I wish I were able to take credit for the concept.   In their books, Made to Stick, by the Heath brothers, and Bill Schley’s,  The Microscript Rules, they argue similar concepts:  whatever grows legs and runs are the things that “stick” when others fall by the wayside, and it’s not what we say but what people “repeat.” This is the label game.   Come up with a stellar label for someone or something and you have a winner. As I have mentioned before, it worked in the Gary Hart Presidential campaign when Walter Mondale uttered the comment, “Where’s the beef?,” after the fast food commercial that focused on a comparison of which chain had the most meat in its burger.   It was effective against Barry Goldwater’s image when a TV ad pictured him along with a nuclear explosion and implied that he would be the trigger-happy, nuke President, and therefore waaaaaaaay to scary to trust in office.

For this presidential election, the classic polarization emerges:  Obama is cast as the “tax and spend liberal,” and the debt President, with even a few trying out the “S” word (Socialist).   More civilly, the Democratic machine is trying to make him appear as the champion of the middle class, and the President who will protect jobs.  Romney is fighting the label that he is the “out-of-touch rich guy” who has no idea what it’s like not to be rich, like most of America.  Already the chant of “Romney wins, the middle class loses” flaunts the image.  On both sides, just watch how much money will be spent in shaping slogans that deeply ignite  the prejudged sentiments of voters.

One of the components of “good” slogans, again ones that stick and become repeatable, is that they fly past the intellect and hit on the emotional level.  The solidly factual arguments most often take a nearly irrelevant profile to how much the emotions are tapped.  It’s not just what the campaigns will say, but rather how much different people will feel after they hear the slogans and see the visuals connected to them.  When Michael Dukakis was pictured as the one who let super bad guy, murderer, Willie Horton go, and you saw the jail door opening and him (or a figure like him) walking out of prison, that was an emotional image that stuck with people and virtually branded Dukakis.  It questioned his judgment, his philosophy about hardened criminals, and the safety of the country under his leadership.  Again, it’s not if it is arguably true, it’s whether it reaches the emotions and sticks.

In the upcoming Presidential race, expect to see every issue that each team determines will stick, both negatively and positively,  run the show.  Debates will be only somewhat important compared to the emotional feeling that each team can produce in the hearts and emotions of the public. Campaign spending will be astronomical.  Obama will have to fight the image that he has had 4 years and the economy is limping and debt has more than tripled.   Romney will have to convincingly demonstrate how his plan will  not benefit the rich (which is the strong perception) and help all Americans and the economy.

Both campaigns clearly have their most resonating work ahead.  The sad part of today’s campaigns is that they are set on an entirely different platform than what we would like to see.   Not that it’s that much different from the past, only now there is a louder, more instant megaphone of daily bombardment.   We might not see in this campaign that the best candidate will necessarily win, but the best labels and slogans will.

To your success, Neal Browne

There is already scandalous distrust of big banks and financial institutions.  This incident only pours gasoline on the fire. No doubt this will cause some richter scale reverberations not only in the financial world, but with a public that already is moving temptingly close to a financial lynch mob.  Congressional members have wasted no time spewing caustic phrases about the debacle and threatening major legislation to reign in those who cavort with billions.

The Occupy movement really didn’t need any more fodder to leverage, but this is an over-the-top dessert for them. They couldn’t have wished for a more blatant example of what they have labeled as corruption, and rich aristocracy run wild.  If the movement was looking for more fuel, this is stuff powerful enough to launch rockets.

Oh, don’t forget the timing.   This comes only a few weeks after the Goldman Sachs allegation from one of it’s former managers that the institution, as he sees it, only focuses on making as much money as it can with no real concern at all about the investor.  The one-two punch.

So how does JP ever regain credibility? That question is much more perplexing. Almost anything management would say would be guffawed as more corporate ca-ca. Unless there are firings, and perhaps even significant prosecutions emerging from an internal investigation and full cooperation with the feds, couples with severe reforms, it’s likely that no announcement short of that will be heard above the noise of sarcastic laughter and condemnation.  Already the climate appears to show, at least practically, that the high-end, high-rollers are virtually immune to consequences.  They almost operate like their own country with financial diplomatic immunity.

