« October 2011 | Main | December 2011 »
November 25, 2011
Thanksgiving Past
I am in Chicago at my parents’ apartment with the entire Edelman clan. We celebrated yesterday with a first time Thanksgiving-goer, Jacek Kastelanic, our pro-bono client from the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. After the eating orgy, most retired to the closest bed for turkey and stuffing induced naps. By chance, I went into my father’s long-hidden archives and made some discoveries.
After graduating from Columbia Journalism School, he was a sports editor for the local newspaper in Poughkeepsie, NY, a town on the Hudson River about two hours north of NY City. Here is a sample of his writing from his column titled, Starting Post, on October 19, 1941, “Hands clenched tightly in your pockets, woolen muffler wrapped closely around your neck—cold blasts of wind penetrating even that heavy overcoat—your feet stamping methodically on the wooden bleachers to maintain circulation…shouting yourself hoarse. The half time, walking around, seeing old friends, then that heart-warming cup of coffee and the mustard-covered hot dog— finally back to your seat for more of the same. If they won, what a wonderful team! Did you see Jones on that end run?” If they lost, “What an easy pass Smith dropped. This was some punk game.” That’s football. You don’t know why but you’re willing to go through all kinds of self-torture to see a game.”
Then on August 5, 1942, just prior to his induction to the US Army, I found a letter to my dad from the Office of Censorship in Washington, DC, “Thank you for submitting the enclosed story of an interview with Seaman John P. Tully. We have gone through the story, marking in blue pencil some changes that are desirable in the interests of national security. In some cases these changes are substitutions of words. In others, words, clauses and sentences are underlined, which should be eliminated before publication. Thank you for your patriotic cooperation in submitting this interview prior to publication.” It was signed by N.R. Howard, Assistant Director.
My dad was in the Twelfth Army Group propaganda and information control unit, responsible for preparing nightly analysis of Nazi radio broadcasts. He worked with German émigrés, usually Jewish, until 5:30 am when he handed in his report. On January 1, 1945, he wrote, “Adolf Hitler spoke to the German people just after midnight, breaking a six month silence. He reiterated his fanatical resolve to fight the war to a successful conclusion and stated emphatically, “Germany will never capitulate.” He added, “The voice was unquestionably Hitler’s, though it lacked the fire and hysterics that once characterized his speeches…He listed the Anglo-American and Russian war aims, including the transportation of 15-20 million Germans to other countries, the poisoning of German youth and that these aims meant Germany had only the alternatives of living in freedom or dying in slavery.”
I also found a commendation from his commanding officer, dated March 1, 1946, stating “I wish to commend you for the highly meritorious manner in which you performed your duties…You have always worked hard, long hours and with complete devotion to the task at hand. Your services were a great contribution to the many accomplishments for which the Intelligence Branch has been credited.”
On his return to civilian life, my dad went to work for CBS Radio as a news writer on the overnight shift. I found one of his news summaries from August 7, 1946. After going through global news, he explained, “The New York City police department is blushing ever so slightly this morning. Just before 2 am today, the traffic bureau received a call from a woman reporting that a plane had crashed into the Hudson River at 96th street. Police and fire launches were rushed to the scene but there was no sign of a plane in the River. The police headquarters announced that the report was apparently unfounded. But the police aren’t through. Now they say they are going to find that woman. And that’s the top news on the vanishing plane.”
Here is a final note, from Robert Gerstenzang, director of the Brant Lake Camp, to my dad on June 10, 1941. Dan had been a camper, then a counselor at the camp from age 5 to 20. He could not leave his new job at the Poughkeepsie paper. The director wrote, “Congratulations on the beginning of your career as a journalist. I am not trying to be facetious or funny when I say I really look to you, Dan, to go places in this field. If, as an old time school man and a dean of boys, I may venture a word of advice, I should like to say that two of your virtues in particular, should stand you in good stead: your personality and your brains. Make the most use of both that you can and don’t hesitate to work like a son of a gun whether the work appears to be in the direct line of advancement or not. Experiences are what count, and the more of these you get in your own particular field, the further you will go….I always had confidence in you and felt that you were fitted to assume responsibility. Just let others feel this same way about you, Dan and you will have no trouble in life.”
