Measuring Up

How smart is this man?

Donald Trump is front page news. 

This businessman filled with bravado has us all wondering whether he's really going to make a Presidential run. Or, is this simply a giant ruse that he's created to promote his still popular ‘Apprentice’ show on NBC, while also serving to prop up the value of the Trump brand for a host of other business dealings.

My personal opinion is that this began as a very creative publicity stunt to build TV ratings. But, as media began to listen and widely report about him, ‘The Donald’ saw that a bona fide opportunity existed. Amazingly, the political polls have him steadily rising in popularity to the point where he is now a front runner on the Republican ticket. Some (like this blogger) view this as a sign of just how weak the Republican candidate list is. But, Trump could just play this out until he needs to declare his official run for the office (or not) just to see what options he has along the way.

Donald Trump is arrogant, shows a complete lack of humility and certainly rubs many the wrong way with his outspoken and often controversial viewpoints. His personality and character would be more suited to a third world nation dictator, than the president of any democratic nation. But, he is also very smart.

That's because it really doesn't matter what candidate Trump says. The masses are going to listen and there is almost no downside to what he does and says at this point.

Take as an example his laughable rhetoric on the birther issue surrounding Obama. Only the far right chooses to believe that this could be true. But, by peddling this nonsense to anyone who will listen, Trump now has minted a new loyal base of followers.

How about the Libya issue and what to do with Qaddafi? He was asked this question on ‘The Today Show’ last week. His answer was so comical, yet also refreshing because in stating that he only wants "the oil" or “let's stay out of that mess,” he did something that no real politician would ever do. He spoke the truth. At the same time, this comment served to fan the flames of melodrama around him, serving to create even more exposure, while his new loyalists flocked to watch ‘The Apprentice’ because they need to soak up his energy whenever possible.

Yes, this is what we often call a win/win scenario for Mr. Trump. And, I have to respect how he's created a reality in which his go or no go presidential decision falls squarely around the last and most important season finale of his hit show.

Most blogs and stories on this topic focus around whether this is a big hoax, or if Mr. Trump's views/comments give him a legitimate chance for the nomination. To me, that's all background noise.

Personally, I can't ever see him choosing to run because that means opening up his finances to the world. I could be wrong, but just believe that there are far too many skeletons in his business closet to open up to the world. The negatives far outweigh the positives on this one.

Instead, what I find really interesting is just how long he'll milk this enormous opportunity along the way and the entertainment value that I can take in every time he speaks.

Put that in your pipe and chew it!

Yes, I realize that this headline is both foolish and a mixed metaphor. But, when I heard a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball player exclaim this line last night in an interview, I laughed so hard that I decided to write about it.

Professional athletes and their coaches (many of whom used to be professional athletes) are notorious for butchering metaphors, analogies and clichés in media interviews.  I’ll admit to flubbing a few of these well intentioned lines in my day, as well. But, some professional athletes are in an entirely different league when it comes to the succession of incongruous or ludicrous comparisons that come out of their mouths each and every day.  Here are a few of my favorites that I’ve recently heard:

-    “Left hand, right hand, it doesn’t matter. I’m amphibious” --  Professional basketball player
-    “Can’t let one bad apple spoil the whole ball of wax” – Professional baseball manager
-    “I don’t want to shoot my mouth in my foot, but those are games we can win” – Professional football player
-    “I can see the light at the end of the tightrope” – Former professional basketball player. Now team president.

What’s my point (you might be thinking)? I’ll tell you.

When athletes make the jump from amateur to professional levels these days, they have a thousand and one counselors/coaches/mentors available to them. These experts try to teach them everything  from how to save and invest their new found money (that is still a tricky one for many), to quickly become more mature and professional  in how they handle themselves in the public (off the field or court), to dealing with the mental and physical grind of long, tedious seasons that they’ve never experienced before. But, are they ever coached or provided any guidance on how to become better public speakers… especially during press interviews?

Probably not. And, this reality is a real mistake. When these celebrities come across so poorly in the public eye, it only reflects negatively on them. Sure, they might have high paying jobs now, but, on average, most will be looking for a new career in two to four years. Whether they want to use their notoriety to move into a public broadcasting job or something else, those who speak as if they are uneducated, will probably face much longer odds of ever landing that next job they really want. It also becomes problematic when that first “crisis” strikes and those naïve and often inarticulate athletes are now in a panic situation, but have never been properly trained on how to communicate beforehand.  Instead, irony hits hard after the crisis hits when dozens of “close confidants” come to their side, offering lots of advice on what to say and how to say it. Unfortunately at that point, it’s often too late.

