Measuring Up

The Cadillac of Cardiac Care

I've spent the better part of the last three days in New York Presbyterian’s Cornell Hospital. Not a fun time. My mother  underwent surgery to fix leaking heart valves. Not to worry... her operation was a success and all the experts think she will be just fine.
 
Putting this main issue aside for my post, I want to focus on this hospital. More specifically, let's talk about its unique cardiac unit and heart institute. To sum it up quickly in four words– man, am I impressed.

This is not "your grandfather's hospital" (sorry for quoting an old Oldsmobile tag line, especially given this post’s headline). No, the Ronald O. Perelman Heart Institute feels like what the best hospitals will become over the next decade or two. The waiting area is a pristine, marble atrium where family and friends can sit comfortably watching flat screen TVs, connect to the Internet (through six computers), sit back and read a book or simply do nothing. There are special tutorials on monitors and along the walls which describe the various procedure's undertaking in this wing (great education), all while a casual Au Bon Pain serves coffee, sandwiches and desserts in the background.  To this blogger, it felt more like experiencing a new museum or the lobby of a Fortune 500 company versus being in any type of hospital setting.

Moving on to the staff, nurses and doctors, I've never been so enthralled. Every hospital talks the customer service mantra. My experience is that most don't really care and never deliver it. Cornell passes this test with flying colors. From the night before the operation, when a team of five surgeons came into my mother's room every hour to check on her and openly discuss any fears she had, to how these same people called us and then came to the atrium after the surgery to walk us through each and every detail... it was truly special. Whenever we had a question or needed help, someone came to my mother's bed very quickly.

Now, we're experiencing the aftercare in ICU.  ICU is a pretty scary place simply because all the patients there are just coming out of surgery and are dealing with 20 different pains and possible problems. That often creates a lot of chaos and confusion, with lots of nurses/doctors/families stressing out (at least that's what I've seen in other hospitals). That just isn't the case at Cornell. The round the clock nursing staff and attending doctors are firmly in control and create a very confident, peaceful setting which evokes calmness. And, that goes a long way in helping patients (like my mother) recover that much quicker.

Lots of Wall Street/ financing money was given to make this wing a truly special place. All one needs to do is look at the walls to see that the major benefactors were: Ronald Perelman (private equity), Maurice Greenberg (former AIG CEO) and John Mack (CEO of Morgan Stanley). Clearly all of this money came before the crash three years ago, which is a very good thing. Many ordinary folks might not think too highly of these and other Wall Street titans these days. Can't say I blame them. But, here's one tremendous example of a little good that greedy Wall Street sprinkled onto New York City's outdated hospital infrastructure. The results are magnificent.  And, that's worth writing about.

The leak that roared

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

It is a PR pro's nightmare and a journalist's dream come true.

The leak. 

Leaks are making news at a rate not seen since Deep Throat in the 1970s. Of course, there's WikiLeaks, masterminded by the creepy Julian Assange. Today the media is hot on the story of a Swiss banker who leaked information about rich tax evaders to Assange’s brainchild. But other leaks also abound. Goldman Sachs recently announced that it was going to bar US clients and all employees from investing in Facebook because someone leaked information about the deal to the media. Goldman is rightfully concerned that all the media attention could be construed as a violation of the prohibition against publicly soliciting a private placement deal.

With the economy stagnant and mistrust of our government and financial institutions running high, leaks are bound to happen. Disgruntled individuals with an axe to grind love to spoil a mar/comm executive’s day by leaking classified data.

So what's a PR pro to do to mitigate the risk of leaks and minimize their damage? Here are some tips:

Educate and train: Regularly remind all agency and client stakeholders that anyone caught leaking sensitive information will be disciplined and face legal action.

Password protect sensitive documents: It takes about three seconds in Microsoft Word to password protect a file. That password can then be shared with only folks who need to know it.

Use a document sharing site: Instead of emailing documents, set up a password-protected mini-site (a private version of GoogleDocs) where people can upload, view and download important files. These sites also enable users to track who viewed what files and when.

