“How much do you trust business to do what is right?”
That is the question posed in the Edelman 2010 Trust Barometer. And the good news – if you can call it that – is that 54% of Americans believe that business will do the right thing, representing an 18% jump from last year. 
But business should hardly celebrate. First, there is always the risk of mistaking a majority for a mandate. This number is barely half the population at best and means that the other half don’t trust business to do what is right. And while the numbers are not broken out, my guess is that only a very small percentage of the population feels strongly about their belief in business.
More importantly, being acknowledged as a company that will “do what is right” is not really a ringing endorsement. I might believe that a company will “do what is right,” on the big things – fraud, serious product safety issues, etc. – while also doing everything that it can to put its profits and shareholders ahead of its customers. In other words, I might trust the company’s big actions but remain skeptical of its everyday interactions with me as a customer.
In fact, that is what I see everyday. Even where companies are not perceived as inherently evil, the overwhelming majority of Americans view them with a skeptical eye. This trust, even if it is increasing, is incredibly fragile.
Categories: Credible communication · Crisis Communications
Tagged: Communications, credibility, edelman, edelman trust barometer, trust
Who did the best? Who did the Worst? A Report Card
The list of apologies in 2009 is almost too long to recount. But who did it best – and worst – and why? We tested 15 of the most public apologies of the year to see what makes for a good apology and a bad apology and what we can learn from our A-list of apologists.
First, the perp walk:
The athletes:
1. A-Rod for trying to be a superhuman,
2. Michael Vick for being inhumane,
3. Serena Williams for dressing down a line judge, and
4. Tiger Woods for carousing with anyone in a dress.
The politicians: Keep reading →
Categories: Credible communication · Crisis Communications
Tagged: 2009 In Review, A-Rod, Alex Rodriguez, Apologies, Balloon Boy, Celebrity Apologies, Chris Brown, David Letterman, Decade In Review, James Crowley, Joe Wilson, John Ensign, Kanye West, Mark Sanford, Michael Vick, Serena Williams, Tareq And Michaele Salahi, Tiger Woods, Year In Review
December 24, 2009 · 1 Comment
I am happy to announce that my new book, The Language of Trust: Selling Ideas in a World of Skeptics, is scheduled to be published in May 2010 by Prentice Hall Press.
Below is a little preview. The book is available at Amazon for pre-order in case you want a headstart.
The Language of Trust: Selling Ideas in a World of Skeptics
Trust is dead. Now what?
Living through the horror of 9/11 era, the 2008 financial collapse, and a lifetime of accumulated consumer experiences, Americans are more skeptical now than at any other time in our history. They think financial services companies will take their money. Pharmaceutical companies put profits over patients. Politicians are all liars. And corporations will do anything for a dollar.
At the same time, the public has access to more information and more viewpoints. Major corporations and mommy bloggers find themselves on equal ground in the fight for attention and credibility. And for every fact and statistic that supports one side of an argument, a quick Google search can reveal an equally compelling alternative view of the world. Keep reading →
Categories: Brand communications · Credible communication · Crisis Communications · Political Communications
Tagged: Buzzwords, credibility, Crisis Communications, language, language of trust, Politics, skeptics, trust, Words
You have to love Tony Hsieh’s letter to employees following the Zappo’s deal with Amazon. His company has gotten a lot of credit for its customer service, but this is an example of how that service happens. While I don’t know how Zappo’s employees reacted to the letter, my guess is that this is exactly what they hoped to hear. There are few senior executives who could pull off a letter like this because they simply don’t have the credibility inside their organizations that he likely does. But there are a couple of good lessons for all CEOs in talking to their teams. Keep reading →
Categories: Brand communications · Credible communication
Tagged: amazon, authenticity, ceo, credibility, internal communications, zappo's
I have to give a friend of mine (Sam Greene) credit for this idea, but Obama’s rhetoric on health care is sounding more and more like Bush’s on the War in Iraq. This isn’t meant to be a partisan attack, just what seems to me to be a growing and glaring set of analogies between the two situations. Interested to hear how much I get slammed for the comparison.
Here are a few examples:
- Bush had an opening created by 9/11 that he used to push through an important item on his political agenda – overthrowing Saddam. Obama has an opening created by the financial crisis to push through an important item on his agenda – healthcare.
- Bush blamed the previous administration for failing to stop the terrorists who started the war on terror that he claimed necessitated an attack on Iraq. Obama blames the previous administration for creating the financial crisis and huge deficits that he claims necessitate health insurance reform.
- Bush built the case for war in Iraq on what was found to be a false premise: WMDs. Obama is building his case on what increasingly looks to be a false premise: that it will not increase the deficit (rejected by the CBO).