This post keeps bringing me back to one of my favorite movies, Bull Durham. Remember when Kevin Costner’s character (Crash Davis) started to mentor “Meat” (the highly uncivilized pitching prodigy that Tim Robbins played). After Costner witnessed Meat’s horrendous interviewing skills, he said to him.”You’re gonna have to learn your clichés. You’re gonna have to study them. You’re gonna have to know them. They’re your friends. Write this down -- we gotta play it one day at a time.”

If only every professional athlete had his own Crash Davis, the sports world would be so much better off (at least better spoken).

Have you recently heard any mixed metaphors or just plain bad quotes that are hilarious? Would love to hear your thoughts.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big  cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits,  is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV?  I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

Respect and value our time and the end result will be better

The debate rages on in our industry about whether agencies should have fixed monthly retainers or bill real time of staff for client engagements. With all due respect to PR Week, I think the publication really got it wrong in its latest analysis. And unfortunately, it’s public viewpoint acknowledging that fixed, month to month retainers are the way to go, only serves to hurt our industry by bringing us back to the "Dark Ages." It’s ironic because PR Week is one of the few objective guiding lights whose mission has always been to show the business world just how strategic and important our work is. But, in this instance, the argument conflicts with its mandate.

Here’s the article: "Are fixed monthly retainers the best billing option for PR agencies." In full disclosure, you’ll see that the article is actually a debate between my partner Steve Cody and another agency president, Sean Cassidy. Sean strongly advocates monthly retainers. Steve argues against it. And, PR Week wrongly agrees with Sean. For the record, I’m not writing this post to stand behind Steve. As a matter of fact, Steve and I often disagree on many issues within our industry. This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with Mr. Cassidy (and PR Week). Now, let me explain why.

This really all begins by understanding what clients are actually paying for (conceptually). We believe that our clients are compensating us for all the valuable time we devote (strategically, creatively and implementation) to generate results. In essence, our professional staff’s time is our product. Knowing that this is the case, when we tell a client that it will cost $20,000 this month to do all of that to generate the results that we all agreed upon, that isn’t some arbitrary number that was made up out of thin air. It’s truly based on how much time we believe it will take for the team to accomplish the goal. If we follow Sean’s train of thought, then that same $20,000 has nothing to do with the professional time the team will need and has everything to do with a lump sum of money that will support whatever it takes to generate the same said results.

This means that if it takes the team $45,000 or $62,000 in time for that month to generate those results, so be it. Because Mr. Cassidy’s view is that it’s all about settling on a fixed amount of fee to be as flexible as possible for the client, the agency could end up losing serious fees every single month because the client has been conditioned to believe that he/she is only paying for results, not for the professional time that is needed to obtain results.

NJ hospital learns "church and state" rule the hard way

After all the public relations gaffes in the last year, some muckety-muck, powerful executives still don't get it. Because I live these types of decisions every day, it must be too intuitive to me how to handle the most basic and obvious PR decisions. That's why I really shouldn't be surprised to read about the latest bumbling move by Hackensack University Medical Center.

This type of PR blunder has happened for as long as newspapers existed.  The Record, a daily newspaper owned by North Jersey Media Group, was preparing to write a controversial article about the questionable Board connections of the Medical Center. So, right out of a "PR 101 Never Do This" guide, the hospital's Board threatened to pull its entire ad campaign if the paper had the nerve to run the piece.

Kudos to the brave daily (especially in this economy.) With the threat looming overhead, the publisher never flinched and the article was printed that Sunday. And, like clockwork, the Board pulled all of its advertising budget. We all know what comes next in this story. The Record printed another article simply stating what the Board did (threatened it and then pulled the advertising campaign.) And now, the Medical Center is on its heels, back pedaling because it looks so stupid (like a big, bad bully) through more negative publicity.

Now the Board has issued an apology and offered to reinstate the ad campaign. (The statement was issued through its PR firm.) And, I'm reading this latest article (with a few million other people in The New York Times). Need I say anymore...?

What's the lesson(s) learned here? Well, there are a few. First, I don't care how powerful you are, don't try to control national or daily newspapers with threats or money. It simply won't work. In actuality, the more powerful and/or famous one is, the greater the chance he/she will be covered by the press because that's what sells newspapers.

Secondly, our world is much too transparent now to ever think that a threat like that one given by the Medical Center Board won't be leaked or reported. So, one better understand how one story will surely evolve into more ongoing embarrassing news if this bad strategy is enforced.