Pick up the phone: Secret emails and texts have a notorious knack for ending up in the Wall Street Journal. If you don’t want to see it in print, don’t type it. If you have a sensitive issue to discuss, use your voice.

Be your own leak: Happens all the time in politics. If you have super-sensitive info to disseminate, consider setting up an exclusive with a friendly journalist before you blast to the news to the world.

Have a crisis plan: Leaks happen. There is no excuse for lacking a strategy to deal with them. Denial is usually the worst option. But if you act fast with smart messages to key media outlets, you might be able to get out in front of the leak as soon as it occurs. Keep in mind that a leaker usually provides information to only one or a few media outlets. If you go to that outlet’s competition, you may be able to bend their ear. No reporter likes being scooped.

Who really cares?

The debate between advertising, digital and PR professionals regarding who should lead digital engagement for   clients has grown tiresome.

Witness another piece of propaganda (this one from PR Newswire). This white paper focuses most of its effort (to no one’s surprise) on the opinion that PR professionals have a better mix of ‘the right’ skills to consult and execute client digital campaigns. The argument isn’t necessarily wrong (yes, I am a PR man at heart). Public relations professionals have a certain type of DNA that pushes them to communicate in a non-commercial, typically transparent way. If we hadn’t operated this way for the last 50 years, media wouldn’t accept our client stories or use them as sources for interviews. And, non commercial, organically created humor/news/stuff is typically how real digital engagement works best on the Internet today. But, that certainly doesn’t always mean that PR professionals or their agencies are best suited to follow these rules.

Sam Ford, Peppercom's Director of Digital Strategy wrote a Chief Marketer piece on this titled 'Get Advertising and PR to Work Together on a Spreadable Approach.'

I’ve listened to and read of countless articles and debates from the digital and advertising professions as well. Their belief is that creative concepts, sustainable campaigns and the high quality graphics and use of content that are key to making brands appeal to online consumer audiences have always been owned by them. So, naturally those that have always led traditional brand building through advertising, direct marketing and now digital content development,  are better positioned to be the lead dogs in showing clients how to build their brands and create better online engagement. Objectively, it’s hard to argue the rationale behind some of this thinking as well.

Anyone in the marketing agency business can understand why this debate is growing louder and louder. A lot is on the line because the reality is that all of these ‘sister’ industries are undergoing a seismic paradigm shift that hasn’t been seen since… well, maybe never. The lines of who is responsible for creating anything digital are completely blurred. Because of this, these agencies with different traditional disciplines now (for the first time) view each other as encroaching on eachother’s turf. The result is that they aren’t playing nicely in the sand box together anymore. And, that is becoming a real problem for clients everywhere.

So, who do I believe should own the digital landscape. To me, it’s always come down to the actual people who live within each individual agency  versus the discipline or brand differentiator that any agency possesses. There are some hot digital agencies that have very mediocre executives. In those cases, any client accounts those professionals work on will probably choose their more strategic PR and/or ad agency brethren to lead digital efforts. I’m sure the reverse holds true with public relations firms offering less than stellar PR executives up to clients as well, because when there is risk involved (and digital engagement is still an unknown risk to most), clients turn to who they trust most  for direction. Not, the PR guy or advertising account leader because of some discipline specialty.

In the end, those agencies in the know are now attempting to morph into much more of an integrated marketing model, which can offer clients as much as possible under one roof (and most importantly, a real digital solution). The real question isn’t which discipline is better positioned to lead this fast growing digital landscape. But, it’s about which agencies can build the most talent to show clients how to do it right.

Need to know when to say when

With more than 20 years under my belt serving clients, one would think I’d always know the right time to end a bad client relationship. But truth be told, I have to admit that isn’t always the case.

Don’t get me wrong. Typically, my instincts warn me long in advance of a problem situation. One can pretty easily sense when a chemistry problem exists, or a client is not operating on the same wavelength as the agency team, or when we just won’t be able to deliver what that client expects. The big challenge is knowing when to call it quits and then holding steady with that decision because the relationship has become too detrimental to the welfare of the agency. Even if it costs the agency a little extra fee in the end.