- Bush’s approach to Iraq was highly partisan and ideological (though it had bi-partisan support in the beginning). Obama’s approach to health insurance reform is similarly partisan and ideological (though it likely won’t have bipartisan support).
Whether or not the War in Iraq goes down in history as a success, it ruined Bush’s presidency. The question is whether the same will be true of Obama’s health care reform effort.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: Breaking Politics News, democrats, health care, health insurance reform, healthcare reform, obama, Politics, republicans
| Check out my interview with Frank Zeccola |
| The economic climate hasn’t just affected bank accounts and business prospects. One leading communications strategist says it has actually changed how we’retalking—and this means huge opportunities for PR professionals who can tap into the right kind of messaging to lead their brands and clients out of recession and into recovery. READ THE ARTICLE |
Categories: Credible communication · Crisis Communications · Political Communications
Tagged: Communications, credibility, Political Language, recession, recovery, responsibility, Words
People love to hate Frank Luntz.
It seems like every time he opens his mouth, a chorus of journalists, bloggers, pundits and armchair strategists shower him with righteous anger. The irony is this: if any of them actually stopped to listen to what he was saying, they might learn something far more important than how righteousness feels.
They might learn how winning feels.
Wait. Before you dismiss what follows, understand I don’t always see eye to eye with Frank’s politics. But, as a trained researcher and communications professional who spent years as Frank’s business partner, I happen to know him and his work better than most.
I can tell you what few professional politicos – or Fortune 500 CEOs – in either party would dispute: Frank is probably one of the most influential people in American politics. And love him or hate him, he’s certainly one of the smartest. Keep reading →
Categories: Political Communications
Tagged: begala, Breaking Politics News, democrats, health care, healthcare reform, luntz, obama, Political Language, Politics, republicans, washington takeover
This was originally published on April 29, 2009 on: 
Multimillion-dollar compensation packages. Private jets. Hormones in milk. Plastic water bottles. Chemicals in baby products. High credit card rates. Retention bonuses.
What do these things have in common? They come from different industries but each represents a common set of challenges that corporations now face. Each is a symbol
– a shorthand representation
of a much larger ideological perspective. Each tells a story without having to say a word.
For better or worse, symbols now dominate the debate:
Congressmen try to embarrass executives by asking them why they took private jets to their hearing on Capitol Hill rather than trying to grapple with the real issues at hand as a means toward a positive end. Keep reading →
Categories: Brand communications · Credible communication · Crisis Communications
Tagged: Communications, corporate responsibility, credibility, Crisis Communications, public affairs, responsibility, symbols, Words
This was originally published on March 19, 2009 on the CNBC Guest Blog
The reasons to envy Edward Liddy, AIG Chairman and CEO[AIG 1.51 
0.13 (+9.42%) 
], are few and far between these days.
It’s bad enough he has to defend $165 million in bonuses to senior AIG staff when the company just received more than $170 billion in federal taxpayer dollars. And in his defense, he did say he found the current bonus arrangements to be both “distasteful” and “difficult to recommend” given the current economic climate. But the fact that he did so with such cold, dispassionate language only adds salty insult to an already bloody injury.
But this isn’t meant to be another attack on AIG or the bonuses themselves, however “distasteful” they might be. Rather, there are some communication lessons to be learned from AIG’s fetid response that cut across every business or industry, both in good times and in bad.
The fallacy of fatal facts. Aside from the obviously painful position of being at the helm when that kind of money is going out in executive bonuses, Liddy makes one of the biggest (and most common) communication blunders possible: clinging to fatal facts. Keep reading →
Categories: Credible communication · Crisis Communications · Political Communications
Tagged: accountability, AIG, Congress, credibility, democrats, Distateful, irresponsibility, Liddy, obama, Outrage, responsibility
It didn’t take long for Obama’s anti-Wall Street rhetoric to start to come back to haunt him. Already the New York Times is reporting that anger at the financial services industry is threatening to put a wrench in Obama’s agenda.
I never understood why the President decided to switch from “Yes, We Can” to “Look at what they did.” It was so off-brand for Obama. And given Bush’s horrendous approval ratings and the nonstop news coverage of the evil done by Wall Street, Obama would have been better off focusing on the future and not on the past. Why further drive people against Wall Street? Was that really necessary to get the stimulus passed? Always seemed like gratuitous populism to me. And it seemed potentially very dangerous to amp up the anti-business hatred. Keep reading →
Categories: Credible communication · Crisis Communications · Political Communications
Tagged: backlash, Bailout, banks, Communications, credibility, democrats, financial services, obama, Politics, responsibility, wall street, Words
