« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
September 30, 2008
Failure to Communicate
I was walking in Central Park yesterday as part of my rehabilitation from surgery when the news flashed across WSJ.com that the US House of Representatives had rejected the proposed $700 billion fund to provide liquidity to the struggling capital markets. Quoting the prison warden in Cool Hand Luke as he stands over defiant inmate Paul Newman, there has been a massive failure to communicate. Here are some of the shortcomings in PR on the part of the Federal Government:
1) Supporting Cast of Spokespeople — It is no longer possible for a single voice, such as Secretary of Treasury Paulson, to carry the day. Nor is it sufficient to have behind the scenes lobbying to make the case (now the outside game and the inside game).Where were the important figures in the business community (Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs) who could provide necessary backing for the plan? How about using trusted figures from government who have provided distinguished service in the past (Paul Volcker, Bill Clinton), to offset the broadsides of former Speaker Newt Gingrich?
2) Terminology—The very word bailout connotes an unseemly subsidy for the beneficiary. It became too easy to make this about saving the Wall Street millionaires who had abused the system.
3) Message Dissonance—-From Optimism to Precipice—CEOs of major financial institutions, such as Bob Steel of Wachovia, were telling a very positive story while President Bush warned of the apocalypse. Which is it, folks? Can we rely solely on private sector solutions, such as the shotgun marriages of WaMu with JP Morgan Chase or Wachovia with Citigroup?
4) Person Like Me—There was no story line for the Little Guy. Why not put forward the Dean of Admissions at University of Michigan who can talk about availability of student loans? Or the car dealer in Alabama who can again offer attractive financing on new vehicle sales? Or the small retailer from Texas who is able to find financing for her inventory for Christmas, courtesy of this liquidity package?
5) Acknowledgement of Error—When asking for the money, it would have been helpful to have a study from a credible third party (university, think tank, consulting firm) identifying shortcomings in regulatory format and proposed improvements. Similarly the financial industry must acknowledge its own part in the meltdown, suggesting improvements in self-regulation such hiring of an ombudsman or strengthening industry trade group standards.
6) Specificity—The initial plan proposed by Secretary Paulson did not have sufficient details on how mortgages were to be acquired (price, auction or other mechanism, which tranches, special treatment of low-income groups). Though some of this was remedied in conference, the perception left with the general public was that Secretary Paulson was getting a giant blank check.
7) Authority Figures as Stewards—There needed to be a bi-partisan board of overseers established for the proper disbursement of funds, so that the public could have confidence in the process. Examples of members could be former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers or former Secretary of State James Baker. One relies on individuals, not bureaucracies, to deliver results.
8) Context—Not enough time was spent on the positive precedent of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), created to mitigate the problems caused by the savings and loan implosion. Nor was the Chrysler emergency financing of the mid-80s sufficiently explored.
9) People are being talking at, not engaged—The approach to communications to date, such as the prime time address by President Bush, or the press conferences on the steps of the Capitol, and the Sunday morning talking heads TV shows, is traditional one-way communications that doesn’t afford people the opportunity to really understand, ask questions and be part of the discussion and solution.
In the end, there will likely be a piece of legislation passed by the Congress. The single-minded focus on the amount necessary to restore liquidity to the markets, without due recognition of the education process necessary to ensure acceptance, indicates that professional communications advisors were not sufficiently involved from the inception of the process. In the present environment of distrust and despair, this commitment to the discussion must be a top consideration for both business and government.
Posted by Edelman at 1:57 PM
Comments
First, I have just read your post and the comments about your surgery. Wishing you the very best for a continued recovery and full credit to you for how you have approach what is an awful situation.
Second, a fantastic post on the communications craziness that surrounds the US bail-out farce. The world is watching of course, and even the most casual of observers (my cab driver yesterday for one) can see that the approach to engaging with the public has been way off the mark. Once the inevitable legislation goes through, it will make the PR scorecard for the last few days seem even worse.
Posted by: Steve Earl at October 1, 2008 4:35 AM
Hi Richard -- this is an excellent post. I blogged about it on my blog, Catching Flack on BNET.com. It really should be required reading for everyone in Washington (and on Wall Street).
Good luck with your recovery!
Jon Greer (Edelman SF 1994-97)
Posted by: Jon Greer at October 1, 2008 5:33 PM
Hello Richard,
"People are being talking at, not engaged" - this is the crucial decider for any major organisation whose project is to engender support.
Followed closely by lack of "Acknowledgement of Error". We 'little people' are not daft, which may be quite surprising to many decision-makers! A genuine, simple 'sorry' and 'here's why' goes a long, long way to oiling the wheels and helping everyone move on together.
The histrionics and browbeating over the last few days on your side of the water has seemed rather more like the knee-jerking bossiness of British politicians than the democratic activity of a country which I well know values democratic and considered dialogue between all sections of the population.