So there you have it folks, a window into Dan Edelman’s life before he went into public relations. These character traits of hard work, calling it as he sees it and aggressive pursuit of excellence are all consistent with the Dan of today.
Hope everyone is enjoying Thanksgiving.
Richard
Posted by Edelman at 1:44 PM |
Comments
Thanks for the post Richard. I first met you Dad in the early '70s when I was an editor at Better Homes and Gardens and your account was a top appliance manufacturer. In the paragraph about Brant Lake Camp do you mean Dan was a counselor starting at age 15? If not, and he started at age 5, that would be an impressive feat.
Posted by: Kim Garretson at November 26, 2011 12:57 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackNovember 16, 2011
Start Over
I went to a breakfast this morning in New York City sponsored by Common Good, a think tank devoted to better government. Philip Howard, a noted lawyer and founder of the group, spoke to about 50 business people and journalists on the findings of a survey conducted by pollster Ron Facheux. Howard’s talk was one of the highlights of the morning.
1) Survey Results—91% of Americans say that every law Congress passes should be reviewed periodically to make sure it still works. 81% of Americans believe the federal government is broken and needs a basic overhaul. 78% of Americans say that there should be less government regulation of how people make daily choices in their lives. 80% of Americans believe in regular “spring cleaning” to eliminate unnecessary regulation.
2) Change in America Happens in Big Gulps—According to Howard, every major change (the New Deal, the Great Society, Reagan Revolution) happened only when a crisis was upon us.
3) Create Context for Overhaul—Howard believes that politicians will not lead; “we need to bang on pots and pans.” He wants to create “shadow commissions” with eminent former politicians such as Alan Simpson and Bill Bradley who are experienced budget cutters.
4) Concrete Examples—Did you know that 20% of the K-12 school budget goes to special education and only 1.5% to gifted children? Or that 80% of a state budget for an incoming governor is set in stone based on pre-existing mandates? Or that a bridge over the railroad in an NYC suburb costs $120 million to complete?
5) Justice Is Not Reliable—The tort system has made everyone afraid of being sued. And the “daily regulatory choices are immobilized by the buildup of too many laws.”
6) Dead Hand From the Grave—“Our government’s choices are dictated by political leaders who are long dead,” he said. Health care and social security eat up 70% of each year’s federal revenue and are not authorized annually.
7) Enact Mandatory Sunset Law—Every statute should expire at some point unless reenacted.
8) Radical Simplification—He suggested that a federal agency should be able to run itself based on fifty pages of law, not thousands. By the way, the recent health care bill was 2,700 pages and the Dodd Frank financial bill 2,300 pages.
9) Civil Service Is a Horror—Howard believes that civil service, whereby promotion is based on seniority not merit, is 30% inefficient. He is particularly tough on disability fraud, citing the Long Island Railroad where 90% of workers retired with a “disability” or the California state troopers where 82% were disabled in their last year prior to retirement. He says that collective bargaining rights make government unmanageable.
I have some sympathy with Howard’s views, particularly the idea that legislation should have a time-specific application (i.e., the idea of a sunset provision) that forces consideration of the law. But to suggest that America’s primary problem is over-regulation after the near-death experience of the financial crisis is a bit rich. What do you think?
Posted by Edelman at 3:25 PM |
Comments
Churchill said, "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." We have far more than 10,000. Not that things shouldn't be regulated. Obviously systemic risk needs to be prevented. But we are rapidly approaching a point where cops don't even know the laws they are enforcing, the SEC has to hand our warnings, compliance departments are some of the biggest expenses for companies, and people are indeed losing their respect for the law and government.
Sunset provisions on every law is a scary idea. Congress cannot get anything done already, and we want them to deal with things already settled? On the federal level you need 60 votes to get through the Senate. This year they probably wouldn't be able to reauthorize The Federal Reserve Act, or big parts of the various civil rights acts. Perry and his cohorts wouldn't even have to remember the agencies they want to get rid of them. They'd disappear on their own.
