6

SOMETIMES, THE MESSENGER DOES GET SHOT—and Deserves It

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD the phrase “Don't shoot the messenger?” At one time, that was a literal admonition.

For centuries across medieval England, the position of town crier was critical. Because most townspeople could not read, the town crier was the singular source of news. Ringing a large hand bell and bellowing “Oyez,” the town crier would announce the latest news and proclamations. He typically had other roles too—including the authority to arrest people and take them to the stocks for punishment.

Town criers often had to proclaim—loudly—bad news such as tax increases, so they were protected by law; harming the town crier was considered an act of treason.

These days, there is no such monopoly. Everyone is at some point a messenger. We all tend to worry about the downside of either delivering bad news or delivering news badly. I call these instances “mangled messages.” Because there is no King or Queen to save us, those mangled messages can cost businesses dearly in the form of reputation, brand value, and sometimes a whole lot of cash.

MESSAGE MISTAKES HAPPEN. WOW, DO THEY HAPPEN.

Nike is widely recognized as one of the great corporate marketers in business history. They are regularly listed among Fortune magazine's “Most Admired Companies.” Yet even Nike executives are susceptible to a massive, expensive, and easily avoidable message blunder. As ESPN reported at the time the result allowed Under Armour, then an upstart competitor, to pull off one of the most amazing and valuable marketing switcheroos in history.

Steph Curry has been a unanimous Most Valuable Player in the NBA. He is the league's best shooter and probably its most popular player as well. Curry is not a physically dominant player like LeBron James, nor was he a can't-miss prospect as a young man. He played at Davidson College after the college basketball powerhouses passed on recruiting him. He made a name for himself at Davidson, began his NBA career in the 2009–10 season, and started his first All-Star Game four years later. It took a few years for Curry to ascend the basketball ladder.

The real money for pro basketball players comes in shoe deals and other endorsements. Nike is the dominant force; it has signed more than two-thirds of current NBA players. Curry had been on the Nike roster during his early years in the league (his godfather even worked for Nike), so by 2013 the expectation was that he would extend his relationship. He was, however, willing to listen to Under Armour—new to the shoe game—and the prospect of being that brand's marquee name.

The stakes can be enormous, even beyond a star's playing days. According to Forbes, Michael Jordan still makes more than $100 million from Nike each year. He made less than that (nearly $94 million) in total from NBA contracts during his 15-season playing career.

The initial pitch meeting from Nike included several Nike executives along with Steph Curry's father Dell (himself a former NBA player). One Nike official stumbled early in the meeting by mispronouncing Curry's first name. According to ESPN, things only got worse: “A PowerPoint slide featured Kevin Durant's name, presumably left on by accident, presumably residue from repurposed materials.” (In case you didn't know, Kevin Durant is another NBA superstar.) The elder Curry told ESPN, “I stopped paying attention after that.”

Thanks in large part to Nike's mangled pitch, Under Armour gained the inside track. Curry signed with Under Armour in 2013, and the business marriage has been a raging marketing and financial success. Less than three years later, a Morgan Stanley analyst estimated Curry's potential long-term worth to Under Armour at more than $14 billion. Consider that a measure of the potential power of one conversation.

RECOGNIZE THE MANGLED MESSAGE—AND HOW TO PREVENT IT

Your typical marketplace might not be worth billions. Nevertheless, it's important. You can reap the benefits of a great message, and minimize the impact of a goof-up, by simply recognizing the ways your message could get away from you.

We see cringe-worthy examples nearly every day, along with their marketplace consequences. I use the term “mangled messages” to describe this large category of well-intended but ultimately botched communications. After studying mangled messages over the years, I began to see patterns in the ways that messages go wrong. Here are my top five marks of a mangled message, in no particular order.