Thank you for this assessment of the sticking points. I'll keep your points in mind as I write elsewhere.
And my apologies - you're an expert, you're sucking eggs now I suspect!
Deb
Posted by: Deb Acle at October 2, 2008 1:13 PM
Richard is right. Clearly, "professional communications advisors were not sufficiently involved from the inception of the process." The question is why not? Why was PR an afterthought? The PR professionals should have been invited to the table from the start. If they weren't, then they should have invited themselves. That's their job.
Posted by: Craig Noble at October 2, 2008 1:30 PM
Good points about crisis communication and consensus building. The nature of a crisis precludes well developed plans of any kind. The Bush administration, fairly or unfairly, will be remembered for its "oops" approach to managing the country. 9/11, Afghanistan, Hamas, post-invasion Iraq, Katrina, Russia/Georgia, now this. It's all been one big surprise. Shouldn't presidents, secretaries of the treasury and fed chairmen be looking over the next hill (admittedly not easy, but what organization is more powerful than the federal government)?
That's the bigger lesson for historians and management gurus.
Posted by: Jon Dale at October 2, 2008 8:02 PM
Great, detailed post. I have been amazed at the antipathy for the bailout (stabilization would have been my word). I can't think of a better example of the bottom line value of PR -- our democratic unity has really taken a hit on this one.
Posted by: Susan Kuhn at October 2, 2008 8:09 PM
I may be wrong but thinking, it seems;
We are putting too much emphasis to rely on politics, and the presidential election to solve a major crisis in a quick fix. It is apparent, that neither presidential candidate have an acceptable plan to do so. It took tine for this crisis to develop and even with a perfect plan, it will take time to resolve it before it can help the current needed Americans, and banks, that need the plan to go into force yesterday to stay in their home. Millions have already been forced out of their homes and too many banks are closing.
What banks and mortgage companies need to do now is to drop interest rates, lower the home payment so people can pay and stay. This will immediately stop foreclosures, let banks and financial companies, regroup, until an accepted bailout plan has been worked out and accepted. Mean time this temporary fix, will also help the banks and allow them to have time to work out new loan programs that coincide with the new pricing of home values that need to be adjusted.
That means people can make payment at half the loan, until the bailout problem is in effect. A half a payment is better than none, for all.
A financial freeze to stop foreclosures on homes and bank loans could be put into immediate effect. What we need now is a financial guru or group of financial minds to solve our financial crisis.
What is happening currently, it seems that punishing the hard working middle class, who will pay no matter what is said, the working back bone of America, while the rich figure out how to keep their millions. What the working class needs now is a secure roof over their head to focus on maintaining their jobs and having a reason to work. Keep people in their homes, not on the street. Stability at home is the real major issue, at stake along with America losing its world power role. If the American Dream of freedom and homeownership is lost, we lose what the hard working American goes to work for, Freedom and a place to call home. As a result, the unemployment rate will go up, crime, and the homeless rate will be worse than any major hurricane that puts people out of their home and a while a hurricane or acts of nature can’t be stopped, a financial issue can be worked out, no doubt. People need the home security and to work to make the financial crisis end. Putting them out on the streets will create more financial crisis than we cannot even imagine. We need to focus on the crisis, to solace it, and not let the politics and presidential election drive us to a hasty decision.
Posted by: Steve at October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
This is an excellent post and one which reflects the communication shortcomings of both leadership and media in present-day coverage of a full range of events, including the general election. The lack of clarity in the economic discussion is especially distressing as this issue is so critical to our individual pocketbooks and the financial legacy we are creating.
Part of the bewilderment is that there is an general lack of understanding of what got us here in the first place. If we cannot identify nor address the root cause, there is an uneasy suspicion that the proposed "bail-out" will not be sufficient to right the ship. Figuratively, the capital market is behaving as if everyone has responded to the emergency by rushing to one side of the boat at once - a certain recipe for a capsize. The politically unsavory part is that it is impossible for the past 10 years of easy money and dis-saving policy to be unwound overnight, the past beneficiaries of which are doing little or nothing to fund a rescue or fill the informational gaps while they sit on the sidelines waiting to pick up the pieces.
Urgently, the Fed and Treasury need to set a floor on crashing asset values before more damage is done to the wider economy, further deepening and prolonging this initial economic contraction.
