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.

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.

During the IABC World Conference 2009 in San Francisco last June, I talked with a respected colleague from the U.K. regarding the then-current state of commitment there to corporate social responsibility (in light of the economic downturn).

My colleague told me that he was hearing that many companies were scaling back their CSR spending, and he took that to mean that CSR remained a “nice-to-have” in good times, and a “don’t need to have” in tougher times.

Little did my colleague or I know that, at the very moment we were talking, new research was going to show that the commitment of corporate leaders to social responsibility programs and initiatives was still strong.

Here are two sources of current research:

IBM Institute for Business Value 2009 CSR Study
(survey of 224 business leaders worldwide):

• 60% believe that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has increased in importance over the past year
• Only 6% say it is a lower priority.

The State of Corporate Citizenship in the United States 2009

(Joint project of the Boston College Center and The Hitachi Foundation.

• Conducted by GlobeScan between June 4-June 23, 2009
• Survey queried 756 executives, 36% at small businesses (1-99 employees), 24% at medium (100-999) and 40% at large companies (1,000+)
• Despite upheaval in the economy, a majority of U.S. companies are not making major changes in their corporate citizenship practices. Of those who made changes 38% reduced philanthropy/giving, 27% increased layoffs, and 19% reduced R&D for sustainable products.
• Most U.S. senior executives believe business should be more involved than it is today in addressing major public issues including health care, product safety, education, and climate change.
• Reputation was cited by 70% as a driver for corporate citizenship, tied for the top spot with "it fits our company traditions and values."
• Based on current economic conditions, 15% of companies are increasing R&D for new sustainable products; 11% are increasing corporate citizenship marketing and communications; and 10% are increasing local and/or domestic sourcing or manufacturing.

I’ll add some anecdotal evidence that I obtained during two recent conferences.

At the Melcrum Strategic Communication Management Summit 2009 held in Chicago from Sept. 22–24, 2009, I asked three panelists whether their companies had cut back on SR spend this year, due to the economy or other factors. All three said the spend had not decreased, and one of the panelists, Beth Miller, a communications manager at Unilever Foodsolutions, stressed the importance of the company’s efforts in social responsibility for attracting and retaining quality employees, as well as satisfying customer concerns over the environment and natural resources.

That same message came through loud and clear in presentations held during the IABC Pacific Plains Region Exchange Conference, held Oct. 11-13 in Minneapolis, MN. Companies know that employee retention will be a critical strategic focus globally over the next decades. This current tight job market and belt-tightening by consumers will soon pass away. A company’s reputation and “report card” on social responsibility topics will be a competitive advantage to some, and a disadvantage to those who ignored it.

(cross-posted to the SR LINK website)

I just logged in from the hotel room in downtown Minneapolis, Minn., where I’m staying through Tuesday to attend the IABC Pacific Plains Region EXCHANGE Conference.

The airport shuttle driver told us about the many accidents that occurred here over the past 24 hours, as drivers encountered icy conditions for the first time this year. Short memories, or too many new residents moving from warmer climates! The driver was behind a truck that lost control as well as a gasoline can that ignited when it hit the ground. Gasoline poured across the road, and the fire chased the gasoline across the road. The shuttle driver couldn’t stop in time, so she drove through it ala “Ghost Rider.” She expected to see her tires flaming, but all was well.

Our ride was much less exciting. Oh well, they’re predicting snow tomorrow, so I’ll be on the lookout for more tragedies.

My “day job” and some volunteer work have kept me pretty busy lately.

I was able to record an interview with Bob Freer, Infoble VP business development, and Julie Baron, Principal at Communication Works, an Arlington Heights, IL, communications strategist.

Why would a company pay Infoble (http://infoble.com) to create and/or manage the distribution and tracking of podcasts? Because Infoble can overcome many of the barriers facing corporate podcasts, including bandwidth, information security, measurement of ROI, searchable archived content and more.

Earlier this week, I joined two other members of IABC’s Social Responsibility Committee in an interview for the IABC Cafe2Go podcast. Shel Holtz, ABC, led us through a discussion regarding a new website, SR LINK, that is a resource for people interested in communicating about social responsibility.

In this 15-minute interview, Carrie Mamantov, Michaela Hayes and I discuss the goals for the site, the effort that went into launching it and how it is being received to-date.

Click this link to hear an 8-minute “Quick & Dirty podcast” that I recorded on June 8, 2009 at the IABC 2009 World Conference at the Marriott in San Francisco.