One of our client relationships recently came to an end in this exact way. Let’s call this company Client H (abbreviated for Client from Hell). We began this relationship over 18 months ago after winning a competitive pitch. Although the monthly fee was low, it didn’t matter. This is a cool company that needed both brand building and crisis management help and we were very excited to work with a smart CMO and his staff to help continue building their business. Everything was going well for the first 10-11 months. We created a much needed communications infrastructure to deal with crisis situations and improved on proactive media relations efforts for the company which generated even more strategic publicity to help its business efforts. Our client told us they were pleased and our team really enjoyed the account because there clearly was mutual respect for the work we did and the time we spent obtaining results.

Then, the bomb dropped. The CMO up and left for another job. And, within a month or two, a new CMO took his place. We weren’t sure what to expect with this new woman until our first phone call (one week into her new job) in which she clearly set out to show us that a new sheriff was now in town. She immediately started the call by saying that everything done or agreed to under her predecessor was now dead. And, she expected Peppercom to do double or even triple the current work load with no increase to our fee. When my colleague and I jumped in to tactfully protest, she didn’t care a lick and threw out a threat that her former agency would be happy to take the business on (and the work load she wanted done) for 25 percent less of our fee. Then, in a nasty tone, this CMO quickly cut our conversation off because she had to run to the airport. But, before she did, it was made clear to us that we needed to make ourselves available in two hours (when she had a free moment to spare) to continue the call so that my colleague and I could be abused more.

It’s a bad economy and no one wants to give up business now. But, no one is going to treat me or my agency like this. So, it took me less than 30 minutes (after I calmed down) to spit out a resignation letter to the CEO (who at that point I was working closely with.) In the letter, I clearly explained how we were being treated and how little our time (which is our product) is being respected by this new top marketing person. Of course, I copied the CMO as well. That was that... or so I thought.

It’s funny.  Only when you’re actually willing to push the eject button and resign a client relationship, does the client wake up and realize that he/she might have gone too far. This is exactly what happened with this nightmare CMO. I’m not sure whether the CEO yelled at her or whether she just never understood that her abusive tactics could push someone to say “I’m done with you.” But, within 30 minutes she was desperately trying to reach my colleague and me on our cell phones to patch up the relationship. We didn’t return the countless messages for a while (that was fun,) but when she finally reached us, all we heard from her was apology after apology. She promised to respect our time and even find us new budgets for extra work that needed to be done. After much cajoling and some begging, we agreed to work for Client H again.

Now, I didn’t fall off of a turnip truck yesterday. We knew that because I went around this new senior executive to her boss, she was going to resent us (big time). We also knew that once she proved herself, Client H might just secretly look for a new agency because of what we (err...I) did. Our hope (though), was that she would change (if only for a short time) so that we could continue to prove to her (and the CEO) just how good an agency we are. And, for about 3-4 months this strategy seemed to be working pretty well. Until, something changed (maybe she found a comfort zone) and this woman’s miserable personality resurfaced again.

Work was piled on with promises of added fees to support it. Yet, when those fees were about to be billed, she quickly rescinded those offers. (She lied). Her emails were curt and nasty. In one case, she actually mistakenly forwarded an email to one of our team members by accident. Within the chain of the email the woman had bashed us to colleagues for not being able to write a certain press release well (even though we never wrote the release). Overall, Client H was becoming the nightmare that we had hoped she wouldn’t. At that point, I should have known when to say when. But, I didn’t. Maybe I was too distracted with other accounts/business. Or, maybe I was hoping that things might just improve.

The reality is that I should have known better. Ironically, after our team worked painstaking hours on a project to deliver very high level results, I received the Agency Dear John letter that we were being terminated, with no explanation. Even though I knew why, I decided to push for a real explanation and called the CMO twice. (I actually wanted to calmly stand up for our agency and discuss the way we were treated.) True to her character, she never returned the call.  Most likely, she’s too busy beating up the new agency…

In the end, it’s so much better not working for Client H. Our people are relieved and they can spend time delivering results for other clients who actually care. That’s really what matters now. If there is any lesson learned here, I hope this experience ensures that the next time this type of situation manifests, my instincts will compel me to make and stay with a decision that is clearly the right one.