Strengthening bank deposit protections is the critical first step, followed by an injection of liquidity into the banking system concurrently with a removal of the most "toxic" assets from the banks. With the banks failing to extend credit to one another, the real danger is that otherwise credit-worthy borrowers cannot receive the funding they need to maintain payrolls and operations, further compounding and spreading the economic slowdown into the non-financial sector (aka the real economy). Aggressive steps to revalue and disclose the composition of bank balance sheets including a full and independent accounting of all the off-balance sheet exposures (hedge funds, securitization vehicles and derivatives) are needed to see the extent of the non-performing assets inside (and outside) the direct banking system. For too long the Fed has been ceding control of the money supply to non-bank financial institutions, who have not been subject to oversight on leverage and other capital adequacy controls while they bulked up and cynically relied on the "Greenspan put" to extricate themselves any impending disaster.
Once the true extent of the non-performing assets is better known, then the market can more readily raise the capital required to re-build balance sheets and focus on core, sustainable businesses. It is the uncertainty and lack of transparency of the risks combined with nasty "surprises" that is the root cause of the current panic.
Clearly we have yet to plumb the depths of the sell-off that brought about the Great Depression. The Fed and Treasury have acted strenuously to focus the leadership on the issues, but it is all happening at the eleventh hour. We have been living in a dream world of inflated asset values for too long and a new, but ultimately more sustainable, reality await us. We need Congress to act resolutely and quickly and start the process of re-building confidence in our markets and financial system.
Posted by: David Fisher at October 3, 2008 9:33 AM
Richard,
I just read your blog and want you to know that it will probably do more for raising awareness than anything else out there right now. Well done and my very best wishes to you for a full recovery. I have family history as well – get checked out twice a year and with just turning 50 in August I will now be pursuing more extensive examinations. Working with you and Faina is one of the most gratifying efforts I have been involved in and together we will raise the money we need for AdMeTech. Get your rest, heal well and see you soon.
Warm regards,
Tony
Posted by: Tony Lynch at October 3, 2008 12:56 PM
Richard,
Good luck with rehab; I am confident that you will recover from your surgery quicker than the U.S. economy and political system will recover from the lack of economic, communications and political leadership that has gotten us where we are today. Your post accurately assesses the situation and, as usual, you're right on all points. I especially appreciate your call to have "someone like me" as a voice in this financial cacophony. Here we are at the end of the week, and while I'm confident the vote will come today the message is still missing.
Thanks and all the best,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas Graham at October 3, 2008 12:58 PM
Richard:
First of all congratulations on your thoughtful remarks. What is amazing to me is that we rely on the government to have intelligent people to evaluate, analyze and think through options. But apparently there is an ongoing arrogance that defies that logical thought. How easy would it have been to call in the experts, senior PR thought leaders to help manage informative communication to the American people and economic leaders to sift through options before a plan is mapped out? The result? an uninformed public that somehow 'smells' a swindle.
Posted by: Noemi Pollack at October 6, 2008 5:39 PM
Well said Richard!
I keep asking myself if somehow my awareness of such things has drastically changed or has this just been the most poorly managed sales pitch for our tax dollars we've ever heard? Are they getting lazy?
Posted by: Craig Klein at October 6, 2008 11:02 PM
Excellent perspective - following even one of these points would have made a difference. Even though the bailout eventually passed, it was a bitter pill that is not well understood.
Posted by: Mary Paul Stewart at October 20, 2008 3:13 PM
Spot on, Richard, and speedy recovery. Let's hope executives across the board -- both in the private and public sectors -- will learn something from this economic crisis, including never underestimate the value of your communication advisors.
In this case, the absence of cohesive messaging made room for the inevitable chorus of "blame the other guy" and political grandstanding amid the backdrop of an election year.
As PR strategists, we know what comes of that. When there is a message disconnect, people fill in their own information, make assumptions and/or accept the messages of less credible and further removed parties. That translates into more problems; the perception of our leaders not leading begins to feed the public panic.
There is a psychological consequence to what our leaders say and how they say it. Confident, unified messaging would have gone a long way in helping to calm markets and Main Street.
Let's hope the leadership of our financial and government institutions will take note of their stumble -- and make sure that, in future, their communications advisors have an early seat and early say at the decision table.
Posted by: Michele Nix at November 1, 2008 4:38 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackSeptember 17, 2008
The Scimitar Falls; I’m Walking On
I am in Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital, recovering from a radical prostatectomy that was performed on Tuesday. I have been assured by my physician that my prostate cancer has been completely eliminated and that I should be able to get on with my life without adverse consequences. As you may recall, I wrote a blog post in September, 2007 describing my first interaction with this disease. Here are the further and hopefully final chapters of the story.
Chapter One—In January and again in February, my PSA test showed a significant increase from December. Given that this jump occurred in a very short period of time, my NY based urologist discounted the result and prescribed an antibiotic to combat what he diagnosed as a urinary tract infection. I had a PSA test decline, so the urologist told me not to worry but that if I insisted, he would perform a second needle biopsy. As described in my earlier post, this procedure is equivalent to random walk investing, taking 10 core samples from all areas of the prostate.