Lastly, these executives (in this case The Hackensack Medical Center Board) need to learn to just deal with the issue at hand in a sensible way. Because, there are no easy answers once a crisis begins. If the Medical Center indeed does have bad practices at the Board level, well... it should have looked at its vulnerabilities and fixed these. Since it seems like that ship has sailed, then the Board needs to retain the right crisis communicators/managers to counsel them better on openly and honestly dealing with the problem.

Step one (these days) means having a truthful conversation with The Record to explain what the issues are and how they will be changed for the better.

Yes, I'm sure the Medical Center would have still taken some knocks for its questionable practices. But, assuming changes are forthcoming, the negative coverage might have stopped there and an important media relationship would still be intact. Of course, this is not the reality now.

Thankfully, the ethical boundaries separating advertising and editorial still exist in most reputable newspapers. That's important, so that you and I can continue to believe (most) of what is written these days. Hackensack Medical Center (a very good hospital, by the way) learned this reality the hard way.

Five tips on how to get the most value out of measurement

It feels like prospects and clients ask the measurement question in almost every meeting I’m in these days. It goes something like this, “My boss or CEO needs to see some type of return for this program….especially while we’re all just trying to survive this rotten economy. Uh…how could you…or would you propose measuring this in a way that is meaningful?”

Then we typically have a pretty substantial 15 to 30 minute discussion on how Peppercom creates tailored measurement programs for specific campaigns. Usually,  I find myself either raising a few points or correcting some misconceptions about how measurement can and should work to really help assess ROI. For those interested in metrics, here are five of those tips or guiding principles to set up the right metrics system for your company.

1)    Stop equating media relations to advertising buys – There is absolutely no correlation between a half-page article in Business Week and a similar sized advertisement in the same publication.  Readers assess the two completely differently because they are 100 percent different.  So, just because an ad in this publication costs $60,000, it doesn’t mean that the value obtained through your article will equate to the same. Please stop measuring your media relations campaign as if it were a corporate ad program. It simply doesn’t compute, and you will be just fooling yourself.

2)    It helps to understand  what your white space could be – We’ve found that a really effective measurement program needs to begin by understanding where the clear openings, opportunities or “white spaces” are from a communications ownership standpoint. Once identified, then the metrics program can be very strategic by periodically measuring how the public relations program is moving the needle (or not) in helping said client own a larger chunk of that opportunistic space.

Too often, broad assumptions are made as to what themes/messages/categories should be measured without enough proper due diligence to really see what actual opportunity exists versus how saturated that space may be with three or twenty-three other competitors owning it.  So, measurement for measurement’s sake really doesn’t mean anything unless there is a very real possibility that the program being paid for is helping to achieve real marketing and business goals.

3)     If you really want to measure ROI, then do it  - So, many communicators talk about the need to show their financial executives that the company’s PR program is having a direct impact on something important. It might be reputation, sales, employee retention, or whatever. But, when the rubber hits the road, my experience continues to be that many of these same executives really only want to measure the quality and quantity of a media relations campaign (or outputs), but never really desire or intend to see if these outputs had any direct or indirect impact on outcomes (that impact business).

It really makes very little sense because C-level executives (mostly) want outcomes. They aren’t only interested in seeing if the stack of national media articles Is rising, or even if the message quality is improving as well. I’ve said it before…so here it comes again. A good measurement program can and should be able to show whether business goals (ROI) are impacted by a particular program as long as relevant data is tracked and assessed the correct way. I’d love to see more organizations stop talking and start acting by connecting communications to business in this way.

4)    Measurement doesn’t work well through constant starts and stops – There’s a hell of a lot of change going on right now in the corporate world. People are losing jobs, divisions are being consolidated, companies are being sold. So many campaigns and their measurement programs are terminated or temporarily halted in mid-stream. That’s understandable. However, it’s important to understand that it really doesn’t make sense to implement a measurement system unless it can operate for a continued period of time (hopefully for 18 months or longer) for an ongoing campaign. Only over time can one correlate whether a target campaign is really having a direct impact on those important business outcomes versus  what could be a momentary spike, or accidental lapse in results.

5)    Now that we’ve got the analysis, let’s make some real changes – Even the most rudimentary metrics systems (like ones that simply track media by amount of impressions/quantity of messages) should have some sort of analysis step when the metrics results are in. I’ve seen how organizations love to track the attention they are receiving, but they never truly sit down to analyze the good and bad to make needed changes that can maximize ROI. This is kind of ridiculous, right?