Mark of a Mangled Message 1: Not Authentic or Believable

When your audience can fact-check messages with the swipe of a finger across a smartphone screen, you need to get things right. Consider the example of Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2007 until his defeat in a 2014 U.S. Senate race. Part of his political undoing was the perception among farmers and agricultural interests (a very important group in Iowa, as you might assume) that he did not appreciate them. Braley showed an unfortunate lack of authenticity when he posted to his Facebook page a photo of a farm. It appeared a lovely farm. One would reasonably assume that the picture of a farm on an Iowan's Facebook page would be from Iowa—or at least somewhere in the United States. Some intrepid Facebook users noted that the photo was also listed on TripAdvisor.com as the Cammas Hall Fruit Farm in England. Braley's team removed the post but the damage had been done. Voters didn't appreciate the gaffe, and the aspiring Senator's campaign “bought the farm.”

You might say, “Jim, highlighting the missteps of truth-challenged politicians and their campaigns as mangled messages is just too easy.” You would have a point. How about another example—set in Washington, DC but not involving a politician?

The scene was a July evening. Across America, millions of TV viewers were watching the annual PBS live special “A Capitol Fourth”—which includes the huge Independence Day fireworks show over the Capitol's West Lawn. Onscreen were brilliant fireworks bursting against a clear sky, even though it was cloudy in Washington, DC that night. There was another clue that something was amiss: some footage of the supposedly live fireworks showed the Capitol dome without any scaffolding. At that moment, the Capitol building was undergoing significant renovations. Many viewers took notice. A representative tweet, from @kdittmar, read: Not only did they clear the clouds out of the sky, #July4thPBS cleared the scaffolding off of the Capitol.

What was going on? In order to make the fireworks display look better for television, PBS officials decided to mix footage from prior years with the live broadcast. They also decided not to tell anyone. Later, PBS confirmed that the supposedly live show was not actually live—but their message was dismissive. The show's Twitter feed read, “We showed a combination of the best fireworks from this year and previous years. It was the patriotic thing to do.”

What in the name of Francis Scott Key does a lack of authenticity have to do with patriotism?

The lesson: Never try to sneak something past your audience—especially when the truth is, well, self-evident.

Mark of a Mangled Message #2: Detached from Reality

Good customer messages are largely focused on the customers—their needs, desires, hopes, and challenges. When the message fails to recognize the realities of the customer's world, companies unwittingly create friction in the relationship. Have you ever received a message and thought, “Which world do these people live in?”

Not long ago, my wife and I decided to add a swimming pool to the family home. (This is the “dig a large hole in your backyard and pour in the money” strategy. I'm not sure that I recommend it.) Buying a pool ultimately involves buying a lot more than just the pool. One of those apparently necessary items is a set of lounge chairs; we selected a set from a high-end catalog retailer. They arrived flat-packed, ready to assemble. In each box were furniture pieces, a package of hardware (bolts, washers, wheels), and a set of instructions. These so-called instructions contained no actual words, no indication of sequence, and woefully inadequate illustrations. At least it was a simple task—even yours truly could figure it out—and I wasn't under great time pressure. Imagine if you were trying to assemble a tricycle on Christmas Eve with lousy instructions!

This particular instruction sheet was completely detached from the reality of the person who ultimately depends on that information. It implicitly says, “I'm not thinking about you, the customer. I care about shipping product out my door and not so much about what happens when it gets to your door.” With minimal effort—a customer panel, perhaps a little research with users—the customer experience could have been vastly improved.

Big brand names often demonstrate the same unfortunate detachment. Three of the world's largest airlines had similarly tone-deaf advertising campaigns out at the same time. American Airlines introduced ads touting “The World's Greatest Flyers”—passengers who, among other things, “walk faster in airports than anywhere else.” Your experience might be different, but when I speed-walk (or jog) through an airport, it's typically because my connecting flight was late. The airline typically bears some responsibility. Please, airline, don't congratulate customers for dealing with messes that you helped create!

