watch, root for and adore you. Sure, rehearse what you need to say and have a lawyer present to protect anything that needs protecting. You've already had three days to get this part right.

Tiger, the clock is ticking and your reputation is on the line.

Air travel is all about taking us out of our comfort zone…

As I mindlessly moved through the airport onto my flights during another business trip this week, something  new occurred to me. I realized that the whole flying experience has been turned into an ordeal that truly takes adults out of their comfort zone. On top of that, it makes us (or at least me) feel like a school kid who is scared that the strict teacher is about to rap my knuckles with a big ruler.

I’ll explain. To begin with, think about what typically happens as you go through the security line in each airport. It’s mighty stressful. I realize that it’s needed, but the process is identical each time. As quickly as possible, you whip off shoes, belt, coat, anything metal and throw it all into 3-4 bins, all the while the people in back of you are politely pushing and edging you forward. God forbid you aren’t quick enough in dislodging your materials into these bins. Someone jumps in front of you and that creates more anxiety. Of course, throughout this process, the security people are herding each one of us like cattle going to market to get through the line and walk under the x-ray post.

No time to take a deep breath at that point though. Because, just as quickly, you’re expected to grab all items you have on the belt coming out of the other end, or the people’s stuff behind yours will pile right on top. I have to believe it would be really funny for someone to be a fly on the security wall and watch us poor travelers hopping on one foot to get a shoe on, while simultaneously trying to put our lap top back in a briefcase and also slip that belt back on.

I find myself tense, stressed out and needing a vacation after experiencing the security line more than once in a day.

Then, after a few hours of waiting and finally piling on to the plane, the next experience typically happens which makes me feel like a child. When those airplane doors close, flight attendants, who are actually customer service representatives, instantly transform into your worst disciplinarian teacher. And, each of us becomes nothing more than a child forced to follow every single directive and rule. Again, I understand why many of these rules are in place, but it just strikes me as a little zany as to how adult passengers lose all control during the experience.

For example, ever try to get a little more use out of your Blackberry before taking off? I find myself becoming so sneaky just to hide the PDA from any possible flight attendant who could be coming up in front of me, or even scarier… from behind.  I typically place the Blackberry between two magazines so that it appears that I’m reading and then sneak a few peaks and write some last minute emails before we ever take off. Getting caught is a brutal experience though. The look isn’t something I’ve seen since my mother used to catch me (after the fact) holding parties in our house (as a teenager) when my parents traveled.

Sometimes it’s even the little things that make you feel just as bad though- How about trying to lower your seat just a tad before take off because when it is upright, it’s just so comfortable to the back? I’ve gotten that glare and have been reprimanded on more than one occasion. God forbid ones briefcase isn’t stowed perfectly under the seat. The resulting lecture from Sister Mary Flight Attendant is the same.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that all of these aspects of flying actually make the experience dreadful. I can take all the waiting around flight delays. But, no one wants to be taken out of their comfort zone so often and the way that makes adults feel like children. Not much anyone can do about it and I understand why the rules are what they are. But, it doesn’t mean that I’ll ever like it.

I just don’t get it…

I know it’s ancient news now. But, this weekend I found myself engrossed with the latest Bernie Madoff headlines again. For those of you who’ve stopped caring, now the trustee for this mess (Irving Picard) is going after Madoff’s two sons, niece and brother for over $200 million in ill gotten booty.

This is a civil action (not criminal), which makes me scratch my head in utter confusion as I mumble, “Huh?”

Let’s focus on Madoff’s sons (Mark and Andrew.) They were the co-directors of trading for Madoff’s investment company. Yes, we all know what happened many months ago.  These two ‘honest’ men immediately turned their father in when he finally clued them into the fact that for over 20 years, Madoff’s entire investment company has been nothing more than a ruse… just a pyramid scam where, in fact, not a single trade was actually ever made.

You know where I’m headed with this, right? Two serious investment professionals (Mark and Andrew) were in charge of TRADING. This means they were supposedly overseeing all the trades being recorded. I’m not by any means a trading expert, but I do have a fair amount of common sense (and I spoke to a few friends who are traders.) From what I can glean, it’s near impossible to direct trading at any firm (especially one as small as Madoff’s- it isn’t Morgan Stanley after all,) and not be able to actually watch, assess and then understand when a trade is really happening (or not). So, we are supposed to believe that in all the years these sons supposedly watched over trading activity, they never got an inkling that every single trade was actually a work of fiction. Weren’t they the ones who forged trading strategies, and managed those traders who were actually… trading? The only possible rationale I can think of is that both sons were in a coma, or simply never actually came to work to witness any trades.