Assessment seems obvious. But, sometimes it’s all about having an objective third party sit down with measurement findings to analyze and then offer some real feedback to those communicators in charge. Then, it’s up the agency team or corporate communicators to use that information to improve and focus continual efforts on those areas where ROI can be greatest, etc.

Out of context is not out of the norm

I was media training a client the other day. This senior executive had no prior experience conducting media interviews. So, we spent a lot of time discussing 'the basics,’ including how journalists sometimes take meaty phrases or sound bytes that an interviewee might provide, only to use them in the absolute wrong context or another unintended part of a story.

This is either done because the reporter simply ‘screwed up’ and amateurishly forgot where the sound byte should have been used. Or, as is often the case with broadcast media, it happens because that reporter has to find a way to prove his or her story. I would say the latter point is all about a reporter having a preconceived agenda. But, in either case, they both illustrate a real degree of unprofessionalism.

The client asked me what's the best way to stop this from happening. Unfortunately, I told him there isn't a foolproof method. But, if the interviewee is focused on his/her core messages and doesn't get led astray to discuss sensationalistic or non-relevant topics, he/she will have a better chance of controlling the outcome of the story.

CNN really disappointed me on Tuesday morning with its coverage of the AIG bonus mess. I used this case in point to show the client how even one of the more prestigious national networks can be guilty of committing this shameful act. And, in this case, there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it. The story focused on (what else) how and why AIG would have the gall to dole out $165 million in bonuses. Naturally, CNN was attempting to work viewers up into a tizzy through this segment.

That part didn't actually bother me. (I'm used to the media taking the role of consumer activist now.) What did upset me is how the piece started off. The anchor said that Fed Chair Ben Bernanke is steaming hot about AIG's mishandling of this entire affair. Then CNN showed a clip that was taken two days before during a 60 Minutes interview with Bernanke. In the clip, he openly discusses his anger with AIG for causing its traumatic mess (that's it). With this dramatic effect made, CNN then moves on to report further on the public and political outrage to these bonuses. The piece ends with the anchor asking the question as to whether the administration will find a way to "get the money back."

Here's the rub: Ben Bernanke was interviewed on 60 Minutes solely about the government’s continued involvement in helping this behemoth to survive. His quote (and that clip) about how he is mad at AIG had absolutely nothing to do with the bonus issue. It had everything to do with AIG's responsibility in creating this mess and the government needing to bail out the near bankrupt insurer. It couldn't have been about the bonus issue at hand because the interview with Bernanke was conducted before this news ever went public.

Yet conveniently, some unprofessional producer at CNN decided to use this Bernanke segment his/her way to make this story as controversial and one sided as possible. And, do you know what? It worked. I'm sure many in the public are that much more outraged because they believe the Fed chairman is mad as hell at AIG on this very issue. It's really shameful because we don't even know if Bernanke is actually mad at AIG senior management about the bonus issue. And, through irresponsible reporting, CNN has undoubtedly influenced countless more people with erroneous proof points.

The only lesson I can take away from this is that if your organization is in the heat of a crisis, understand that there are no holds (or ethical rules in this case) barred as far as the media are concerned. PR professionals and their senior executives need to understand that some media will do whatever it takes to build that perfect story. And thus, one needs to approach any media relations strategy with a real understanding that even if your organization has valid points to get across, it might not entirely matter with those journalists.

New Yorkers hate "me, myself and I"

Stephon Marbury, the New York Knicks crest fallen star, has shown once again that he is one of the most selfish athletes to ever don a New York sports uniform. Unfortunately for this egomaniacal enigmatic point guard, he's also simply incapable of rebuilding his toxic image, even when the opportunity to shine is smacking him right in the face.

For those who aren't Knicks' fans, Marbury's latest (and most likely last) fall from grace is an important lesson in the importance of being professional and "doing the right thing," even under the most adverse conditions, when emotion and pride are compelling one to do just the opposite.

Here are the facts of this story:

* The Knicks hired a new general manager and coach this year
* The coach (Mike D'Antoni) quickly decided that Stephon Marbury wasn’t in his short or long term plans and ceremoniously benched him (and didn’t even ask him to dress on some days)
* This isn't a surprise because Marbury has a long standing reputation for being selfish and is a career loser with every one of his NBA teams (including one that D'Antoni coached)
* Marbury watched and waited. To his credit, he didn’t complain publicly and "dealt" with the situation. All the while, the Knicks aren't discussing whether they plan to buy Marbury out of his whopping $21 million salary, cut him, or something in between. The Knicks were beginning to look bad, at this point.
* Then the Knicks decided to trade their top guard (Jamaal Crawford) and two other key players. After this move, D'Antoni approached Marbury, telling him that he now needs him to play 25-30 minutes in the next game because they only have eight players eligible on the bench.
* Marbury refused to play.
* The Knicks suspended Marbury for one game because of this. This equals approximately $400,000 in lost compensation for Marbury.

