Today at 11:30 am, embattled New York Governor Eliot Spitzer finally resigned after what seemed like an eternity since it was revealed that he has used, as recently as 30 days ago, the services of escorts.
It was bad enough when Mr.Spitzer, upon being faced with the charges on Monday, gave a very, very vague, unapologetic statement, and forced his wife to stand at the podium with him. I have been asked by numerous reporters over the past few days what damage control Mr.Spitzer could have possibly done, or how he should handle the crisis.
The answer is an easy one.
Resign. Immediately. End of story.
What Mr.Spitzer failed to realize was that he had fundamentally betrayed his brand, and his message, upon which he has staked his entire career. Spitzer was relentlessly on message, and his message was that of THE crime fighter, the white knight, the superhero pursuing any and all villains.
The standard crisis communications solution is to do exactly what he did, stand with your wife, whom you just humiliated, at a podium and issue an apology. What Spitzer failed to realize was that his indiscretion was different, the situation was different, and the only thing he could have done is resign immediately and hope to limit the number of media cycles in which he would be the lead story.
From a public speaking standpoint, Mr.Spitzer has evidently learned very little over the past few days as his lack of remorse or emotion in his speech(s), what appears to be his focus more on his position that on what he has done to his family, and what was really a political speech rather than a public apology can easily make one call his sincerity into question.
So what public speaking/message development lessons can be learned from this situation?
1. Never, never, never base your message and your brand on a lie or falsehood. Once you are branded a hypocrite, you have passed the point of no return.
2. Don’t apologize unless you mean it. The appearance of insincerity is worse than no appearance at all.
3. There are no textbook cases when dealing with a crisis. Every situation requires a different strategy, and not every situation has a solution.
This clip really speaks for itself. In this clip from the Dan Abrams show on MSNBC, Congressman Jack Kingston questions why Barack Obama won’t wear an American flag lapel pin.
Only one problem — he wasn’t wearing one as he asked the question. This completely took the air out of his message,and deflected negative attention back on himself, making it impossible to deliver his message about Senator Obama.
It is crucial to stay consistent when delivering your message, no matter what. Inconsistencies within your core message are "message killers" not only taking away the ability to make your point, but putting you instantly on the defensive.
This week’s lesson has just as much to do with marketing a service or product, or positioning your company, as it does with politics.
The Clinton campaign spent the better part of the week attacking Senator Obama, accusing him of "borrowing" some of his popular lines:
If you are going to charge that your opponent (or competitor) is unfit due to _______(fill in yourself), make absolutely certain that you are not, and have never been, guilty of ______(same as above) yourself.
During last night’s Democratic debate, this was Senator Clinton’s final statement:
This is an instantaneous credibility killer, and will turn out to be a net negative every time.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
This post is not about who is right and who is wrong in the Clemens/McNamee showdown on Capitol Hill.
Unfortunately, it is almost immaterial. The fact is that the damage has been done to both men, others (Mrs. Clemens, Petite, etc.), and the game of baseball. Regardless of the findings, that this stain will not be removed or forgotten in the near future.
This post is about having a core message and sticking to it. I am not passing judgment on Roger Clemens.
His message seemed to be that he is absolutely not involved at all in any of this, and if he is guilty of anything it is of being too trusting.
The problem with this message is that it is actually two distinctly separate messages.
Clemens admitted that McNamee injected him with something he thought was B12. He admitted that his wife, without his prior knowledge, had taken a shot of HGH, and that his best friend (who admitted both taking HGH and hearing Clemens admit to taking HGH)must have misheard or misunderstood their conversation.
While this information does not prove, or even imply, guilt of being too trusting or too friendly, it does hurt his credibility when saying he had no involvement in any of it, and knew nothing of any of it.
The second point that is striking is Clemens opening statement, seen above, to the Congressional panel. He reads the statement verbatim, has precious little eye contact (the eye contact that does occur looks forced), defensive posture and wording, very little emotion other than anger, especially when discussing his love for the game, his charitable acts etc., and an overall flatness.
This was the top news story of the news cycle, with the whole world watching the opening statement, as that would determine the tone for the remainder of the day, and possibly for the remainder of the life of this story.
It is doubtful that a major league pitcher would have approached the mound of a World Series game without practicing for what each and every opposing player or manager.
This is a lesson to every CEO addressing his or her board, attorney facing a jury, or candidate for office approaching a debate. All of the facts, figures, and storyline can be on your side – if you don’t have a message and you don’t prepare your delivery, it is usually immaterial.
Roger Clemens is a baseball legend who is encountering a defining moment in his very public life. Lack of message and the appearance of a lack of preparation for the opening statement put the count at 0-2.
This video has gone viral within the last few hours, and is a confrontation between a Baltimore Police Officer and a 14 year old skateboarder.
Technology has ensured that virtually any time you speak in public there is the opportunity that your words, your presentation, and your message will follow you, either in a positive way or a negative way.
This is just another reminder that all speaking is public speaking!
Last night, CNN hosted the final Republican debate at the Reagan Library, and it was truly debating 101, and why having a message and sticking to it is so critical. It was always an example of why repeating your opponents charges against you is a losing strategy every time.