This podcast was recorded following a presentation by Lynn Patterson, director of corporate responsibility at RBC Financial Group, Ontario, Canada. Lynn’s presentation, “The Suite Spot: Transforming your corporate responsibility report into a communication suite,” included ideas for moving away from a focus on corporate responsibility reports so that communicators instead can provide a “suite” of communications tailored to key audiences across appropriate media.

Our discussion covered the reasons to move in the direction of CS communications suites, examples of how it is done at RBC, and the possibly surprising thought that CSR departments may one day disappear–but the work won’t.

The IABC World Conference has featured some terrific SR-related presentations. Come back to read and hear more as the conference continues.

(cross-posted on the SR LINK web site)

My first unofficial IABC 2009 World Conference event took place on Friday over buffalo wings, onion rings and drinks at the Fourth Street Bar & Grill at the Marriott. There, Mike Zimet and I thanked IABC IT staffer Isaac Chapman for the yeoman’s support he provided for the launch of SR LINK.

On Saturday morning, I joined a group of about a dozen IABC volunteers and three IABC staff members for a community service project. The beach cleaning went very well, although I couldn’t believe how many nails, screws and pieces of broken glass I scooped out of the sand around two firepits on the beach. People burn pallets and furniture there, and the nails and screws fall into the surrounding sand. You really don’t notice it when you would look at the beach (which is lovely).

Then we got back to the Marriott in time to freshen up a bit before embarking on a two-hour walking tour of San Francisco. I chose the Union Square / Chinatown tour, and was so impressed by the knowledge and enthusiasm shown by the two SF Chapter leaders, Molly Walker and Janet Bailey. One treat was to walk by the new IABC headquarters. I’m looking forward to sneaking over there for a quick visit sometime during the next couple of days.

The conference officially kicks off tomorrow, and I’ll do my best to capture some of the hightlights from the sessions I attend.

If you didn’t come this year, I’m telling you that you will be sorry!

Just weeks before the IABC 2009 World Conference, I received an email regarding cancellation of a pre-conference community project for which I was registered. That community project was to partner with the Fillmore/Western Addition Mobilization of Adolescent Growth In our Communities (Mo’ MAGIC), a collaborative of more than 50 programs and organizations helping under-served youth in San Francisco.

I was looking forward to spending the Saturday morning before the World Conference reading to kids. The event summary stated that “Studies also show that being read to or reading to others can help decrease summer learning loss.” What a great program, I thought. It fit well into my desire to serve the community using the skills and experience I’ve gained as a communicator.

Evidently, I was one of a very limited group of people, because the project was canceled due to low registrations. I’d better make it clear that I agree with IABC conference organizers who have to be prudent when planning these projects. My disappointment is with the situation, not the decision to cancel the event.

Was it budget cutbacks that prevent conference attendees from coming a day sooner? I hope that was the case, rather than a lack of interest in reading to kids.

Anyway, I’ll donate to the book drive in support of Mo’MAGIC, and have signed up to participate in the beach cleanup that day instead. Maybe I’ll pick up a few discarded bottled water containers. While that will be good karma in light of my struggle to stop using bottled water, I’m wondering if any kids in the San Francisco area are feeling discarded themselves. I hope not.

Arggh…she got me.

“She” is Michelle Bernhart, communicator par excellence, and chair of the IABC Social Responsibility Committee. We’ve worked together on the SR Committee for more than a year to launch the SR LINK, a web site focused on SR communications.

In a recent post, Michelle managed to strike me (and probably many others) in a vulnerable spot: our love of bottled water. Although the main point of Michelle’s post is a “greenwashing” attempt by Coke to seem eco-friendly on Earth Day, the post made me confront my own feelings about bottled water.

How can I justify taking swigs of filtered tap water and emptying bottle after bottle that will pile up in landfills? The answer is: Convenience and product performance. Not very altruistic, but if you want to change my behavior, you need to understand my motivations.

Convenience. Water contained in uncovered mugs and cups is not convenient. The water spills. Over the years, I’ve watched many coworkers accidentally tip a cup of water and then have to scramble to salvage printed documents, notebooks and other items from the ensuing spreading puddle. I’ve also experienced the jolt of realizing that, while tossing in my sleep, I’ve knocked over a glass of water from the end table next to my bed.

That doesn’t happen with bottled water. You twist off the top, take a swig, then replace the cap. Nice, tidy, convenient.