The main job of JPMorgan will not at first be winning back public sentiment.  It will be convincing a nervous and distrusting Congress that significant regulation won’t be necessary—Financial institutions can regulate themselves, thank you.  Good luck.   Some members of Congress have been poised, waiting for the other shoe to drop.  This is it.

The GOP will probably be more reluctant to impose sanctions that will restrict the large and often necessary transactions that keep the financial world afloat, but public pressure during an election year will weigh more heavily than perhaps at other times.  Granted the general public has no idea how the financial world works and what makes it able to keep other financial movement alive.   But here, perception is stronger than reality. The public has a tendency to think “they’re very rich and I’m not, so don’t even think about sparing them.”  Actually that is mild.   Their thoughts are not that polite, but too censored to put to print here.

In summary, nothing short of quick, decisive action that crucifies the offenders, if there are any that can be isolated, will be enough to mitigate the fire-branding brooding in the mind of the public. They want a public hanging, or in more civil terms, jail sentences for those who have played loosely and irresponsibly with billions.  Will that happen?  And what will be the public’s reaction if it happens that no laws or regulations were broken?  (Not likely, but think about the possibility).   In the minds of most of the public, the verdict on Wall Street financial institutions was no credibility, no faith even before this revelation.   In short, I would not want to be the firm having to handle the public relations quagmire of this potential cesspool.  There would likely be too many alligators left, even if you drained the swamp.

To your success, Neal Browne

The timing is curious.  With the New Orleans Saints being so severely penalized for “bounty” hits, as some with the organization are accused of, the league made a gesture that looks like a no-tolerance policy on deliberate, brutal hits, especially for money.  That will likely pacify some of the most ardent critics of the most punishing hits, but addressing the head trauma issue could become the league’s more pressing future issue.

Taking the other side, after a lot of public hand-ringing, it could also blow over and after a bit of headline news, simply fade away as the new season approaches.  Sure, there will be talk, but will there be definitive action?  And if so, how will they enforce it?

As for the public relations aspect, the league took strong and definitive action with New Orleans, even before any convictions have been issued, and while innocence is still being proclaimed.  From a public stance, the league probably had no other recourse.  Why?  Simply because it seemed so blatant.  There was apparently little subtle slight-of-hand hidden metaphors here.  The accusations sound like it was “make a brutal hit, pick up cash!”

PR for the NFL is a bit more tricky than for other companies or organizations.  At least you could argue that it’s different.  Fans are generally less sensitive about hits (in fact some don’t think it’s a problem at all and love to see them, as long as they are not against THEIR team).  So for the NFL, a few high-publicity actions are usually enough, whether they seriously address the problem or not.

Most experts in neurology will confess head hits especially in pro sports do far more damage than anyone in the sport will admit.  After all, admission is liability, or the likelihood of it.  It becomes a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of a different kind.  Not everyone wants to BE in the violence, but many don’t mind paying to see it, as long as it’s not them.

Then there’s the justification that these are high-paid athletes and they know the risks. They get compensated well enough to justify the unfortunate side of the sport’s results.  That’s why it’s a PR tight rope that the NFL walks.  The league definitely needs to APPEAR very concerned. Taking all the action that  SHOULD be perhaps taken…that’s another discussion altogether.

So how will all this resolve itself?  Don’t hold your breath for the perfect outcome.  My prediction:  Much of the same.  Lots of talk about how the league is vitally concerned about safety. Lots of sabre-rattling and worried looks. League spokesmen looking worried about it. Maybe even an announcement about some initiative the league is taking.  Little else.

In a sense, they have done their deed for the year with New Orleans. They have become the example to scare away the bounty demons. They’ve likely angered New Orleans fans and sent a strong message to management around the league. Soon it will all be done and we will be back to normal. After all, football is America’s second “pass” time.   Ouch.