This story gets better. According to reports, several trades in Mark and Andrew’s accounts were actually fabricated. The accounts never received a penny, but they reported millions in profits from nonexistent trades in shares of Microsoft, Dell and Lucent Technologies. Yet, the brothers were clearly bamboozled, like everyone else. Right?

OK, no more kidding around. These guys had to know. It just isn’t feasible that they didn’t. And, I cannot understand why no one is going after them on criminal charges like their crooked dad.

Of course, their lawyers repeatedly say that their clients were kept in the dark about the fraud by their father. That’s just poppycock, though.  The DA nailed the biggest fish (Bernie) and he is now serving a life time prison sentence. But, if memory serves, he never negotiated or offered up any important information to the Feds that would protect his kids from criminal prosecution. So, are we supposed to just sit back and believe that criminal justice has been served?

I guess so.

Someone needs to treat me like a third grader and explain to me in simple sentenced how this is possible. Because, as my headline reads, I just don’t get it…

The Business of Michael Jackson Benefits from a Long-Term Outlook

Today's guest blog is by Michael Dresner, CEO Brand2 Squared Licensing, A Division of Peppercom.

Since his death on June 25th, the business press have not only speculated on the economics of Michael  Jackson merchandise, but also reported on attorneys worldwide chasing down purveyors of t-shirts, posters, baseball caps and calendars commemorating the King of Pop without a license. Such legal pursuits are legitimate. Celebrities can generate millions of dollars annually in royalties from recordings, wearables and novelties, posthumously, supporting generations to come. Indeed, the Michael Jackson Estate claims $80 million in new film and license agreements have been created since his death.  If these partners follow the law and pay royalties to the Estate, why should street vendors and websites be held to a different standard? 

Having spent a career in licensing, I am about to forswear the cardinal industry rule of piracy protection. My message to the Michael Jackson Estate: give the street-side vendors some breathing room. Keep the smackdowns to a minimum. Over the long haul, the Estate will get what it deserves. 

If you search on-line or walk down 7th Avenue in Manhattan, you’ll see every type of Michael Jackson paraphernalia imaginable. And there is a consistent attribute among the offerings: they celebrate, honor and mourn, with images of admiration and respect. Every piece of merchandise I’ve seen sold from boxes on the street fortuitously follows this guideline. No mockery or reminders of the bizarre behavior adorning covers of the NY Post– just the positive impact his music has had on millions of lives across decades. My first concert experience was The Jackson Five in 1971.  For many others, their first musical experiences were watching the “Beat It” and “Thriller” videos on MTV again and again. In recent years he was frequently inexplicable and frightening. But those concerts and music videos were fantastic, and can forever stand the test of time. Perhaps the ‘illegal’ merchandise, as designed, is helping to reposition Michael Jackson for the long-term into the amazing performer that he was, rather than the oddities for which he became known. The Estate must keep the importance of this in mind. 

This strategy is more lucrative than chasing a few dollars that the Estate would otherwise compromise in 2009.  The classic case study is Elvis Presley, who died prematurely as well, at the age of 42. Three decades after his death, Elvis Presley Enterprises generates $ 250 million annually in retail revenue (incredibly, that excludes music sales) across 220 licensees – and is defined by merchandise that focuses on his unparalleled cultural contributions, not on the self-created controversies. Elvis Presley had a reputation for philandering, drug and alcohol abuse, rapid obesity, absurd financial mismanagement and self-destruction. He shot television sets in hotel rooms, rented amusement parks to visit at night by himself, was commonly incoherent and once collapsed on stage. Today’s merchandise collection– brought to market by manufacturers willing to pay a 10%-15% royalty– succeeds despite those controversies, with no hint that those controversies ever took place. The product is all about the entertainment. 

The Michael Jackson Estate needs to look decades into the future, in the same way Elvis Presley Enterprise has, when all that remains are the images, content and memories of years past.  It is the memory that dictates long-term economic value.  And today’s street side vendors are helping to direct those memories in a dignified way.  Three decades from now, the enterprise managing the Michael Jackson brand may be liberated from the lawsuits, the operations, the prescription drugs – liberated to generate income purely from the artistic brilliance he brought to the world.  Maybe, just maybe, the t-shirt vendors on 7th Avenue are helping further that effort.