For their part, other airlines have shown glimpses of cluenessless as well. Delta Airlines introduced a campaign titled “Keep Climbing” (which begs the question: climbing higher than what? The industry has a dreadful customer-satisfaction track record). United dusted off a decades-old tagline of “The Friendly Skies,” which it originally introduced when Eastern, TWA, and Pan Am shared the skies and air travel was a friendlier experience. Nostalgia is not the same as reality. Few airlines appear to understand the reality of their own customers today.

Mark of a Mangled Message #3: Focused on the Sender, Not the Receiver

As discussed in Chapter 3, we are naturally and chemically inclined to talk about ourselves and what we know best. That means in business conversations we tend to focus on our company, our brand, and the products or services we offer. Unfortunately, that can unwittingly make us sound like the boor who sits next to you on an airplane and launches into his life story—overwhelming the opportunity for a mutually valuable conversation.

The major hotel chains are, in at least one messaging setting, consistent manglers. If you have stayed in a hotel lately, then you likely have noticed a message asking you to reuse towels and linens. Sometimes there is an accompanying offer of a discount or bonus loyalty points. When guests switch towels and linens less often, there can be benefits all the way around—to the guest (bonus goodies), to the hotel (lower costs), and to the environment (less impact). For the most part, these programs are successful; according to industry reports, most guests given the opportunity do indeed reuse towels at least once during their stay. Yet, a more receiver-focused message would likely produce even better results.

The hotel chain that gets most of my business has an in-room card that reads, “As we care for you, we care for our planet.” Hmmm. That message mentions the hotel and the planet, but not the guest! Interestingly enough, research is pretty clear that a message of social proof—illustrating to the guest what other guests are doing—is most effective. In a controlled study, when guests were told that most others in the hotel reused their towels, they became 26 percent more likely to reuse their towels. You want to be more specific? When guests were told that most others who stayed in their particular room reused their towels, then they became 33 percent more likely.

Nowhere in the research is there a “we care” message. I have been a guest in all of the major hotel chains; they each tend to have a similar theme. How much more value could they produce with a more customer-focused message?

Mark of a Mangled Message #4: Delivered Inconsistently

You might have a compelling message—but if it looks and sounds different across settings then it likely won't resonate. It will feel false.

For months, my local dry cleaner had a sign on the counter that read “Having fun while we're getting it done!” (along with a plea to like them on Facebook). The message bore little resemblance to my usual customer experience, which was fine but not fun; most of the young employees at the counter go through the motions while the crew in the back is normally silent and focused (and sometimes sweaty). That's okay, because as a customer I care more about my “getting it done” reality than their “having fun” veneer.

After a few months, I noticed that the sign had been removed. When I asked one of the employees about it, she rolled her eyes and said, “Yeah, we used to laugh about that here. No one cared.”

My dry cleaner was tossing out a relatively banal, one-off message that was disconnected from the other things they wanted customers to believe about them. No real harm was done. But some big retailers have managed over the years to spread messages so fundamentally inconsistent that the brand itself became damaged goods.

At one time Radio Shack was a fixture across the United States, with thousands of stores offering nearly everything related to electronics. It was the place to go, especially for hobbyists and those looking for cables, replacement parts, and the stuff to make gadgets go. In the 1990s, at its peak, the company launched a big advertising campaign with the tagline, “You've got questions, we've got answers.” It turned out to be a setup; that promise made through the media was nothing like the in-person messages that many customers got at the stores. As one customer posted on a message board at the time: “Trust me, they do not have answers. Just your phone number and address. What do you expect from someone making less than the kid at McDonald's?”

Radio Shack eventually descended into bankruptcy. That slogan—and the inconsistency it produced—lives on as a punchline.

Mark of a Mangled Message #5: Not Conveyed Skillfully

Sometimes a seemingly well-intentioned idea gets mangled because the messenger lacks skill with the right words or visuals. Or, they might be oblivious to larger themes.