To your success, Neal Browne

This is a case of raw emotions and already-entrenched spokespersons ostensibly rallying to their cause (or getting free publicity for themselves, dare I say) and padding whatever agenda they might have.  Of course there are deep issues here, yet we have an overweight of opinions and a near dearth of facts. But that’s not the way the game is played—activists trumpeted their causes long before the facts were completely clear.  (And who knows, they might not ever be clear).  But most of those activists didn’t need facts.  They had appearances and that is too often enough for them.  Cooler heads did not preside or prevail.

The point here is simply this:  If the police investigators knew Zimmerman’s side of the shooting incident, they seemed to be slow on the trigger, so to speak, in announcing that information. Meanwhile, everyone jumped to their own conclusions, largely fueled by their own predisposed viewpoints and rallying cries.  There was hardly a whisper to be cautious and take this step by step.  In a case like this that involves such elements as racial motivation, stereotyping, neighborhood crime patterns,  and deeply-held assumptions all embedded in uneasy tension, it automatically has all the precursors for explosion—and that’s basically what happened.

The investigators might have had their reasons for not releasing what they either knew or heard.  They might not have solidified that information any sooner–who knows?  But given the power keg environment of the incident, they would have served the public better had they been the first to release what happened, as they heard it and been the leading source for information. The delay allowed the smoldering emotions to erupt into a racial and ethnic forest fire sweeping across the country, the news, and the talk shows.  Of course, some of that you must expect.  But the information handling didn’t help.

The sad conclusion here is that this is an ugly story that won’t get better. Trayvon Martin is dead, Martin’s reputation varies from trouble-maker, to wonderful, helpful teenager.  George Zimmerman is in custody, his reputation shreaded, the facts are disputed, and nobody comes out a winner, no matter what happens.  If Zimmerman is acquitted, activists will label it a coverup.  If he’s not, no punishment will be seen by some as enough.

Add to that the media reports which have gotten some facts correct, but also issued assertions which have no backing.  NBC has been accused of taking excerpts of Zimmerman’s 911 call out of context to make him seem like a racist, and ABC accused of saying Zimmerman’s appearance on the police cameras showed no signs of a struggle or injury.  ABC has backed off those claims but a retraction is like un-ringing the bell.

There is a wagon-full of missteps on the part of nearly everyone involved, the media included (most likely trying to scoop or one-up the other media outlets in a froth to break something astonishing).  Virtually none of this has served the public or the case well.  Nobody gets an A on this one.

Two things I’ve noticed.  One, the activists have had the most memorable (and often most inflammatory) sound bites. Often those are the ones that stick, true or not.   Two, the delay of information created a vacuum for all sorts of other voices to enter the arena and proclaim their sound bites with little factual foundation.  Certainly care must be taken by investigators, but they must realize the longer they keep silent, the more time for rumors to become “facts,” and for people to act on that information.

Police should have acted quickly to take control of the information, keep the media briefed, not dodged the questions they still have not resolved in their investigation, and kept a handle to squeeze the air out of the vacuum they helped create.  It would not have dampened the activist demonstrations, but would have at least forced facts to have a chance to balance the outraged fury of emotions.

To your success, Neal Browne

Add to the insult the public perception—much of America doesn’t trust the largest financial institutions, and they have been making enough dubious headlines on their own over the last year.  Now here is someone inside the ranks saying, “It’s true, it’s true!”

This is a significant trust and image issue for Goldman.  While the CEO replies that Smith’s comments were just a “disgruntled” rant, that doesn’t cut it for Goldman. That is the response most people expected.  You really didn’t think the CEO would say, “Yes, and we have to clean this up now,” did you?  Granted, we don’t know what is actually true and what is not, but whatever the facts are, Goldman clearly got punched in the face and has a very visible black eye. What Smith has charged–from the inside–is that the Emperor has no clothes.