Chapter Two—Not satisfied with this recommendation given my family history of prostate cancer, I pursued an MRI guided biopsy. First you undergo an MRI, which requires you to lie still for 45 minutes for best result. After analysis of the pictures, I had a saturation biopsy of 21 core samples, with particular emphasis on those areas of suspicion. This is the approach being advocated by our client, AdMeTech, which wants a “Man-o-gram” as standard diagnostic instead of blind biopsy, based on the success of mammograms in detecting breast cancer.
Chapter Three—In mid July, I received the dreaded call from the radiologist, confirming that I had low grade, early stage prostate cancer. Two of the core samples were Gleeson 6 (slow growth), one was 15% and the other 5% cancerous, but the cancer was contained within the prostate. So the scimitar had fallen on the patient; now the question was what to do about it. It took me a few days to process the diagnosis as I am an excessively healthy guy. I work out six days a week, never smoked, rarely if ever drink and eat only nutritious food. I have only missed about five days of work in thirty years at Edelman. So Superman has holes in his cape! I informed my wife and we decided to go on a journey together to select the best course of treatment.
Chapter Four—There are three basic options for a patient with my data set. First is “watchful waiting,” where you monitor the progress of the disease and take action when it becomes more pervasive. For me, this was never a serious consideration; this is a better choice for a man in his late 70s or beyond, not for me at 54. Second is the course of radiation, either with direct beam or with radioactive seeds, to attack the cancer in the prostate. This can be supplemented by hormone therapy for full body treatment. The third option is surgical removal of the prostate, either through the traditional open platform approach akin to a Caesarian section delivery of a child or the new robotic approach that is less invasive and offers a shorter healing process. I visited three specialists, each a passionate advocate for his treatment modality, with statistical support for claims of high rates of successful removal of cancer and corresponding low rates of side effects, notably incontinence, impotence and rectal bleeding. As a non-science person, I found myself increasingly perplexed and worried, confounded by the conflicting viewpoints.
Chapter Five—I began to talk to men who had been through the same process of selecting a treatment while simultaneously coping with feelings of self-doubt. As with the physicians, each former patient was enthusiastic about the path he had chosen, but was honest about the side effects, most which disappear over time. I also spoke to experts from the Milken Institute, the FDA and the National Cancer Institute. I found a plethora of material online, but most of it was confusing and partisan. The way forward began to become clear; surgery to remove the prostate, leaving radiation as a further treatment option. One expert had the best line, “The only good place for this prostate is in formaldehyde.”
Chapter Six—I told my three teenage daughters that I had prostate cancer and that I was going to have surgery to remove it. These were the most trying moments for me; to tell my kids that I had an illness but that I was acting decisively to fix the problem before it became a more serious one. Luckily I had planned a two week vacation in Long Island and spent all of it with them, going swimming in the ocean, jumping on the trampoline, playing tennis, riding my bike and generally acting like a teenager. I began to inform my close friends, including my basketball buddies from our 50 plus team, the Delusionals. The reaction was strong support for both me and my wife. My parents were vacationing in Long Island and I met them for lunch to tell them about my problem. My dad, now 13 years after his own prostate surgery, said simply that he was sad that I had to run the same course but that I was a tough guy and would get through it just fine. I had similar discussions with my brother and sister, who are visiting me today at the hospital.
Chapter Seven— After selecting a date for surgery, I started the process of informing my most senior colleagues at Edelman, opting for in-person discussions when possible. I described the entire journey, from discovery of disease to the selection of treatment, noting that I would be out of work for two weeks and on a diminished travel schedule through the fall. I promised all of them that I would be back with the same energy and attitude of the Pirate King. Then came the interminable waiting for the big day of surgery; I tried to remain as active as possible, exercising like a man possessed (I have to lay off for 3-6 weeks, the longest period without a good sweat in my life), going to the US Open tennis, Fashion Week in New York and on a college visit with my middle child.
What have I learned in the course of the past three months? First, you have to be your own patient advocate. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, you may have a disease, even though your doctor tells you not to worry. Second, there is often a better way to diagnose your condition; you have to be insistent in order to persuade the medical establishment to allow you to take those further steps. In my case it was the MRI guided biopsy and later the PCA 3 test. Third, use your network of friends to find those who have had the disease and can give you further context for your decision on treatment. Fourth, and most important, find a doctor who can guide you through the maze. In my case, I had the charismatic and passionate Dr. Faina Shtern, our client at AdMeTech, who opened doors for me then sorted through often conflicting medical advice. In the end, medicine is an art, not a science; it is like business, where you evaluate all of the data, then decide on a course.
I tell this story in the hopes that it helps others who are confronted with this or other diseases. I’m eager to get back to work because I have a lot to do. I want to thank all the physicians who have helped me on this journey, to express my appreciation to my friends for their constant concern, to depend on my colleagues to hold down the fort, and to tell my family that I love them more than they will ever know. See you back in the blogosphere in two weeks!
