Archive for the 'communications' Category

We may be moving deeper into the electronic age of communication, but people still print and distribute business cards. I trade a lot of cards with folks I meet at professional development seminars and association events, and I try to send a short note to most, as a follow-up to our meeting.

It saddens me to see how many of these communication professionals unknowlingly sabotage their effort to market themselves and/or their company. How?

They opt for flair over readibility, by choosing a typeface and/or font size that are hard to read.

A recent example: Last week, I met a very nice photographer at an IABC/Chicago networking event. We exchanged cards, and I sent her a follow-up email the next day. One day later, I received an automated notice from my mail server, stating that my email didn’t go through.

I looked at her card again. Her photography business was named after her, with a middle initial that looked like a lowercase letter “L.” Her email address was in 9-point type, with part of it appearing (to my aging eyes) to be “@klh…” I then realized that the letter I took for an “l” actually was an “i”–the difference was very hard to detect.

It is difficult to generate leads, and it is unwise to put up barriers that discourage potential customers or colleagues from reaching you.

The gold-medal game in the Olympics was just about everything that someone would want: skilled passing, shooting and goal-tending, a last-minute goal to send the game into overtime, and an athletic shot to end the game in sudden-death.

But I didn’t have a sense of national loss that I might have if the winning team had been from a Nordic country. As the teams lined up for their medals, and their names were announced, it was clearly a celebration of athletes who competed for their nation of origin, but who were making a living elsewhere. In several cases, players from the Canadian team were shipped in from a U.S.-based professional hockey team, and some of the U.S. team were cheered in Vancouver because they played professional hockey in Canada.

Does that make a difference? If you’re asking whether it was “wrong,” clearly not. If you’re asking whether it changed my attitude, I’d say that it did. I was cheering for the U.S. team to pull the upset, but when the medals were being handed out, I was proud of both teams.

It didn’t feel like “Canada versus America (U.S.).” It felt more like “Canerica” showing the world how we can compete with each other, but maintain our honor and dignity, even when we don’t “win.”

That happens in sports, and doesn’t happen often in politics or business.

I was reminded of that tonight, and I remembered why the Olympics remains important. I’m sorry that another Games has ended, and with it, the taste of what might be, in that mystical land of Canerica.

As Black History Month winds down, I’m sharing a poem that I wrote two years ago for a contest at work. I won the poem-writing portion of the contest, but I don’t think they got more than a handful of entries.

Still, I think this has value. Enjoy.

Black
“Is it because I’m black??!!”
The comedian asked.
As if being “black” could be a reason
Or an excuse
To treat someone differently.

But what is, “black”?
How could a single color
Singled out from the rainbow
Tell so many
That they have no shades of grey?

Not different
From each other.
Not the same
As anyone else.
Separate and NOT equal
In the color-blind eyes of the racist.

Is Black History Month
A time to gently return
The color black to the rainbow,
So that it can join the other colors
In a celebration?
Where every color is joined together AND equal
In the color-soaked universe of our Creator God

“Is it because I’m black?”
“Yes,” the rainbow answered.
As if we could be a rainbow
Without you
Within us
To be glorious together.

(c) 2008 Tom Keefe

Communications pro Allan Jenkins, from his base in Hjelm Bay, Møn, Denmark, sends a tweet calling the Danish daily Politiken “complete wimps” for apologizing over the publication years ago of unflattering editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Link to story

Was it cowardice, or common sense? If an axe-wielding extremist broke into your home because you posted a comment or cartoon that might be considered “offensive,” or continued to plot ways to kill you, would you be willing to die for freedom of speech? Really?

Why then, do I hear and watch so much “humor” and “editorial comment” knocking the Christian faith, but just about zero directed at Islam? Why do people think it is acceptable, even in the workplace, to use “Jesus Christ” as a swear word, but those same people wouldn’t think of substituting “Prophet Muhammad”?

Christians don’t blow up innocent groups of people, and they don’t grab an axe to attack people who disparage their Lord, Jesus Christ.

Should they? It seems to work for Islamic extremists, at least in Denmark. Allan might think his local journalists are wimps, but maybe they are realists. And maybe we are, too.

Barbara-Talisman-thumb-150x150On Feb. 16, 2010, IABC/Chicago held a professional development session titled, “Making the Most Effective and Efficient Use of Your Time.” Barbara Talisman, president of Talisman Associates, Inc., delivered the presentation.