For those of us who appreciate the significance of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, for example, each anniversary is a solemn remembrance. For others, unfortunately, it is just another promotional opportunity. On one particular anniversary a lingerie marketer tweeted, “Rembering (sic) those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. 40% OFF END OF SUMMER CLEARANCE.” Is a sober, thoughtful remembrance (or even rembrance) of a human tragedy really consistent with a clearance sale on lingerie? Who writes this stuff?

Twitter and other social media platforms are full of boneheaded, poorly executed messages. That should not be a surprise given that basic communication skills are in chronically short supply. You and I can't tackle the issues in skill development for working professionals, but we can look at these unfortunate cases in the name of our own education. How convenient it is, then, that a legitimately fine educational institution demonstrated an avoidable mangled message.

Drake University, located in Des Moines, has built a reputation in the liberal arts. Several of Drake's professional programs, such as its law school, are also highly ranked nationally.

The university's leadership commissioned a new recruitment campaign, a collaboration among its Admissions office, its Marketing and Communications staff, and an outside agency. The team hoped that its campaign would prove interesting to attention-challenged teens. Following months of research and creative development, the new campaign debuted with this theme: “Drake = D+.”

Get it? “D” is for Drake, and the plus is for all of the benefits that occur when Drake and a student get together. A large “D+” dominated the new recruitment materials.

Of course, when it comes to education a “D+” has another connotation: a poor grade. Either the folks at Drake somehow did not consider this or they let their agency advisers talk them into something. Faculty, staff members, alumni, and other constituencies were not amused. Apparently Drake failed to involve them in designing or testing the campaign. An internal email to faculty and staff, crafted to defuse criticism, included this: “In our eagerness to launch Drake Advantage . . . we neglected to invite faculty and staff to preview the campaign . . . we are very sorry that many of you were caught by surprise as a result.”

The only market research mentioned in that email was an online survey of high school students. The kids had been asked, for example, whether the concept would get their attention and whether it differentiated Drake from other universities. So, because a narrow group of survey respondents found the concept to be distinctive and attention-grabbing Drake went ahead with the launch. (Setting oneself on fire is both distinctive and attention-grabbing as well, but it also produces a low-quality state of affairs.) A better route would have considered the views of alumni, faculty, and staff members so that the finished product would make all of Drake's core constituencies proud. I suspect that, during the time message ideas were being bandied about, some alumnus, professor, or staff member would have pointed out the problem with “D+” before any damage could occur.

SOMETIMES THERE IS AUDIENCE MALICE

These examples have something in common: they represent some sort of unforced error. Each to some degree was sloppy, incomplete, self-focused, false, and/or misleading. But these days, the very nature of digital communication assets means that a message can also get hijacked and deliberately taken out of context. This adds a new element of vulnerability.

The consumer goods giant Unilever has experienced this phenomenon. The company has had great success over the years with its “Campaign for Real Beauty” for Dove soap. Creatives and critics alike have consistently applauded the campaign's bold, counterintuitive, and timely point of view. Industry judges for Advertising Age rated it at the very top of 21st Century Ad Campaigns.

The campaign has been deliberately provocative, prompting conversations about standards of beauty and female self-esteem. On one occasion Dove was posting a brief online video ad on Facebook. The full clip showed an African American woman morphing into a White woman who then transitions to another woman of color. But someone in the digital audience made a frame grab, depicting only that first change (the African American woman taking off a t-shirt to reveal a White woman underneath). The frame grab went viral. That smaller chunk taken out of a longer story had a far different meaning to some, who interpreted the message as racist.

The Unilever experience illustrates that today others can actively edit your own message to work against you. These days, we have to consider how the message might get snipped, shared, and removed from its original context.

In the legendary (at least to me) 1980 comedy film Used Cars, a conniving competitor to the heroes' used-car lot managed to sneak an edit of their local TV ad. In the original ad, the naïve and well-intentioned owner said they had “styles of cars to choose from” and that her lot was “one mile west” of a certain route. The dirty-trick edit was made so that she appeared to claim they had “miles of cars.” The conniving competitor sued for false advertising. In the movie, the heroes had to secure enough inventory to prove to a judge that there was in fact more than a mile of cars on the lot.