Posted by Edelman at 4:00 PM
Comments
Richard -
Sorry to hear about your state, though glad you've gotten through the surgery itself. Your story and message are inspiring (and just a bit frightening).
Keep up the fight & have a speedy recovery.
Posted by: NB at September 17, 2008 5:06 PM
Richard...after three bouts with cancer (lung/kidney/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma)I believe that your insights capture the essence of the process of diagnosis and recovery. And, your willingness to face squarely and discuss the challenges, uncertainty and tedium of the process will be truly helpful to those who may face the same journey in the future. Best wishes for a full and speedy recovery!
Posted by: James W. Montanari at September 17, 2008 5:08 PM
Please know that we're all here to support you and your family, and we hope to see you visiting our offices well and strong some time soon!
Posted by: Winnie Orilla at September 17, 2008 5:59 PM
Richard: First, best wishes for a speedy and full recovery. As to the first and second of your four points, you are absolutely right. No one is going to be an advocate of one's health but themselves. My wife and I went through a similar process, but had to go through five different doctors to correctly have her condition diagnosed, which turned out to be life threatening, but fortunately was resolved. I'm glad that your early proactive actions helped you too.
Posted by: Steve Shannon at September 17, 2008 6:04 PM
Best wishes to you Richard for a speedy and full recovery! TJ
Posted by: TJ Snyder at September 17, 2008 7:35 PM
Richard,
As they say in the old country, you can't keep a good man down! Thank you for your candour and indefatigable spirit and for blogging from the recovery room to demystify the prostate cancer process and give hope to the other men and their families out there. As one of the world's foremost public strategists you clearly have the skills to be a great patient advocate but what can we do to help the rest of the population who are paralysed by conflicting studies and remedies? Is there a type of " Patient Advocate " who can help broker the process? GP's used to do this but now they just pass you from one specialist to another and God help you if you illness falls between two specialist areas.
Get well soon, we need you at this turbulent time in the global financial markets,
Ted
Posted by: ted smyth at September 17, 2008 8:10 PM
I follow your blog closely and have been through a similarly frustrating series of medical diagnoses for my husband. I am so glad you persisted and were your own best advocate. My very best wishes for a safe surgical procedure and your speedy recovery; I'll be looking forward to your return!
Posted by: Shonali Burke, ABC at September 17, 2008 8:33 PM
I have dealt with a form of Lymphoma for years, a never give up or quit asking questions - is necessary ! Dealing with it assists you in living with it, cancer is a nasty disease and you must make decisions as you did ! If you didn't worry you are not really alive ! If you don't collect data on cures you will not survive ! We await your return !
Posted by: marshal sandler at September 17, 2008 8:37 PM
Thank you Richard for sharing your story. Your experience will be a great inspiration for others going through similar experiences. Very best wishes for a speedy recovery. - Jay Bernhardt, CDC
Posted by: Jay Bernhardt at September 17, 2008 8:44 PM
Richard:
All the best to you and your family on your journey. I am heartened by your progress and courage.
While not the same, I came through surgery a couple of months ago for skin cancer on my cheek, temple and shoulder. Also, we lost my oldest brother (67) in July to colon cancer, which could have been avoided with a colonoscopy a couple of years ago. I had mine last January. Brother Bob was an exec with Lockheed, a successful entrepenuer and engineer. It was a very sad loss.
More recently, I feel like I just got a new lease on life with cataract surgery. My right eye was done on Monday and the left is next Thursday. The marvels of medical science have made it possible to see again in 20-20 clarity including life's rich colors and hues. I think I had lost sight of how wonderful nature appears.
Despite our desire for eternal youth, we are aging against our wills.
This note is again to convey my family's best wishes to you and yours and to a speedy recovery.
Hopefully, our paths will connect again soon.
Best regards,
Gerry
P.S. Please give my best to your Folks
Posted by: Gerry Corbett at September 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Richard, thank you for this. All my best wishes to you and the family.
Posted by: Susan E at September 17, 2008 11:40 PM
Sending thoughts for a rapid recovery your way.
Posted by: Cathy Brooks at September 17, 2008 11:46 PM
You're being more than "your own patient advocate". Thank you for sharing this for greater awareness, and hope you feel better.
Posted by: Stanislas at September 18, 2008 1:00 AM
Richard, thanks for sharing this in this very personal way. I hope and pray you will be better soon. For me personally it's helpful and encouraging to read about your way of dealing with it - for my family history with this disease brings me to let my PSA be controlled more often than normal.
All the best and see you soon.
Posted by: Wolfgang Luenenbuerger-Reidenbach at September 18, 2008 3:34 AM
Richard,
First of all I want to wish you a speedy recovery and that any side-effects disappear as fast as possible.