Now, what do you think Mr. Marbury did wrong?

Stephon Marbury is an employee of the New York Knicks (which is owned by Cablevision). He was asked to pull through for his team and go to work on a day when the organization had too few teammates to get the job done. If Mr. Marbury was able to move beyond the resentment and animosity he undoubtedly feels towards his employer, the man could have quite possibly started a brave new road to repair his contaminated image. And, if the embattled point guard actually helped his team to win, well... then this talented player might just have been seen by some as a hero, sacrificing his own ego for the greater good of the team. Imagine that. Maybe, he could even have had a future in New York City.  

But, of course, that was just a dream. Marbury let us all down... again. The irony here is that by making the obviously selfish choice not to play, Marbury really only hurt himself this time. You see, thousands of fans who continue to fight to keep their jobs in this disastrous economy cannot accept the fact that this spoiled, over paid employee simply won't do the professional thing and go to work when called upon (even under the worst of circumstances). They can't understand it, because many of them have to do this very thing each and every day. And, it's safe to say that 99 percent of those who are just "surviving" these times don't make even 5 percent of Marbury's salary.

The other irony is that Marbury will be looking for a new team shortly. It might be a day, a week or maybe he'll be forced to wait until the end of the season, but this once highly touted guard now has to convince some other sucker (uh... that is general manager) that he has the "goods" to lead a professional basketball team. That would mean that Stephon would need to accomplish what we all know now is impossible. He’d need to actually put his own team ahead of me, myself and I.

The Internet "loves" Cease-and-Desist letters

Here's another example of bad lawyerly advice. Clear Channel Communications tried to force a Web site in Connecticut to take down an audio recording, only to have the segment pop up on hundreds of other sites within just days.

The cease and desist strategy began after an interview by Tom Scott, a talk radio host at Clear Channel station, WELI-AM in New Haven, recorded a heated interview with Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd. It seems that Mr. Scott is a former Republican state senator. He accused Mr. Dodd of misconduct in getting a personal mortgage. Or course, Mr. Dodd fervently denied this allegation.

For reasons unknown, the interview was never broadcast and Mr. Scott quit the station soon thereafter (he claims censorship took place). And, as fate would have it, the recording turned up on a local Internet news site, The New Haven Independent, along with this article highlighting the immediate demand by Clear Channel to remove this WELI unapproved interview. You can see that the article makes Clear Channel look pretty silly... as if it had something to hide from the public.

Of course, anytime a whiff of legal intimidation, censorship, or corporate "cleanup" is enforced on the Internet, the masses become aroused and this often leads to a story going viral. And, that's just what happened here. Political Web sites, bloggers and other radio stations (including at least one Clear Channel station) downloaded the recording and played or posted it. According to the managing editor of the Independent, "It crashed our server... and is by far the heaviest traffic we've had."

So, what's the moral of this story for corporations? Be smart about how you try to control your own content/intellectual property on the Internet (especially when it surrounds a potentially controversial issue.) Yes, it's important to be the master of your own domain. But, once the information has been released, the reality is that you really aren't in control anymore. Legally, you have every right to crack down on violators. But, the severely negative public relations impact from your actions might cost you a hell of a lot more in the end.

For God's sake, prepare your executive...

I was driving from a meeting yesterday and flipped on CNBC (on the radio) to hear about the latest carnage on Wall Street. For the next five minutes, I cringed, and actually felt sympathy for a senior executive at one of the leading credit rating agencies as he was beaten up and bludgeoned by anchors Maria Bartiromo and Bob Pisanti.

This spokesman (the head of finance at the company) had clearly been called on the show to offer commentary on the continuing crisis. The problem is that he wasn't even remotely close to being prepared to answer any of the hard ball, tough questions that were about to be thrown at him.

Someone back at the company's fort really screwed up on this one. He/she (or they) should have realized the most obvious point— all the rating agencies are seen as culprits in creating this mess because of their inexcusable Triple-A ratings of AIG (up until Monday.) And then, for making matters even worse (as we watched with horror) when they decided to cut the same rating, thereby sending AIG into a free fall, nose dive.

This senior executive was asked two key questions repeatedly: What was your thinking/methodology behind giving the Triple A rating in the first place? Why on earth would you cut the rating at the worst possible time knowing that this could take down AIG and our economy with it?