Clearly, people are unhappy with the current system, and most people want a big change. Congress is currently less popular than "the US going communist" and BP. The question is whether things will simply decline/gradually adapt, or an actual big change will occur as a result genuine crisis. Unfortunately, harm and inherency are easy, solvency is always the hardest part.
Posted by: Jay at November 16, 2011 11:34 PM
What's needed is not "de-regulation" but a regulatory structure that allows humans in charge to take responsibility to meet our regulatory goals. Today, regulation looks like the tax code--thousands of pages of detailed rules that are filled with loopholes.
Regulation is essential in an interdependent, anonymous, global society. To enhance free interaction, we need more, not fewer, regulatory traffic cops--to make sure toys don't have lead paint, and to enforce fair dealing. But regulation, like all other human accomplishment, requires human judgment. This requires an open framework, with general goals and principles, more like our Constitution, that allows regulators to keep their eye on the ball--not a micromanaged soviet-style system where officials feel compelled to close down a kids' lemonade stand because it lacks a vendors license. Talk to any small business or factory foreman--they're constantly nicked by regulatory fines for infractions that have nothing to do with the regulatory goal.
The goal is not de-regulation but effective regulation. American regulation today is a junk heap of accumulated requirements only tangentially connected to important goals. If we want to avoid scams like the ones in the mortgage bubble, get officials' noses out of the rulebook and authorize them to look around and see what's happening.
Posted by: Philip Howard at November 17, 2011 6:31 AM
Thanks - this is interesting. Seems like reigniting accountability in Americans (be they politicians, corporations or John Q Public) is a real theme here.
Posted by: Liz C. at November 17, 2011 6:57 AM
Ever heard of Occupy Wall Street and 99%?
Mr Howard seems very much concerned about bargaining unions, bureaucracy and such but not much about the irresponsibility in Wall Street, tax loopholes for giant corporations and the 1% vs 99% gap. What's your take on 1/99?
Posted by: Philippe at November 17, 2011 11:58 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackNovember 10, 2011
Reimagining PR in the Age of Complexity
Tonight I will deliver the keynote address at the Institute of Public Relations' annual dinner. My speech can be divided into three acts (channeling Shakespeare minus one act).
Act I: The Age of Complexity with globalization, technology, and the democratization of influence and media. In this complex world of the unexpected and unforeseen, PR should be the advisor of choice.
Act II: PR must embrace its broader remit, which is to advise on policy and communications. This can be done under the rubric of Public Engagement. Unlike any other discipline, we have one foot planted in strategy/policy, and the other in creative and execution. Alexis de Tocqueville said of American success, “It is self interest properly understood." This observation really is the essence of business acting in its own interests but also in society’s—which is the essence of Public Engagement.
Act III: The Four Principles to Public Engagement, to be named after former Johnson & Johnson PR chief Bill Nielsen. They are:
• Drive the Operating Strategy
• Practice Radical Transparency
• Take Full Advantage of a Democratized Media
• Attract and Develop Talent with Broad Skills
All of this will lead to a victory of a values-based culture over one that is compliance oriented--and a renewed bond of trust between companies/brands and their stakeholders.
Click here for a look at the entire 20-minute speech. I would appreciate your comments.
Posted by Edelman at 5:42 PM |
Comments
Richard,
As I mentioned to you immediately after you spoke, I think your speech was the best to date in the IPR's annual lecture series. Inspirational content, insightful ideas, incisively presented, short and sweet. Others in attendance said the same or similar things. I'm sharing the speech far and wide. I hope it gets a lot of traction.
Don Bates
917-913-8940
Posted by: Don Bates at November 11, 2011 4:04 PM
Fully agree with Edelman
on four principles for best practice of PR. Communications should be about strategy and not reaction so makes sense to be involved at operating level.
Look forward to the dialog.
Posted by: Trudi Baldwin at November 14, 2011 2:18 PM
I was encouraged by your address. I appreciated the title of your message, "Reimagining Our Profession." PR needs to be redefined for high level executives, especially at higher education institutions. The disconnect becomes a double-edged sword. PR professionals are not always included in the initial conversations, rather brought in later to execute tactics without truly understanding the entire picture. It leads to failure. But if PR people "create coherence out of complexity" we may be on the road to success. At a time when my career path is nebulous due to confusing leadership I appreciate your insight.