Many people want to keep their medical experiences either private or within a close circle of family & friends, but sharing your story openly is clearly giving something to the community- not just to the guys who face something similar, but to their families and friends who can better understand how difficult it is with often conflicting advice from experts.
Thank you for taking the time and for helping others with practical advice from a patient's perspective. I'm amazed that you were able to write such a thoughtful and truly helpful post from your hospital bed. Testament perhaps to your rapid recovery!
Posted by: Keith Childs at September 18, 2008 5:06 AM
Thanks for sharing your story. My dad went through the same thing a couple years ago, and I remember how hard it was for him to tell me (had to do it by phone as I live many states away). We had another scare a few weeks ago, but it doesn't look like it's coming back.
Good luck with your recovery and getting back to work and life!
Posted by: Jenny at September 18, 2008 7:54 AM
Hi glad to hear you are ok and I think it is great that you are talking about this.
Posted by: betsy at September 18, 2008 10:22 AM
Richard,
Good luck with your recovery. You have already shown the resolve to beat it.
It was courageous of you to share your story. It is a service to men our age, especially ones who are "forever young."
The next good sweat awaits you anxiously.
All the best.
Posted by: Bill Heyman at September 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Stay strong Richard; recover well, Gerry.
Posted by: Gerry McCusker at September 19, 2008 12:43 AM
Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Best of wishes for a speedy recovery.
Gary
Posted by: Gary Dunlap at September 19, 2008 11:46 AM
Richard - Get Well Soon!
I'm a survivor and I know you will be too. Question your doctors incessantly. The cure is as much in your mind as it is in their medicine and surgeries.
Here's a great book written by a long time oncologist about the miracles he's witnessed.
Posted by: Craig Klein at September 19, 2008 2:27 PM
Wishing you a speedy comeback to normalcy..take care...
Posted by: Mahesh CR at September 21, 2008 12:11 PM
I'm so sorry to hear about your illness Richard. It's been many years since we last spoke in Chicago.
Best wishes for a quick and complete recovery.
Posted by: Debora Allen at September 21, 2008 6:05 PM
Richard,
So happy to hear you have cancer under control - it's fantastic for you to share your story. A real inspiration!
Stay well - all my best from Sydney!
Walter
Posted by: Walter Jennings at September 21, 2008 11:00 PM
Dear Richard,
I don't think we've ever met but I've admired you from afar for many years. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers. Thank you for your courage and generosity in sharing this very personal experience. I'm sure it will be valuable information for others who, unfortunately, may face a similar situation. I totally agree with your advice about having to be a strong advocate for your own medical care, having supported my late husband who (to the surprise of his doctors) lived with a malignant brain tumor for 17 years. Questioning what our doctors tell us; taking notes of every conversation with doctors (preferably by an engaged family member or friend); not accepting what doctors say at face value; getting a second (third, etc.) opinion if warranted; and considering/seeking complementary treatments, I believe, are part of how we must assertively deal with our own medical care. My best wishes for your full and speedy recovery.
Warm regards, Patrice Tanaka
Posted by: Patrice Tanaka at September 22, 2008 10:34 PM
Richard, thank you for your courage in sharing your story. If more men were willing to discuss their health issues and worries, our fathers, husbands and brothers would live longer, healthier lives with the benefit of greater awareness and shared knowledge. Wishing you a speedy recovery.
Posted by: Robyn Sefiani at September 23, 2008 6:15 AM
Richard,
Sorry to read about your illness. I wish you a speedy recovery. Your testimonial will inspire many people, this is a brave and useful act.
Posted by: Robert de Quelen at September 26, 2008 10:45 AM
I learned about your prostate cancer from Nancy Turett, who has been involved with the American Cancer Society. I have been pretty much the same journed as you a year ago September. I chose robotic surgery. As the CEO of the American Cancer Society, I certainly felt that I had information at my fingertips, which is avaliable to anyone. While it was tough to navigate know I would utimatly have to make a decision. I was very confident with my choice. Overall I fell very good. Dealing with the side effects is not easy but it really does get better as so many people told me who had been through this experience. I have also participated in Man to Man groups (prostate cancer support group), which has been helpful and reassuring. I wish you the best of luck.
Posted by: Don Distasio at September 27, 2008 12:42 PM
Richard
We pray that the New Year brings you a quick and complete recovery. Love to you and the whole Edelman family. David, Beryl & Jonathan Davis
Posted by: David Davis at September 29, 2008 9:12 AM
Richard, you're a courageous and eloquent man. I pray that the New Year will bring you quick and total recovery, restored vigor and your usual enthusiasm for life.