Governor Romney was upset about Senator McCain’s characterization of his stance on a timetable in Iraq, and felt it was an underhanded tactic and referred to it as "the type of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."
Maybe a valid point, maybe not. One major problem — the issue on which Senator McCain is viewed as being the stronger candidate — national security. The issue on which Governor Romney has been campaigning fervently for the past week as being his key strength – revitalizing the economy.
Instead, the vast majority of this debate was spent as a running dialogue between the Senator and the Governor on what the Governor did or did not say with regard to Iraq withdrawal.
To make matters worse for the Governor, his second biggest strength has been leadership, and his biggest weakness has been flip-flopping. While continually going back to the timetable issue, the Senator was able to pull out a quote the Governor used at the time of discussing the surge — "I can’t weigh in, I’m a Governor." Not exactly a decisive comment and the Governor’s response was "That is a separate issue."
When debating, it is crucial to drive your message and spend the vast amount of time doing just that. The last thing you want to do is spend all of your time repeating a charge that your opponent has made (which lends more credence to it) fighting the intricacies of it, and spending very little time on your strongest issues.
It is often called "getting lost in the weeds" and forgetting that the idea is not to win the argument, the idea is to drive your message through, especially when this is the last debate forum to do so. This was a classic game of continually setting the trap, and the Governor fell for it last evening.
This post is going to be a little different from the norm as A) There is no video clip and B) I usually will not post twice in a week; however this is a necessary exception. Here is the text released by the Federal Reserve regarding the rate cut earlier this week, as reported by the Associated Press:
The Federal Reserve’s interest rate statement released Tuesday: The Federal Open Market Committee has decided to lower its target for the federal funds rate 75 basis points to 3-1/2 percent. The Committee took this action in view of a weakening of the economic outlook and increasing downside risks to growth.
While strains in short-term funding markets have eased somewhat, broader financial market conditions have continued to deteriorate and credit has tightened further for some businesses and households. Moreover, incoming information indicates a deepening of the housing contraction as well as some softening in labor markets.
The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, but it will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully. Appreciable downside risks to growth remain. The Committee will continue to assess the effects of financial and other developments on economic prospects and will act in a timely manner as needed to address those risks.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Charles L. Evans; Thomas M. Hoenig; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Eric S. Rosengren; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against was William Poole, who did not believe that current conditions justified policy action before the regularly scheduled, meeting next week. Absent and not voting was Frederic S. Mishkin. In a related action, the Board of Governors approved a 75-basis-point decrease in the discount rate to 4 percent.
In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago and Minneapolis.
I am not a financial wizard, and Dr. Bernanke has forgotten more about financial markets than most of us will ever know. However, the actions of the Federal Reserve Board lead to one question that, so far, no one has answered — What is the message that the Board wants to communicate? If it was to re-assure the markets it did not work, and there is nothing in the statement to drive anyone toward re-assurance.
Dr. Bernanke has allowed everyone to play a guessing game as to the Board’s motives, which has led to what appears to be an undermining of the obvious purpose, which would be to calm the markets. This was the largest rate reduction in nearly 25 years, and happened outside of the confines of a regularly scheduled meeting — PS - there is a meeting scheduled last week. So what could have been done differently?
The Board is made up of brilliant individuals. There must be reasons why the cut had to happen yesterday, why the Fed did not wait, and what the Fed thinks. None of those questions are answered in the press release above. Where was the public press conference? Where was the re-assuring voice, the leadership, when the market needed it most? Where was the media tour yesterday not only defending the cut but explaining it? Where were the surrogate messengers? What was the one clearly defined message? What was the justification of why the cut had to happen yesterday, and who was doing the justifying for you?
This is a perfect example why a messaging and communications strategy is essential for every business, whether your sales are $1 million or $100 billion. There is only one thing worse than delivering no information, and that is delivering mixed or conflicting information. It is imperative to spend as much time planning how you are going to communicate a decision as you do making the decision.
Today we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., a leader, a visionary and a hero.
He was also one of the greatest communicators of the past century. Dr. King was always, relentlessly, on message, and always spoke with passion and energy.
This clip is important for a number of reasons. It is the conclusion of his final speech, given at Mason Temple in Memphis on April 3rd — he was assassinated the next day.
He was speaking in support of the striking sanitation workers in Memphis, however as was often the case when Dr. King spoke, his message was consistent regardless of who he was addressing, and he was always on message.
The sheer energy that this clip contains is unbelievable. One can feel the power through the small clip on a computer — imagine the energy that must have been in the room that day in Memphis!
Dr. King’s use of tempo, inflection and pause during this speech are masterful. It is not possible to sleep through this speech. It was not possible to drift away into another thought if you were watching. It is not possible to walk away indifferent after hearing this speech.
How many times have you witnessed presenters or speakers fail to make eye contact, speak in a monotone or rush through each thought? How often have you walked away from a presentation unable to remember hours later what the speaker said? How many times have you witnessed a speaker that had absolutely no energy or passion, and seemed to be going through the motions?
The notion that it is better to say something than to say nothing is just false. If you don’t believe in what you are saying, you are better off saying nothing. If you think that you can fool an audience, guess again.