UPDATED 2/28/2010: I finally was able to upload the video to the IABC/Chicago YouTube channel. I’ve deleted the PodPress videos, which took too long to load, and embedded the YouTube video. Enjoy!

In this 8:45-minute video, Barbara is interviewed by IABC/Chicago volunteer Wanda Whitson. They discuss:

  • The benefits of a social media policy for organizations, and the risks if companies don't have one
  • Some of Barbara's favorite social media tools
  • An example of a successful social media campaign for an external audience
  • Who 'owns' social media within an organization
  • Then, two session attendees share one learning that they obtained from the session

For information on upcoming IABC/Chicago events, go to http://chicago.iabc.com.

For information on the consulting services offered by Talisman Associates, Inc., go to www.3talisman.com.

According to Associated Press Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa, the Federal Reserve released a forecast on Wednesday predicting unemployment will stay high over the next two years because recession-scarred Americans are likely to stay cautious.

Coincidently, I had spoken the day before with two separate and distinct groups of job-hunters, which were clearly scared AND scarred by ongoing weak economic conditions and the related highly competitive and frustrating job market.

I’m no stranger to unemployment and a prolonged job search, having been laid off from communications positions in 1991 and 2001. The 2001 layoff was the hardest, coming just three weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers. That attack caused an already struggling economy to tailspin, and hiring froze across the board. I was sitting that morning in a coffee shop with a group of fellow unemployed professionals who had agreed to form a job/networking group. When one of the group members said, “Hey, someone just flew a plane into the World Trade Tower,” I replied, “That’s a shame, but we’ve got to focus on getting a job.” Of course, what I mistakenly perceived to be an accident caused by a poorly skilled pilot turned out to be one of the most significant events of this decade.

It also marked the beginning of a two-and-one-half-year period of under- and unemployment for me. It was a humbling experience, which continues to make me more empathetic with current people who are “in-transition.”

Like the fellow IABC/Chicago members who shared a drink with me after the lunch seminar at Maggiano’s in Chicago. (I took the afternoon as vacation time, and they had time to spend.)

Like the soon-to-graduate Loyola University students who later that evening asked me and three other professionals for advice about a communications career—and whose stiff expressions and carefully chosen words revealed their unspoken, deepest question: “Do we really have a CHANCE to get a decent job?”

At times like this, job seekers need to be heard. It sucks to finally get an interview after weeks of no nibbles, only to be discarded because someone else matches your work experience, AND has something else that the hiring manager preferred. When you are in mid- or late-career, your spouse doesn’t want to hear it. He or she wants to hear that you got the job, along with the salary and benefits that you’ve struggled without for so long.

When you are about to graduate, your parents and friends don’t want to hear that you don’t have any prospects. They want to hear that you have landed a terrific position that will allow you to move out on your own and pay back your student loans.

No, in this scary job market that scars more than it soothes, people need to have someone who has an open ear.

Someone who has been there…and knows that he might be there again one day.

What are the links between effective communication and a company’s profitability? In this YouTube video interview that I recorded for IABC/Chicago using its Flip camera, Jill Folan, a senior communications consultant with Watson Wyatt Worldwide, shares some findings and insights gleaned from the firm’s “2009 Communication ROI Study Report.” (The report itself is available at this link.)

The interview was conducted just two weeks after the study results were released, at a Dec. 15, 2009 lunch event organized by IABC/Chicago’s professional development volunteer staff.

Folan was interviewed by IABC/Chicago member Julia Winn, who also created the video.

A few days before Christmas, I read David Murray’s blog post about a fundraising effort to cover nontraditional treatment for a family’s terminally ill wife and mother. I thought about other people who had died after placing desperate hope in some unproven, promised cure: Farrah Fawcett, whose battle against anal cancer included treatments in a German clinic to boost her immune system, and my own sister, Annette, who died 18 years ago from breast cancer.

Cancer is ugly and scary. This year, about 562,340 Americans are expected to die of cancer, more than 1,500 people a day, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS). Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S., exceeded only by heart disease. In the U.S., cancer accounts for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths, according to the ACS statistics.

While cancer is ugly and scary, its treatment can be even more grim. Chemotherapy with its nausea, hair loss and other side-effects. Mastectomies and other surgeries. Radiation.