Posted by: Paulette Barrett at September 29, 2008 2:23 PM
Richard you are amazing - an inspiration to all of us by the way you participate in life. Best wishes and prayers. Fran.
Posted by: Fran at September 29, 2008 11:49 PM
Richard, as always, you translate with insight and clarity a difficult situation. And by turning outward to others, you take a potentially devastating health scenario, and find the opportunity and learnings for yourself and others.
3 bouts of cancer in the '80's ironically prepared me for dealing with the long term consequences of living with HIV. Seizing control of all that you can is empowering and about the only way to prevail.
Humor is the other potent tool in your arsenal. I'm sure you've had to tap into it. For me, it was especially effective when handling the 3 classic lines from well-meaning friends who didn't have a clue what to say in times of crisis, "These things happen for a reason", The Lord never gives you mroe than you can handle", and my personal favorite, "I know everything will be fine"!
You and your family are in my prayers for a strong and full recovery and continuing good health.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Collodi at October 7, 2008 7:24 AM
Richard -
Given your seemingly endless energy, drive and overall fitness, it's hard to imagine you sitting down for a break, let alone prostate surgery.
After being in a coma for 3 weeks back in 2003, the whole world took on a different meaning for me. I'm sure it will for you as well -- in a very positive way.
Heal well and heal fast. You have lots more years to live.
Bennett Kleinberg
Posted by: Bennett Kleinberg at October 7, 2008 2:00 PM
I am so pleased you are recovering so quickly and I think your account has been so heartening and important for people to read. I hope you got my messages and the info. you requested. Hope all continues. We have quite a mess here and who knows what will happen.
Posted by: betsy gotbaum at October 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackSeptember 11, 2008
It’s Hard to Let Go
I was on a panel on Tuesday in Washington D.C. for communications professionals from the National Institutes of Health. They wanted to know how they operate in an environment where media authority is dispersed, confidence in government as a trusted source has declined and respect for science is profoundly diminished. One source of communicator frustration is the current controversy over vaccination of young children, where the data is overwhelming on safety and efficacy, yet the risk of autism raised by celebrity Jenny McCarthy is deemed newsworthy by mainstream media. I was joined by Barry Schwartz, professor from Swarthmore College, Susannah Fox of the Pew Foundation, Rick Weiss, former science editor of the Washington Post and Pere Estupinya of El Pais of Madrid, Spain.
Here were the key points from the panel:
1) Information overload is causing paralysis and poor decision making. Professor Schwartz’ book, The Paradox of Choice, points up the need for trusted sources to break through the morass. He contended that there is more concern for influence than veracity, adding that with the need for speed comes inaccuracy and lack of peer review. “You retain trust by making sure those who receive information understand what you are saying.”
2) E-patients can be a critical audience and media at the same time. Fox said that, “This group is giving back as well as getting information. They can be a very important asset in the battle against single issue interest groups which are political machines. They will swarm inaccuracy if you empower them as agents. But they demand a genuine conversation.”
3) Many health stories are information, not news, in today’s news context, according to Weiss. “As PR people, you will have to be faster. A press release on a study issued the next day will not cut it. You will also have to offer compelling web based visuals with 3-D animation.” Weiss won the award for comment of the day when he quipped, “This is the first continental breakfast I have ever attended where prunes figured prominently on the buffet.”
4) Articles for mainstream media may be more complete and better written, but blog posts are more influential. This statement came from Estupinya of El Pais, who contends that readers do not differentiate between accuracy of MSM and blogs. “My articles are better than my posts because I spend a lot more time on the articles. But I get much more conversation going on my blog posts,” he said.
5) Journalists post on blogs for speedy entry to conversations. Fox noted that she is asked for interviews by CNN and other MSM sources on the basis of her blog posts, not her longer scholarly papers for Pew.
6) Content should be customized to the medium and the demographic group. For example, according to Fox, both Latino and African American young men use their mobile phones “like Swiss Army knives” in that they use them for everything. Therefore, to reach that group, content must be in easy to access text format. Here are statistics from Estupinya: among Hispanic English-dominant speakers seeking health information, the web accounts for 53% of total media interaction while radio is 35%. Among Spanish dominant speakers, the web accounts for only 17% of media interaction, while radio is 53%.
During the question period, I got a small window into the complicated, often frustrating world of public relations officers in government. They are not allowed to access social networks such as Facebook and MySpace while in the workplace. Posting video material on YouTube is seen as overly risky. My advice to them on Tuesday was to recognize that the battle for opinion cannot be won simply on the basis of a surfeit of facts. A uniformed government official debating Jenny McCarthy on vaccines is fine, but that official must be able to tell stories about families who regret not having their kids inoculated before their trip to Italy, then come home with measles. Effective PR is about facts, but also ease of access and compelling examples.