Part of the comedy was the absurdity of the rough, obvious edit. Today it is relatively easy to edit others' content to substantially change its meaning. Your competition, the disgruntled, the clueless, and haters everywhere, can all mess with your message. How can a well-intentioned professional cope?

THE TENDENCY IS TO TIGHTEN, OR TURN COAL INTO DIAMONDS

Your business message, in all its forms, is a tremendous daily opportunity for growth. Unfortunately, it also leaves you exposed—to internal mistakes and oversights as well as to external malcontents. How should one balance the substantial and consistent upside versus the occasional downside?

Some executives tighten up. To borrow a slightly expurgated line from the classic (again, at least to me) movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off: “The boy cannot relax. Pardon my French, but Cameron is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his a**, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.”

What do the Camerons of the business world do? Some will take a pass on saying anything at all. They will fail to equip their people with the language or tools they need—and in the process leave all of those growth opportunities to the competition. Others will decide to put a message out there—one so bland and risk-averse that it forms no signal at all. Their organizations just blend into the environmental noise. Some will be overly secretive in developing the message, as if the team were guarding something as vital as nuclear codes . . . or even the Coca-Cola formula.

That would be a shame if it happened to your organization. The point of diving into these various mangled messages is to better understand how companies and professionals of varying stripes can take advantage of their opportunities while avoiding common mistakes. We can learn a great deal about a concept by studying its opposite.

This might seem counterintuitive, but often the organizations that work hardest to avoid mistakes set themselves up to commit them. I find it best to resolve, as a team, to take advantage of the growth opportunities hiding in plain sight. Then make it an organizational effort! If by chance there is a major slip-up, then there will be a lot of people ready to help set things straight right away.

HOW TO RESPOND IF YOUR MESSAGE GETS MANGLED ANYWAY

Mistakes can and do happen. On occasion, as was the case with Unilever and Dove, you might not have even done much of anything wrong yourself; competitors or busybodies will deliberately misstate or misrepresent things.

In such cases, communication experts generally agree on the best practices to follow. For example, the Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations at the University of Alabama offers these guidelines for responding to a communications crisis:

• Have a plan before things go wrong. You can use the exercise at the end of this chapter to get started.
• Rehearse. This is a bit like a fire drill. No one should have to think about the plan (or, worse, find it) during the moment of crisis.
• Respond quickly. Nature doesn't tolerate a vacuum. Neither does a crisis. In the absence of your response the marketplace will make its own (mostly inaccurate) assumptions about the facts and your motivations.
• Choose one person who will act as the messenger. These are the times when an organization needs one voice of authority and empathy. Choose strategically. You'll want someone with adequate knowledge, skill, and confidence for the role.
• Stay truthful and consistent. I advise clients to stay away from hypotheticals; don't comment on things you do not know about. If you don't have all the answers, simply say so but come back to your audiences as soon as you can.
• Be direct, not evasive. “No comment” actually is a message and it isn't the one you want to convey.
• Have a dedicated web page to deal with the crisis. It is a great idea to have a template set up and inactive. You can then quickly link that page to all social media sites.
• Show your empathy for anyone who has been harmed or inconvenienced. Giving voice to your concern is not an admission of guilt, but rather a human thing to do. Time and again we see executives, coaches, entertainers, or others in the limelight offer what I call “the non-apology apology.” They will say such drivel as “If you felt let down then we are sorry,” “We are sorry about the situation,” or “It is an unfortunate incident, one that we all can learn from.”
• When things have subsided, it's time to evaluate all of the activities. And remember to debrief the crisis team, recognize contributions, and update the plan if needed.

These message problems, although sometimes embarrassing, are rarely fatal for the business. Sometimes your relationships with customers, employees, and communities actually emerge stronger. Don't allow any anxiety to hold you back.

Your business likely has many messengers-in-waiting. Next, let's talk about some ways you can help make them most effective.