Of course, Smith is getting several million dollars of publicity, should he decide to use it, and he likely has enough in his bank account to weather most any financial storm. Still, that alone can’t be used against him or easily dismiss the charges he has made.  Yes, he did profit from his position at Goldman, but it would be rare and strange had he not.  I think most people realize that he could have had much more (financially) had he kept his mouth shut and remained at the trough.

In the infancy of all of this, we don’t fully know his motives. They might be exactly what he said.  I’m sure reporters will examine below the surface and try to dig up the “newest revelation.”  But if it all proves exactly what he stated, then he will be seen as the courageous David going up against Goliath.

The public is already very distrustful of these huge financial institutions.  One headline that came out right after the revelation shouted “The Corporate Satan.”  Dramatic–yes, but probably the conclusion that many have thought or felt, whether true or not.  This is a factual issue–what is true and what is not?  But it is even more a perception issue--rot from within will topple the tallest tree, and many people believe that at least part of it is true, and not surprised at all.  To have a C-level executive walk out on principles and face the wrath of the financial establishment, and essentially be black-balled in the industry—that takes a titanium backbone.  Right now it seems the public is ready for that and cheering the whistle-blower.

Now, from a PR standpoint, Goldman faces a couple of choices—smear Smith in a “here’s what you don’t know about him” campaign (about he underperformed or secretly didn’t achieve all that much, mentally unstable, or whatever), or dismiss his charges as a _______(and they will figure out a label to attach) or say here are all the ways in which we’ve helped our thousands of esteemed and valued customers you’ve just never heard about.  They might also pull in a “trusted” high-profile figure to be their “face.”

Goldman can hire heavy-duty spin doctors.  The question is will they, and what will be their defense? What happens next and how they respond will be very telling as to what kind of a company Goldman is down deep.  It should be instructive—plus or minus—for all of us to watch.  As they say in the court room, “your witness.”  It’s likely not to be a hung jury.

Your Guide through the Media Jungle, Neal Browne

First, Mid-January, the hideous accident off Italy’s coast where more than 30 people died when the ship hit the rocks and partially sank.  Then almost immediate word that the Captain left the ship almost as soon as he could, followed by the other charges prosecutors are piling up.

Then there was the fire in the engine room of another Costa cruise last week that didn’t cost lives, but produced about a thousand angry, frustrated, exhausted, and irate passengers who were totally without power, showers, air conditioning and food for days. Many of them were more than willing to vent to cameras, reporters, and news crews waiting on the dock as the ship was towed back in.

So other than offering cruises on the cheap, what can Costa do to rescue its reputation? It will take more than a mere “here’s your money back, and by the way, have a free cruise on us.”  That is perhaps a start but by no means a salve for the long term damage to the name and safety concerns.

Carnival owns Costa after buying them out a couple of decades ago.  Right now, it appears that Carnival is keeping the brands separate and taking pains to distance the Carnival brand from the Costa incidents.  While some people will think lightning couldn’t strike twice in the same place (and take the cheapie offer for a cruise), it’s more likely others will pilot away from anything Costa right now.

The only way I would like to have Costa for a client is at a steep, steep price, along with total sway on what needed to be done, and the authority to actually do it.  Given that, here are a few starting suggestions of the basics:

1.  I would ask for total access to the facts. That seems rather foundational, but is absolutely necessary to make sure of exactly what is known and what is not.  You must have the facts to be credible and not look like you are scamming the media. You must also know exactly why what happened happened.  No guess work. Absolute facts, no matter how painful they must be.

2.  Insist on immediate new training, inspections, and total review of all systems now in place. The key is to spot any potential system weaknesses right now while everyone is in the shudder mode.  This could include confidential interviews with average crew members who might know and see things, but feel their job would be in jeopardy if they were to say anything.  In most organizations, there are the rank and file who have the best handle on what is wrong, but are in no position to fix it-–or even admit publicly that there is a problem.  I would want to know if cost concerns are translating into Costa shortcuts.