Posted by Edelman at 6:16 PM
Comments
Professor Schwartz's comment that "there is more concern for influence than veracity" states the matter well. This causes problems when the media is addressing audiences that don't or can't educate themselves or completely analyze the information they're taking in. It's a fact of life that many people, including some in positions of influence, are not great critical thinkers. This makes the need for responsible communicators, from journalists to PR professionals, all the greater. Persuasive writers and speakers have great power, and should make sure they're delivering correct, well-thought-out information.
Posted by: Michelle van Schouwen at September 11, 2008 12:33 PM
You mentioned that public relations officers in government cannot access social networks such as Facebook and MySpace while in the workplace and that posting on YouTube is seen as overly risky. Risky for what -- It is of concern to me whether the lack of access is fear of loosing control of messages or if it is a blatant lack of transparency on the part of the government.
Noemi Pollack
npollack@ppmgcorp.com
www.ppmgcorp.com
Posted by: Noemi Pollack at September 12, 2008 7:43 PM
I am so glad you are A-OK. Keep slugging and writing. Bill Doescher
Posted by: Bill Doescher at October 21, 2008 10:09 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackSeptember 3, 2008
Update on BBC.com
I had breakfast this morning in London with Richard Sambrook, who has been charged with making BBC.com a major player among web based news providers. Here is an update on the progress of the BBC in the online space:
1) We have integrated all of our newsrooms, from radio to TV to web. Our theory was that this would decrease the work load on journalists by balancing the peak demands but in fact it has raised the expectations for all reporters. We are still in a transition from those who work only on specialized platforms (TV as example) to the next generation comfortable across all platforms on a given story. We have invested in journalism production tools. There is a production skill set that needs to be married with the substance of stories.
2) Video is drawing online traffic. The sport video usage is up 20 times in the past four years, with a real peak in demand around the Beijing Olympics. We are now beyond a text focused audience.
3) We continue to tailor the news to regional demand. For example, Matt Frei, our anchor for World News America, is a Brit but has lived in the US for the past decade. He has his own deep roots and contacts in the market, leading to better stories. We need also to alter our tone, growing our US bureau, tailoring our approach to a US audience, regionalizing the news.
4) Video content on the web must differ from TV. It should be shorter, less intermediated, less heavily produced. “It should be raw and direct, not like sitting back and watching TV,” he said.
5) There is a big audience for business news. Viewers recognize the interconnected nature of markets and the direct connection to their personal net worth. This is a work in progress at BBC.
6) BBC.com international traffic pattern shows just over 50% of users from North America, the balance in Asia and Europe.
7) BBC.com advertising has held up well despite the global economic slowdown. Key sources of money are travel/tourism, countries for economic development, and corporate image ads.
8) Sambrook believes that the New York Times and the Guardian have led the newspaper business in adapting to the online arena. “They are both doing video very well. In fact the Guardian has Guardian films, longer form pieces.” He questions whether the NY Times or Guardian are really monetizing their online traffic, especially outside of home markets.
Here are the implications for PR people from this discussion. We need to recognize that there are fewer truly global media players and we should connect with them outside of home market (BBC in New York and Hong Kong). We must offer video content relevant for the web, not highly produced video news releases. We can offer consumer generated content that helps to build connection to media brands, as all participants are in experimental mode. I would appreciate your comments as always.
Posted by Edelman at 9:18 AM
Comments
Absolutely agreed on using the reduced number of major media sources on a much more international basis.
The point that jumps out most though is video content must be produced for the web. In recent weeks I've been amazed in particular at how relatively minor media players (moderate local newspapers, for instance) have started pushing out many of their lead stories via video content, backed up by text, rather than using text illustrated by a picture.
Content was always king, now it's extremely diversified - and more like the emperor.
Posted by: Steve Earl at September 3, 2008 12:18 PM
The commercialization of the media is one major factor that has given rise to the explosion in the PR industry. Richard is right in saying that journalists have to operate across multiple platforms: one impact of that multi-skilling is that journalist no longer have to produce one story with a deadline in the evening, they may have to produce four; a print version, a web-text version, a podcast story and a web-video.
As a result of multiple rolling deadlines, journalists generally don’t have time to do their job properly which has created an enormous number of opportunities for the PR industry.
Don’t have time for an interview? We do, listen to our podcast and if you like you can use bits of it.
How about TV? Not to worry our video media release will do your job for you.
Even our media releases are written in a style you can use … no editing necessary.
An enterprising communications campaign can use the current weakness in the world of journalism to ensure market saturation of a well crafted message.
Posted by: Nigel Catchlove at September 6, 2008 3:17 AM
Nigel,
I like your enthusiasm but your views are quite different from my own. We should not in any way pretend to substitute for media.
Thanks for reading,
Richard
Posted by: Richard Edelman at September 9, 2008 8:50 AM