Hiring freezes send shivers down clients’ spine

The other day, I was reading in a PR industry trade that one of the largest public advertising holding companies has finally lifted its 18 month hiring freeze. I guess either business has come back (at least a little) for this mammoth marketing services company, or it finally decided that it just can’t maintain a complete hold on bringing in new talent forever.

This definitely brought back memories (mostly negative) of my days at J. Walter Thompson. I remember that we had an “unofficial” hiring freeze for about a six month period. While, no official edict had come down from the corporate decision makers in the UK, all senior executives understood very well that any new hires had to be approved in triplicate form by the top brass, or there would be hell to pay. This reality meant that a typical hire could take a long time to be approved (in some cases four to five months). So, the effect caused many firms within the global network to either just give in and find ways to maximize current talent (as they had lost the stomach for fighting against the system), or become ultra creative to work with outside talent, but not officially hire them. This often included fudging the use of consultants/freelancers or even offering people jobs, but being very creative in how their salaries were hidden within a larger cost structure.

Of course, the only ones that really felt the collateral damage with these across the board freezes, were clients. Think about it. Let’s say there are over 200 individual marketing services companies in a typical advertising holding company. I guarantee that even in the worst of times, at least five, ten or even 20 of those companies are doing just fine because their businesses ran counter cyclical to the masses. As a businessman, I understand the need to cut costs and protect the larger entity as a whole, but the 5-10 percent of firms who still need to hire because business is coming through the door, can’t when this mandate is set. So, what happens? Clients are promised x, y and z in terms of quality and quantity of talent to service their account. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that some of that is sacrificed because as much as the agency rants and raves to higher level management sitting in their ivory towers, the resources needed, simply can’t be allocated. A secondary evil that then transpires is that very good account and creative leaders and managers within those well to do agencies start walking out the door. They are frustrated beyond belief and have had quite enough with the big agency model. Sometimes the domino effect ensues because the delicate agency balance between having really great talent to service new business and top accounts diminishes once the anger and frustration spreads.

Any way you slice it, across the board hiring freezes are just dumb policies. This whole topic is kind of ironic considering that agencies are only in business to service clients in the highest way. So, the big, public holding companies (without saying it) actually advocate doing the opposite during bad times through these poorly created mandates. 

Big, bureaucratic policies like these, which have no room for flexibility to meet the most basic client needs (and demands), represent some reasons why we started Peppercom in the first place. When times are bad, it’s understood that sometimes resources need to be let go and adding staff just can’t happen. But, most independent firms are smart and would never just implement something so inflexible as a cast in stone hiring freeze. Instead, it’s about understanding which marketing or communications areas clients need the most professional help in. Then, if necessary, these smaller agencies make trade-offs or just plain invest their own money to ensure that clients are being served they way they promised to. Profit levels are often sacrificed when this happens, but that’s understood. The public agencies can do no such thing because they are under the constant pressure of their investors.

I’m not a public holding company basher (at least, not usually). It’s just that this practice has been happening for so long and just hasn’t changed. You’d think someone at the top would get it (finally). But, I guess not.   

Become synonymous with what you do

This is no easy task for companies. As a matter of fact, most hire firms like Peppercom to help them create more visibility for what sets them apart and to ultimately try to build their brand above and beyond category or industry competitors.

Over the last 50 years, I can only think of a handful of companies that have truly become synonymous with the category/service/product they create or represent. To name a few, Kleenex successfully did this with tissues and Google has now accomplished this with Internet search. But, it often takes many years of creating superb customer experiences, exhibiting much desired product/service qualities that competitors don’t posses and spending lots of $$$ on disciplined marketing.