3. Fix what’s broken and announce in detail how the line is implementing changes immediately and extensively. Wait!  I can already hear the lawyers on my case because to admit to inadequate anything implies that there is significant fault, maybe even negligence, but in this case the aim is to win back the public. The legal aspects will likely take years to sort out. This overhaul approach might even involve some national TV and radio spots (like Toyota had to do after problems with its cars) to begin to assure potential cruisers that these changes will make  Costa the safest cruise line on the ocean…and why that is the case.

4.  Default to context. That is almost always one of my suggestions.  Put things in perspective, while not dismissing the obvious. Whenever you are pained with the particular, always, always try expanding the context. In other words you could say (if it’s true), “We have operated more than 20 cruises per day at any given time, carried more than 135 million passengers to dream destinations and in more than 24 years of operation have had only 2 accidents.  Now with extensive new changes, we are vowing to make Costa even better— the safest and most trustworthy line on the seas.”

5.  Possibly invite the news media on a free cruise to show and demonstrate how new procedures and reforms now in place will do all humanly possible to avert any disaster (or even an incident) and how now Costa now can claim it is doing more than any other line to make cruises safe and secure, and how its standard has exceeded all others.  Reporters might not buy all of your line, but it will at least get some potentially positive coverage, if it’s handled right.  But it must have substance.  You can’t blow smoke at reporters.  At the very least that will backfire on you.

This stuff won’t be cheap.  It will also take a long time, but is absolutely essential to restore faith in its cruise line. Failure to take significant steps will do almost nothing to erase those graphic images from the mind of the people whose spending on cruises keeps Costa in business.

Your guide through the media jungle,  Neal Browne

Great ideas or material and a time crunch seemingly don’t always work together, but they can actually work in your favor if you consider the overall context. Good material is vital, maybe just not right now.

If you have a great pitch for a story, it’s essential to at least watch the newscast or show you’d like to pitch.  If it’s radio, listen to a few shows to get the rhythm and feel of how the flow goes.  What topics do they often discuss?  Which ones do they avoid, if there are any?   Are they just tired of talking about some?  What have you heard and what have you not ever heard on that show?  What topics have gotten the most response?

It’s much like a job interview.  If you have no idea what the company does, how are you going to convince a hiring manager that you are the person for the job?  You only appear as someone who wants a job—any job—and that is an instant dismissal.

Same with a producer.  If you feel like you know their audience and how their show or newcast is oriented (for example, a mostly women’s audience, or a morning feel as families sometimes awkwardly rush to start the day, or a business segment with lots of consumer news, or unusual gadgets or electronic toys, or the latest apps), then you have more focus on what would fit and how.

What would make that producer say that what you offer is of great value to the audience that’s listening or watching?  Every producer wants a great product (their show or newscast).  Whatever you can do to make sure you help them  achieve that will produce great returns.

Said another way, it’s not about you or your product.  It’s not about your ego either.  It’s totally about what would interest the audience. It’s easy to be self-serving about this as you say, “My product or service is wonderful!”   Here, you have to be your own worst critic.  If you weren’t attached to this personally, why would anybody else care?  That’s a question you must ask and answer.

You must come at this with a very critical perspective in order to truly “sell” the idea.  What are all the reasons that people would NOT be interested in this?   But don’t stop there. Don’t be defeated or discouraged.  Use that exercise to come up with all those reasons, and then develop the opposite—how can you truly make this appealing in several ways?

If you simply get stuck on the “being critical” part, you could doom yourself.  This stage of negativity is only helpful if you see it as homework. Make sure you aren’t surprised by the objections that some people, or a producer or reporter, might raise before warming up to your service or product.  The homework is to anticipate all the objections and formulate great reasons why those objections don’t hold up.

Don’t be argumentative.  Just be prepared and reasoned.   That’s the negative prep side.

On the positive pitch, think of all the reasons that your product or service would make life better or easier for the audience. Everything you think of should be with the idea that you can help them save time, money, hassle, do a task faster and easier, reduce their stress level—whatever THEY would say is of value.