All for what? The 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers diagnosed between 1996-2004 was 66%, up from 50% in 1975-1977. So even with progress in diagnosing certain cancers at an earlier stage and improvements in treatment, one-third of all people in the U.S. who were diagnosed with cancer in 2004 aren’t alive today.

That’s why people like the Wieland family fight like hell to beat cancer. When someone you love has cancer, the first response, after the tears, is to stay positive and to expect to defeat the cancer. Unfortunately, studies show that a positive attitude doesn’t extend the life of a cancer patient.

Of course, support groups can affect quality of life, but the threat of death from cancer-related causes can open the door to long-shot treatments and no-shot money wasters dangled by charlatans.

As research intern Krystal Wilson said in an October 2007 online article for the American Council on Science and Health,

The popular guideline of staying positive while going through something as difficult as cancer diagnosis and treatment is unfair and very demanding of patients, and it is good to see a scientific study set the record straight. Even more critical is making sure that one uses science-based information while tackling a cancer diagnosis instead of falling prey to widespread mind-over-matter miracle cures promoted by quacks out to exploit desperate people.

That’s why I had mixed emotions when I read Murray’s post and checked out the “Lana’s Hope” site. I want to help the family in this small way, by spreading the news about the fund-raising effort. I want Lana to get those long-shot treatments that just might cure her cancer.

On the other hand, I want this emotionally drained family to avoid being taken by charlatans on the hope of a fake miracle cure. But I understand what’s driving them.

In the fall of 1982, I was living in a two-bedroom apartment in Aurora, Colo., just outside Denver, with a former college journalism buddy. I had called him the previous August from Decatur, Ill., where I had just decided to leave my job as a reporter at the Decatur Herald & Review. I told him that I had decided to move to Colorado “to see the mountains.” I was pleasantly surprised when he called me back later to say that he would go with me!

My friend, Bernie, quickly secured a nice position in the call center of a national check security firm. I was more focused on partying, and had floated through some low-paying, no-future “jobs.”

One day, the phone rang. It was my sister, Annette. It was about three months after she and her husband had their first child, a son. Annette was reaching out to her younger brother, to offer some encouragement.

During the phone call, Annette mentioned that she had been having some inexplicable back pains. A voice in my head said, “Tell her that is a sign of possible cancer.” But I pushed that thought aside; I mean, how weird would I have sounded, scaring my sister with the idea of cancer?

A few weeks later, I learned that Annette did indeed have breast cancer, and she needed to begin chemotherapy. I decided to move back into my parents’ home shortly afterward, stating that I wanted to be there to support Annette. The larger truth was that I needed the support of my family just as much.

Annette and her family went through a lot of ups and downs in the next eight months before she died on June 1, 1982. I later referenced that time in a song I wrote titled, “Cells of Fear”:

I watched a friend die of cancer.
You know, she never ever once asked the answer to why
Her life had to end that way.
As the months went by, her body witherin',
At the end it was me that was shiverin'
Standing there with nothing to say.

At the end, I'd just sit there and stare.
For her to die so young, without any hair,
Oh it just wasn't fair.

Oh the world will never seem fair.
The Truth can't reach you there,
While you're engrossed with those little cells of fear.

Near the end, as the cancer spread to Annette’s brain and lungs, choking her breath and stealing her sight, her family was desperate.

My mom told me that Annette’s husband had paid a fee and expenses to bring a “faith healer” from somewhere in Canada. “Don’t you say anything,” my mom sternly told me through tears. “This might be Annette’s last chance.”

I couldn’t help but glare at the “faith healer” as she was escorted past me in the hallway outside of Annette’s hospital room. I wasn’t going to watch the “show,” even if I had been invited. I wasn’t going to be invited because my unbelief might affect the potential “miracle,” some of my family thought.

So I spent a few minutes alone in the hallway, until the procession left Annette’s room. I may be making this up, but I have a partial recollection that someone commented that Annette was now “in God’s hands.”

I believe that she was always in God’s hands, and he did the merciful thing when he ended her suffering. That’s the way we deal with cancer: Expect to beat it, then if we don’t, hope to limit the suffering with a quick death.

I hope that Lana’s family raises the money to pay for the treatments they desire for Lana. If the treatments provide her with a longer, more enjoyable life, that would be a blessing.

I pray, as well, that they don’t fall victim to charlatans, dangling empty promises of hope. That is a curse.