POST-SCRIPT:  One key strategic reason for legal pursuits is protection for the manufacturers and studios that ARE paying royalties.  Do they have an unfair competitive disadvantage?  For those companies following the legal route today: have little fear. The traditional, volume generating distribution systems– from mass merchant retailers to movie theater chains to iTunes– will only solicit 'officially licensed product' for fear of similar cease and desist consequences. 

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.

This is just plain silly…

The backlash against those institutions receiving TARP money has taken on an entire new  level of absurdity.  According to today’s article (Corporations Take a Low-Key Approach to Event Sponsorship), a number of large financial institutions were sponsors of the US Open, but no one really knew because they kept it a complete secret. Yes, that’s right. They spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ to bring important clients and prospects to the event, wine and dine them at corporate sponsor tables and more, but only on the condition that their name never appear anywhere as an actual sponsor.

So, for example, guests of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America sat at $50,000 sponsored dinner tables, but no sign was posted as to whose table it actually was. Those attending the dinner were left guessing who the covert benefactor was. Wow… feels like a CIA operation.

Let’s be serious about this for a minute. Yes, any company that has received TARP funds needs to scrutinize its expenditures and should be made accountable by providing provide ongoing updates on its finances. But, this has really gone too far. When companies are forced to compromise the value of brand building efforts through paid for sponsorships (i.e. they can’t promote their brands at these events,) then the principle of what should be happening  has become completely lost.

We’ve always done lots of work for financial services companies. It’s a fact that they win lots of business and earn more $$$ by wooing prospects and clients through these high level, prestigious professional sporting events. Like it or not, this is (and always will be) an important new business strategy for them. I think that Congress and the public at large needs to take a chill pill and back off on this issue because it isn’t helping anyone. By taking away the ability to promote their brand and name at these events, these companies waste a large chunk of the dollars they are spending. So in essence, because they live in fear of being singled out by Congress/the public, they are leaving a lot of value on the table. Thus, we are forcing them to throw away our money.

I know that I simplified an issue that is much more complex. But, hopefully my meaning is clear. We shouldn’t be forcing TARP funded companies to change their tried and true approaches to doing business (which, by the way, generates much needed income that will help them get back on solid ground.) I completely believe in accountability and transparency of where the money is going and how much is being spent. But, there is a big difference between corporate boondoggles that simply pamper the senior executives of these broken companies versus legitimate sales and marketing programs that truly generate business, goodwill and some ongoing brand rehabilitation.

It’s too bad that those who influence public opinion about these companies (like our politicians) pretend that this is a black and white, negative issue. Shame on them for not properly educating the masses versus continuing to fan the flames.

You need to "live it" to get it

This morning, I read about Rupert Murdoch's bold prediction to stop the flood tide that is swiftly forcing almost all online media/content to be free. More specifically, Mr. Murdoch announced that he intends to charge for all of his company's news Web sites. And, he confidently believes that this will create a counter revolution, allowing for all other media to follow suit.

Rupert Murdoch is one smart dude. He's established a global media empire in the shrewdest of ways. There should be an entire class in business school offering case studies of how this man successfully built the News Corporation from the ground up.

But this time, I think he's finally lost his golden touch. You see, from everything I've read, it appears that Mr. Murdoch has only actually been on the Internet once or twice (and never by himself.) So, it just seems kind of crazy for a man to think he can be the force that halts the Internet's natural evolution towards providing free content and actually find a way to reverse current consumer wants and demands... when he clearly hasn't even experienced what it's all about.

Free. Yes, we've all heard it many times. Free is the optimal word now for news and information online.

Why?

Well, it's pretty simple. There are just too many free blogs, information sites and knowledgeable Web columnists with opinions for the masses to read. And, when almost any news story (or opinion about that story) can be searched in a second and clicked onto for free, why in the world would consumers pay to receive it, even if it's coming from a newspaper that they subscribe to or read every day?

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Some folks like and need the special alerts, feeds and other information that can provide up to the minute news. Thus, any number of trade magazines and even internationals such as The Financial Times do make revenues from real subscriptions. But, those are anomalies (and we're not talking about a lot of money generated, either.) The fact remains that the media industry has never found a way to create a sustainable revenue line from consumer subscriptions. And these days, many are facing real uphill battles maintaining their only real source of income -- selling advertising.

Maybe Mr. Murdoch's entertaining announcement is nothing more than a blustery (but weak) attempt to bridge attention away from his weak earnings (off more than 30 percent this quarter.) Or maybe, he has some grander scheme in mind to prop up one or more of his media properties in the hope of catching the eye of a suitable buyer.