I suggest coming up with  multiple ways the audience would benefit, especially for your own mental exercise.

Then narrow it down to about 3-4 major reasons.   That is about all the time you will have if your idea is to air.

Remember, people only have a limited amount of absorption, since they might be multi-tasking at the time your segment airs.  Also, the producer is rarely going to give you more than about 2-3 minutes—maximum.

Generally you can make three solid points and that’s about it.

So how does all of that fit with the reduced time a reporter or producer has to deal with you and what you’d like to pitch?    With increased demands, the reporter or producer usually has little help and more to do.  While they don’t have time to deal with the unprepared, vague, rambling person, they do have time to incorporate well-thought-out material.

First ask the producer or reporter WHEN is a good time to briefly talk? (Or they might want the initial proposal via email).  Let them say.  Then keep your pitch focused and brief.  Respect their time.

Anything you can to do deliver and make their jobs easier is a plus. Reporters and producers love the shortest distance between two points—if what’s on the other end is good for their audience.

Good to great material provided quickly is a relief for them, and if you can deliver, they will not only appreciate that, they are much more likely to begin a give and take relationship with you and possibly some other ideas you might have.   You can start to become a reliable source for them.

Packaging is important on your part (I’ll deal with that another time), but delivery is the key.  If you can do that, you can provide what the reporter or producer wants in the shortest amount of time.  That is the appeal.  And one that works.

Your guide through the media jungle, Neal Browne

I’m trying to resist the ol’…”back in my day…” but it’s painful not to.  The entire integrity of a newscast was that it was independent and not influenced by the sales and advertising department–or the extra dollars an anchor or host could earn with endorsements. That might not have been puristically true, but it was close. Any hint of mixing was taboo.  Might it have occasionally happened?  Sure, but it was still a technical no-no.   At least there was an agreed standard that those two were two separate entities, and the believability of the news content was totally separated from whether someone’s toes were being trampled in a news story.  You didn’t hear, “let’s not run that because they are one of our advertisers.”

Now delivery is done so smoothly between news and product that unless you are super alert, the segues are meant to deftly lead you into the product pitch.  ”Hi, I’m Arthur Anchorman and do you remember last summer that record rainstorm we had?  Well, my windows started leaking so I had Windowman Windows come out and ….”  Hard to notice when the news ends and the sell begins. Why are they doing it?  You already know—money.  The triumph of the buck has now filtered into “newsfotainment casts” as they are now.   Back then when they paid even less, I certainly would have liked to have had the extra dollars, but crossing that ethical line is a major infraction, as I see it.

Is there any legitimate defense of such a growing (now rampant and common) practice?  Of course!  The individuals who snuggle up to us every morning and afternoon drive are not solely news people.  They are news and morning show Personalities.  They tread the nebulous ground that is a little of both, but neither fully just one enclave. Therefore, it is reasoned, they are your trusted friend, news is simply a content commodity delivered, and strict news guidelines (of the past) are not just blurred–they’re almost nonexistent.

How will you ever know on those shows if nearly everything is or definitely could be subject to sponsorship infiltration?  There is no line now and the public, yes, all of us, the listeners, will ultimately suffer more for this error.   It’s like being a little bit pregnant.  If it happens frequently in the presentation of “news” how will you be able to be sure what is relatively unfiltered and what is not?

At stake is the reliability and credibility of the way we get what’s called news these days–something that is already dubious.  And since the barrier has been hurtled, it will not only affect us, but the coming generation, which tends to think less than critically about sources:  ”If the internet has it, or my friend says it, it’s probably true.”

So with this rant, I’ve most likely earned my Ol’ Codger badge fairly.  Still, the ramifications are widespread and deeper than we think. How can you trust the water downstream if there is little quality control upstream?  And what happens if the product they endorse (or the company) does something really wrong?  To what degree with that affect the way they deal with that “news” story?  Maybe it’s not that they’ve crossed the line.  That would be too drastic.  It’s just that the line goes down the middle and they conveniently have one foot on each side—comfortably. Be aware.