The fact is that most industries or categories simply have too much competition for one company to truly stand out as a brand in this dominant way. Understanding that the odds are long against any organization becoming the next Kleenex or Google, I believe that many companies still have a real opportunity to become more synonymous with what they do. But, they need to recognize creative PR or marketing approaches that can create impactful ways for them to own white spaces that exist (especially when such ideas or opportunities are smacking them right in the face). ADP did exactly that when the opportunity presented itself. Among other offerings, ADP is the largest outsourced payroll company in the country. I’m not sure when it happened, but ADP proudly owns an employment index which showcases the increase/decrease in new jobs created each month. Guess what? Pretty much every media outlet I reviewed either refers to this index or simply profiles it as the official barometer in our marketplace. The tie in is clearly perfect for ADP because it links the brand to employees/jobs. In today’s business environment, tens of millions of eyeballs have seen this index and there’s no doubt it has helped ADP build its brand to become more synonymous with what it does.

I can find lesser known examples, but equally successful in their own right. Ever hear of a company called Prebon Yamane? Probably not, unless you are a Wall Street trader. Prebon Yamane was acquired over a dozen years ago, but it used to be one of the largest wholesale brokers (brokers to traders) on Wall Street. These firms are seen as commodities by their customers and most have very little to speak of that truly sets them apart. But, Prebon Yamane did something very smart. It had been tracking the ups and downs of Federal Fund prices in the industry for years. The information was limited to being used internally at the firm, as well as provided to clients to help their trading efforts. Until, a Wall Street Journal editor conducted a random interview with the firm’s CEO. As a matter of fact, this CEO happened to discuss how important this proprietary information is to clients. Long story made short, it took a few months, but Prebon Yamane’s index soon became the first official “Fed Fund” Index featured two to three times per week on the front page of the 'Marketplace' section of this elite daily newspaper. Aside from creating instant credibility and publicity for the firm, the branding from this index allowed Prebon Yamane to become synonymous with Fed Funds on Wall Street. This was a huge marketing win which cost nothing to arrange.

From time to time, we present clients with these type of branding opportunities. Typically, through one of our white space audits it becomes clear that no one in our client’s industry has taken ownership of a topic, issue or even most/all of the service/product it represents. Yet, I find that in many cases it’s hard to convince clients to move forward with such initiatives. The reasons vary as to why the responses can be negative. Sometimes it’s just about money (even though the investment cost is typically low), but often it’s just because  they are too focused on just delivering solid, yet basic “bread and butter” results for their organization.  

That’s disappointing. Whether it be some type of index, research, award program, unique coalition or simply just taking a proactive, consistent stance on owning a thought leadership topic that no one else is, marketers need to see that three is often very little setting each company apart from the competition. If a real idea comes along to make one’s company even a tiny bit more synonymous with what it does, my advice is to find a way to make it happen.

One size fits none

Our crack PepperDigital team conducted a very interesting study on social media trends across the global spectrum. They are currently writing a 12-part blog series based on analyzing a host of interesting findings.

Not surprisingly, one of the core insights that was proven (though) shows how different cultures, crossing different countries utilize the Web and communicate/socialize much differently from each other. Marketers everywhere need to pay attention because overall campaigns, product introductions and/or relationship building clearly needs to be tailor made and implemented uniquely for each and every demographic and country/region that is targeted.

Our PepperDigital team offers a number of examples of how this is acutely true. I can think of one specific example that recently happened with a former client (not to be named) in which the senior executive in charge wanted to gain more attention for a blog post he had written on key business ethics principles. He asked us to generate a lot of international exposure among online communities where his customer base (senior HR managers) socialize and go to for thought leadership content. This all sounded great except that these principles were very US-centric and although they were smart and strategic, we believed they wouldn’t resonate with target audiences in some parts of Europe and Asia.

Although we pushed back, this former client was adamant about making this happen. So, we reluctantly backed down. Of course, the result was many comments on his post. About half were positive (from US business managers) and the rest chose to negatively dig into the very fact that these comments didn’t take into account social business norms in other key countries (like the EU). Not what our former client wanted.

If you’re interested in this topic, please take a few minutes and check out PepperDigital’s 12 different forthcoming posts. I think you’ll find them interesting.

Empathy should be word #1 in corporate America

I'm still amazed when I see how badly some companies screw up public announcements surrounding layoffs. It  really isn't that hard to understand how to play this game (even if the corporate leaders really don't give a damn.)