Either way, it makes no difference to me. It just feels like his provocative prediction would prove a tad more credible if the man actually put himself in the shoes of today's consumer by actually "living" on the Internet for a while. Lord knows, he'd certainly have a better understanding of the subject at hand.

Empathy should be word #1 in corporate America

I'm still amazed when I see how badly some companies screw up public announcements surrounding layoffs. It  really isn't that hard to understand how to play this game (even if the corporate leaders really don't give a damn.)

To me, everything, from the decisions being made, to the communications delivered, should be executed with one key word in mind– empathy. Defined as: the ability to share in another's thoughts, emotions and feelings. This basic, yet critically important way of thinking is missing in so many parts of our business world today. For employees living in these horrifying times, it simply means identifying with the fear/pain they are going through, showing that you are human and care about the poor souls who are being let go. And, then act responsibly by at least communicating the right thoughts/feelings or actions.

I think that The Gannett Company really blew it earlier this week. Sorry to pick on Gannett, but this is a great case in point that proves my thesis. This large media company made another round of employee cuts. That's kind of par for the course in the media world these days. But, the real shocker is that its management decided to cut severance pay for the first time ever. And, that is both big news and an incredibly scary reality for many reporters who were laid off after spending five, eight or 15 years at the company.

Gannett tried to communicate that the severance pay program is merely being substituted for another alternative compensation one called “supplemental employment benefits." The problem is that it's very confusing and complex because with this program the company shifts the burden of having to outlay severance $$$ to state unemployment programs. And, those terminated employees have no idea what their package will be until they fill out unemployment documents and then wait to better understand how the system actually works.

Gannett's core message on this is that most (or many) employees will actually end up receiving close to as much as they would have in a real severance package. But, according to some experts who are quoted in this New York Times article (As It Cuts Jobs, Gannett Also Cuts Severance Pay,) that isn't entirely true and some vulnerable people could actually receive next to nothing.

The main problem here is that this transitional program is incredibly complex and hard to understand (for readers and employees) and Gannett does a simply terrible job of demystifying it and offering any real empathetic stance towards those people who were once loyal employees. The kicker for me is this statement from the company's spokesperson which comes across as clueless and completely uncaring. It reads, "The 1,400 people laid off this month should not think of the program as severance. The purpose of this is to supplement your unemployment while you're getting a job. It's a transitional pay, not severance."

Well... duh. It's obviously not severance. But, when you first read the quote, it comes across as corporate speak, almost non-understandable. And, certainly uncaring. Then, after I read it a few times, I realized that she is saying that while we're ripping any severance you used to be entitled to out of your hands, we are providing a real transitional benefit to you in other ways as you naturally move into that next career job that is (of course) waiting right around the corner. I think the true meaning behind the quote (if I understand it) is actually more insulting and less compassionate than I initially thought (i.e. don't insult these former employees by making it seem that any type of job is going to be easy to find right now.)

By the way, I did a quick blogosphere check. Not surprising, there are hundreds of mad conversations taking place about how poorly Gannett handled this situation.

A very smart client of ours named Dev Patnaik from Jump Associates authored a great book called Wired to Care. Dev spends his life helping companies become more empathetic to their customers, employees and other key audiences. The results are amazing because it allows them to live for an hour, day or ongoing in those audiences shoes and to truly feel their pain and needs. One opening true story from the book focuses on a design manager from a company that makes ambulatory products for seniors. The company's sales weren't doing well because the products just weren't hitting the mark. So, this manager decided to do something pretty amazing. For a week, she became a very old person living in New York City. Meaning – she not only dressed like a 78 year-old woman (wig, shoes, clothes, etc.), but also decided to go the extra mile by wearing the strongest bi-focal glasses (for poor vision), braces on her legs (so she would have trouble even moving around) and fake dentures (just to top it off in feeling every bit of pain.) Her transformation was amazing. More importantly, a week of trying to ride the bus, hail down taxis, or even just walk down the street, made her truly understand how this type of senior lived, what minute to minute problems existed (like how to even climb stairs) and how other people either ignored or somewhat discriminated against her because of her advanced age.

The net/net of this experience was that this designer was able to help make much more effective and relevant products for her audience because she lived in the most empathetic way possible to understand it.

While I'm not advocating that companies need to go this far, it is clearly time for the Gannett's of the world to change the way they think and act and starting showing more consistent empathy or it will greatly impact their ongoing reputation and business success in the future.