When my wife and I began premarital counseling 20 years ago at her Lutheran church, I decided to convert from the Catholic to Lutheran faith. It was an easy decision for me, because I had long before stopped identifying with the Catholic religion I was taught from birth through high school. The Lutheran faith was similar to Roman Catholicism, but it held key theological and practical differences that made sense to me then…and now.

As someone who made a reasoned decision two decade ago regarding my religious beliefs, I was perturbed a few weeks ago when my dad sent me an email, inviting me to “come home” to the Catholic church.

The problem isn’t that the Catholic church is making an outreach effort to win converts. The problem is that the outreach efforts are sending a message to people like me that the Catholic beliefs are the only right choice. Even other Christian denominations “have it wrong.”

That message is, in the words of the apostle Paul, “a resounding gong,” (1 Corinthians 13:1) because it demonstrates a lack of love on the part of the people behind this outreach effort. How else to explain an outreach effort that alienates brothers and sisters in Christ, that assumes that “home” is a belief system that people like me left behind for theological reasons without regret?

I don’t want to get into a debate with Catholics. I want them to be able to express their beliefs, while respecting the beliefs of others. This “Come Home” campaign doesn’t do it in theory or in practice.

Advertising Age yesterday posted a video in which Verizon CMO John Stratton discusses the “Map War” it is conducting with rival service provider AT&T.

In the video, Stratton states that the cellular service provider market has cycled back to a focus on network reliability, rather than available phone choices, as the primary differentiator among service providers. Of course, as AdAge points out, Verizon has hung its marketing hat on network reliabilty ever since it introduced us to the “Can you hear me now?” guy.

I don’t know whether Stratton is correct that customers will focus more on network reliability than phone products. He admitted that the introduction of the Apple iPhone disrupted marketing when tens of thousands of customers drooled over the iPhone and had no problem going with AT&T, which had an exclusive distribution agreement.

I experienced something similar today at work, when I overheard a coworker talking about his new Motorola Droid, which he purchased through a Verizon “buy one, get one free” promotion. I asked him if he was happy with Verizon, and he said, “Oh yeah, the coverage is great.” But he really wanted to show us the cool features of the Droid.

Back around 1990, when I was working in the public relations department at Cellular One in Schaumburg, Ill., network reliability and reach were the primary marketing angles used by us and our primary competitor, Ameritech. At Cellular One, we ran story after story about the most recent cell towers that we built, and how that would improve coverage and reliability. We couldn’t keep our coverage maps as current as we would have liked, because new cell towers were being introduced at a fairly rapid pace.

But that began to change for two main reasons:

  • Local communities became disenchanted with the many cell towers dotting their landscapes, and were less inclined to approve new towers, and
  • Reception with existing towers was average-to-good over the majority of Cellular One's "coverage area."

But all of the talk of coverage and network reliability ignores a basic fact that continues to be ignored by the media and service providers:


After you achieve a base level of network coverage, the experience of a particular customer depends far more on that customer's travel and cellphone usage patterns than the company that provides the cellular service.

For all of the advertisements that we see and hear that are focused on the benefits of a 3G or 4G network, the fact remains that the root of any cellular service is the transmission of data through the air. Those transmissions can be limited or blocked by natural and man-made obstacles including trees, hills, bridges, and buildings.

No cellular provider has the resources needed to blanket every city or state with unbroken cellular service. So–with the exception of occasional service outages that might occur at a particular cell tower–a customer’s impression of a network’s reliability will depend upon how many “dead spots” exist for that customer as he or she travels. That experience will be different for every customer.

That’s why I chose AT&T as my service provider. I talked with many people who live and work in the same general geographic area as me. I heard their experiences with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others. In my case, AT&T was considered to be more reliable by most people with whom I talked, and, in fact, I have been very satisfied with its service. Yet at the IABC World Conference in San Francisco last June, I spoke with Shel Holtz, ABC, who was looking forward to getting a new Palm Pre through Sprint. He had several unsatisfactory experiences with AT&T before he “abandoned” AT&T several years prior to writing the review of the Palm Pre on his blog.

It may not be wise for all cellular service providers to put all of their marketing chips into one basket, whether it be network reliability, new products, price or something else. Find what resonates and stick with it, as long as you can support any claims that you make. I get a sense that neither Verizon nor AT&T have been able to make an airtight case in the “Map Wars” battles.

Let me know what you think. Call me, if you have enough bars.