Product performance. Most bottled water containers are shaped to fit comfortably within your grasp, and as mentioned above, offer easy twist-off caps to secure the contents between sips. They also are slim-shaped, making them less obtrusive on a table or other surface. That is not the case with the reusable drink containers that I’ve used over time.

I still use the first such container that I received. It was sold in the mid 1990s to employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in one of the first corporate “green” campaigns held at places in which I’ve worked. I’m looking at it now. (Yes, even if you’re reading this at 2 a.m., I’m still looking at it–what a design!)

The cup is 6 inches tall by 4 inches wide, which makes it wider and just slightly shorter than Wendy’s biggie-sized drink cup. I know because I’m looking at that now, as well. The FRB Chicago cup came with a plastic lid that my wife threw out years ago. Even when I had the lid, it didn’t protect against spills—as would a Dasani or other bottled water. That’s because it had a hole in the lid for a straw to pass through. When the cup is tipped, water streams out of that hole.

Other reusable containers that I’ve used and rejected in the past usually have some design or performance flaw that makes them awkward to use. Some were too tall, too easily tipped, or came with a straw that seemed to be at least 3 feet long and that dangled dangerously out of the top.

Although swigging from a bottle of water can seem unsophisticated, making a mess by spilling a non-secured cup of water can be just as unsophisticated.

The best solution to me would be to create a reusable container shaped like bottled water, with an easily removable twist off cap that would secure the drink between your sips. I would invent it, but I’m too busy defending myself from disparaging blog posts from Michelle (j/k).

Another question: Why isn’t anyone up in arms about the millions of plastic cups from fast-food restaurants that take up just as much room in landfills?

IABC Executive Board Vice Chair Mark Schumann, ABC, just wrote a post about the demise of the Rocky Mountain News newspaper in Denver, CO (USA). I commented briefly on Mark’s blog about my own perspective, but want to expand a bit here.

I was born in 1958 and grew up when newspapers were the dominant source for complete news coverage. Radio news reports, to me, were the irritating, five-minute interruptions that always seemed to come just when I was starting to enjoy the latest rock or pop hits. TV news was visually interesting at times, but otherwise flat and stiff.

Reading the newspaper was a family affair. I remember squirming next to my older brothers and sister, to find a spot on dad’s lap, while he read the Sunday comics to us–and often had to explain the joke. As I grew older, we discussed the local and national news (Chicago is never short of controversial news!), and savored the razor-sharp writing and reasoning of columnists like Mike Royko.

My brothers and I delivered newspapers to earn money. One of the benefits of a morning paper route, that just barely countered the daily 3 a.m. wake-up, was the time spent reading the newspapers after the route was finished. There, in the agency’s poorly lit, barely heated back area, I would sit on a wooden shelf/bench and take my time, devouring just about every word in the two daily newspapers.

As Mark mentioned in his post about the Rocky Mountain News, there was something about the smell of newspaper ink on my hands that I just loved. The ink got into my blood, and I pursued journalism as a college student at Eastern Illinois University.

The journalism professors there were required to have worked previously as a professional journalist. I heard first-hand stories of life as a newspaper reporter: the exciting and rewarding, and the mundane and frustrating. I even got to get ink on my hands again, while helping to print and distribute the daily student newspaper as a fill-in volunteer when the regular press crew or delivery staff weren’t available.

I spent a summer working as an intern at the Decatur Herald & Review. Then when I graduated, I accepted a position there as a reporter/photographer. Although my bosses and coworkers were some of the finest people I have ever met, I left the paper after only one year, because I “wanted to see some mountains.”

I called a college friend and told him that I was planning to move to Denver. That friend said, “I’ll call you back in a few minutes.” When he did, he told me that he had decided to move to Denver with me!

We used the Rocky Mountain News to look for work. My friend was more dedicated, and quickly found a very good job. Me, not so much. After a few months spent laboring at some fun, but not lucrative, “jobs,” I moved back to Chicago, leaving behind a love of the mountains and newspapers in Denver.

Just last night, I discussed with my wife whether we should cancel our subscription to the Chicago Tribune. We just don’t read it much, and unopened newspapers too often get tossed in the recycling bin. But there is something about the physical newspaper—and the journalists who worked so hard to publish it—that makes it nearly impossible for me to let go.

But times have changed. Perhaps nothing says that better than the fact that the links I have provided here to the newspapers all go to electronic web pages. You won’t get ink on your fingers from typing in the URLs. Maybe that should make all of us a little sad.