To your success, Neal Browne

After Romney’s Florida victory, one of his phrases now occupies that spotlight—”I’m not concerned about the very poor….”  Sounds pretty damaging and out of touch with middle America, much less the poor.   Of course that is not the end of his phrase.

He went on to say…because they have several safety nets to help them out.  Still, guess what was picked up and quoted more?  Activist groups, I predict, along with the Democrats, are continually collecting fodder for their anti-GOP campaign that will portray Mitt Romney as a quadzillionaire who has no idea what a gallon of milk costs for the average person.  He will be pictured as the rich elite candidate who probably doesn’t even lower himself to fly first class, much less coach.

Is that fair reporting?  Not from a headline perspective, but who’s looking past that?  Not enough people. Otherwise they would dismiss it and move on with their opinions and their lives.  But here’s the point: A top level candidate (those who are still left standing and have a chance) cannot afford, even once, to utter a careless phrase.   Neither can you.  It’s a royal pain to candid conversation, but when you move up the ranks, you must drop the off-handed remarks.  When you rise to the stratosphere, everything must be purposed, focused, and calculated.

So, if you’re reading this, chances are you’re not running for President (I’m a realist).   Does all this apply to you?  Absolutely.  When you are in a leadership position, you must, absolutely must, watch your words with a microscope.  Sometime, somehow, they will be misconstrued and taken out of context, but your job is to make that so rare that the effect is negligible, or nonexistent. That’s why precise messaging is so important. There really is no room at all for flippant phrasing. You must measure and test as much as you can with each message. Massage your messages until they are perfect.   Then either memorize them and stick to them or risk going off course and possibly ending up in the ditch.

It was much like Romney’s remark about him liking to fire people.  He was speaking about health care services that don’t deliver as promised, but the phrase taken alone was more than unfortunate.  It was poorly planned and executed.

He could have avoided the negative Bain Capital stereotype had he said ” Every American wants good healthcare.  I want the right to choose my provider.  I don’t want to  be stuffed and pushed into a system that can’t even deliver the basics correctly.”  Instead, that phrase he used paints him (fairly or unfairly) as a ruthless corporate tyrant who gets his jollies out of firing people (in general, not specifically connected with poor healthcare service).

For all the air time that Romney or Gingrich have gotten (and they’ve secured the most) it is inevitable that slip-ups will happen.  For any candidate running for President, maintaining simple sanity is a full-time job.   Still, vicariously we get to see the potential damage that even one careless remark can make. Every word is important.  Learn and do accordingly.

To your success, Neal Browne

Now it appears that the enjoying firing people phrase is being applied to the capital company with which he has been associated and the jobs that have been eliminated through what will be painted as corporate raider takeovers where employees are the pawns that get trampled.  The Romney rollover.  Little guys getting obliterated by the big corporate machine.   Innocent employees of some unprofitable companies or ones at least needing turn-arounds that get steamrolled into the ground so that they can be resurrected as leaner and profitable—hardly the brutal message he likely wants to convey.

No, the two technically aren’t connected, but all this points out how carefully you must craft your sound bites, and how careless words uttered can come back to haunt you.  It’s bound to happen sometime, especially in the heat of battle—and in a tense campaign at that.  Whether you want the phrases you utter to be skillfully re-connected to themes opponents want to push, you must always keep that in mind.  The slip-ups will happen.  It’s just a matter of time, but they reinforce the need for anyone in the public eye to make sure that the phrases are pre-formed and pre-tested and staunchly memorized before they are aired. It’s those off-the-cuff responses that can be fuel for your worst enemies.

It’s a long campaign and whether that utterance will live long or die will be decided both with Romney’s Republican contenders, or the Democratic ads later.  Either way, it should form a lesson to all—stick to your message, watch your phrasing, and be aware of how what comes out of the mouth can quickly become the unfortunate knife that wounds you.

To your success, Neal Browne