Posted by: Brenda Velasco at November 14, 2011 3:18 PM
Richard,
Congratulations on delivering a most insightful and motivational IPR 50th Annual Distinguished Lecture, which I just downloaded and read. Your four "Nielsen Principles" provide a template for advancing public relations education and practice. As we say in our textbook, Effective Public Relations, it's all about building and maintaining relationships--public engagement.
Cheers,
Glen
Posted by: Glen Broom at November 14, 2011 6:56 PM
Richard,
Very insightful look at where PR is headed. Reminded me of my more practical professors in my PR Master's Program at University of Houston.
I have wondered lately if there are going to be high impact consequences for corporations precisely because of the common theme of positioning to compensate for non-transparent corporate governance. The uncertain environment makes me think that perhaps large-scale organizations hiding what is really going on are going to be punished for it... and that there are likely more of those organizations than we are currently aware of.
Great read. Thanks for sharing you thoughts.
Posted by: Daniel J. Cohen at November 17, 2011 12:47 PM
And now a major excerpt in The Public Relations Strategist. Congratulations, Richard.
Posted by: Frank Ovaitt at January 9, 2012 7:47 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackNovember 4, 2011
Two Who Give Back
Many celebrities spend their off-screen lives working out, going to night clubs and generally having a good time. Nothing wrong with that, but I thought it important to call out two important stars who have taken a different path.
Petra Nemcova is a super-model, whom I met through my former HP client, Satjiv Chahil. Petra has graced the pages of fashion magazines and participated in elite fashion shows. But today she spends 70% of her time on her Happy Hearts Fund, which she launched in 2005 to rebuild schools after natural disasters. You may recall that she lost her fiancée in the 2004 tsunami that hit Indonesia and surrounding nations. She told me that she has rebuilt 56 schools and helped 34,000 children in Indonesia, Peru, Haiti, Mexico and New Orleans. Her optimism is infectious—she ends her email with the tagline, “Lots of Love Life and Laughter.”
I was fascinated by her business model. “We create partnerships with business and local NGOs that help us to leverage our own money. We partnered with the International Development Bank in Haiti and ING, the financial services company, in Latin America (Peru, Mexico & Chile). We meet these partners through the Clinton Global Initiative and other conveners.“ She proudly states that “donors can specify the school and the program they want to support. We have zero administrative costs—all are covered by our board members’ donations.” Naturally she has wealthy board members, hedge fund managers, a global entrepreneur and a corporate lawyer but she is raising funds through American school children, who start clubs. Microsoft donates software and HP supplies PCs and printers to the schools. (Disclosure: both Microsoft and HP are Edelman clients, though we have nothing to do with their involvement with Petra).
Lang Lang is a 29 year old Chinese pianist whom I met a year ago when he performed at the Atlantic Council’s New York City dinner. He was born in northern China, in Shenyang near Mongolia. He came to the USA when he was 16 with his father to pursue his studies at the Curtis School in Philadelphia. He is determined to change the audience for classical music. He told me that the genre cannot survive if the audiences are all older people (average age of Carnegie Hall subscriber is nearly 70 years old, according to his manager, Jean Jacques). He told me that he wants music to be fun and acceptable to the younger audience. “I did not go to college—I am not into the snobbery of classical music. It is like pop music for me, new and fresh.”
That is why he has set up the Lang Lang Foundation to support very young performers as they pursue a career in classical music. I went to former Citigroup Chairman Sandy Weill’s home last week to hear three of those whom Lang Lang is supporting, average age 12 years old. He does events every month for the Foundation, recently in public venues in Chicago, Sydney, Hong Kong and NY City. He goes to schools with his young acolytes; he visited a public school in NY City and performed for the students, but according to Lang Lang, “The stars of the show are the young performers. The students can identify with them.” Lang Lang is among the most popular celebrities on Weibo in China, also has an active following on Twitter and Facebook.
For those of you with corporate clients seeking to partner with outstanding individuals trying to do something important in the world, may I suggest that you consider the aforementioned charities. I am happy to make the introduction. They will make you proud.
Posted by Edelman at 8:53 AM |