To me, everything, from the decisions being made, to the communications delivered, should be executed with one key word in mind– empathy. Defined as: the ability to share in another's thoughts, emotions and feelings. This basic, yet critically important way of thinking is missing in so many parts of our business world today. For employees living in these horrifying times, it simply means identifying with the fear/pain they are going through, showing that you are human and care about the poor souls who are being let go. And, then act responsibly by at least communicating the right thoughts/feelings or actions.

I think that The Gannett Company really blew it earlier this week. Sorry to pick on Gannett, but this is a great case in point that proves my thesis. This large media company made another round of employee cuts. That's kind of par for the course in the media world these days. But, the real shocker is that its management decided to cut severance pay for the first time ever. And, that is both big news and an incredibly scary reality for many reporters who were laid off after spending five, eight or 15 years at the company.

Gannett tried to communicate that the severance pay program is merely being substituted for another alternative compensation one called “supplemental employment benefits." The problem is that it's very confusing and complex because with this program the company shifts the burden of having to outlay severance $$$ to state unemployment programs. And, those terminated employees have no idea what their package will be until they fill out unemployment documents and then wait to better understand how the system actually works.

Gannett's core message on this is that most (or many) employees will actually end up receiving close to as much as they would have in a real severance package. But, according to some experts who are quoted in this New York Times article (As It Cuts Jobs, Gannett Also Cuts Severance Pay,) that isn't entirely true and some vulnerable people could actually receive next to nothing.

The main problem here is that this transitional program is incredibly complex and hard to understand (for readers and employees) and Gannett does a simply terrible job of demystifying it and offering any real empathetic stance towards those people who were once loyal employees. The kicker for me is this statement from the company's spokesperson which comes across as clueless and completely uncaring. It reads, "The 1,400 people laid off this month should not think of the program as severance. The purpose of this is to supplement your unemployment while you're getting a job. It's a transitional pay, not severance."

Well... duh. It's obviously not severance. But, when you first read the quote, it comes across as corporate speak, almost non-understandable. And, certainly uncaring. Then, after I read it a few times, I realized that she is saying that while we're ripping any severance you used to be entitled to out of your hands, we are providing a real transitional benefit to you in other ways as you naturally move into that next career job that is (of course) waiting right around the corner. I think the true meaning behind the quote (if I understand it) is actually more insulting and less compassionate than I initially thought (i.e. don't insult these former employees by making it seem that any type of job is going to be easy to find right now.)

By the way, I did a quick blogosphere check. Not surprising, there are hundreds of mad conversations taking place about how poorly Gannett handled this situation.

A very smart client of ours named Dev Patnaik from Jump Associates authored a great book called Wired to Care. Dev spends his life helping companies become more empathetic to their customers, employees and other key audiences. The results are amazing because it allows them to live for an hour, day or ongoing in those audiences shoes and to truly feel their pain and needs. One opening true story from the book focuses on a design manager from a company that makes ambulatory products for seniors. The company's sales weren't doing well because the products just weren't hitting the mark. So, this manager decided to do something pretty amazing. For a week, she became a very old person living in New York City. Meaning – she not only dressed like a 78 year-old woman (wig, shoes, clothes, etc.), but also decided to go the extra mile by wearing the strongest bi-focal glasses (for poor vision), braces on her legs (so she would have trouble even moving around) and fake dentures (just to top it off in feeling every bit of pain.) Her transformation was amazing. More importantly, a week of trying to ride the bus, hail down taxis, or even just walk down the street, made her truly understand how this type of senior lived, what minute to minute problems existed (like how to even climb stairs) and how other people either ignored or somewhat discriminated against her because of her advanced age.

The net/net of this experience was that this designer was able to help make much more effective and relevant products for her audience because she lived in the most empathetic way possible to understand it.

While I'm not advocating that companies need to go this far, it is clearly time for the Gannett's of the world to change the way they think and act and starting showing more consistent empathy or it will greatly impact their ongoing reputation and business success in the future.

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.