Trump: Accomplished Ringmaster of the Communication Circus

Donald Trump can provoke and command attention, but his brand of communication may not work for everyone.

Donald Trump can provoke and command attention, but his brand of communication may not work for everyone.

Donald Trump has turned the presidential race, political correctness and polite discourse on their head. So, is he exemplifying the traits of a good or bad communicator? That probably is a matter influenced by your political persuasion, but a fair analysis suggests he has both good and bad communication traits.

In what one voter called the “post-pragmatic” period in American history, Trump offers passion over policy. He insults instead of ingratiates. He emotes rather than explains.

The Donald’s mix of provocative statements, nonstop tweets and 24/7 media availability has managed to smother the campaign fires of his opponents. He calls a Fox News analyst a bimbo and gets more coverage than a candidate who unveils a 10-point plan on a vital issue.

Critics say Trump is playing on fears, inflaming biases and inciting anger. Supporters say he is merely channeling pent-up political reaction to government rigor mortis.

Regardless of whether Trump continues to fly high in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, there are some lessons to learn from how he campaigns. Writing for ragan.com, Clare Lane lists some of Trump's best takeaways:

•  He has a core message that he repeats over and over.

•  He taps into the emotional “truth” of his audience.

•  He speaks in language his audience understands.

•  He knows how to reframe questions and issues.

•  He is intentionally different than his opponents.

Trump tells big crowds at his rallies that he is running for president to “make America great again.” He has turned a tagline into a mantra, a phrase into a brand.

Perhaps ironically as a billionaire, Trump empathizes with people who feel downtrodden. He knows their hot buttons and he isn’t hesitant to push them.

It’s no accident that Trump has made racist and sexist remarks and dismissed political correctness as a liberal conspiracy. They are calculated comments to connect with deep-seated feelings and fears in the voters he seeks to attract.

Trump is a master at turning around questions. He pivots to make his points, without worrying whether he answers a question. Even when pressed, Trump shifts the topic.

From his cartoonish hair to his braggadocio behavior to his testy tweets, Trump is unparalleled. There is no one like him. In a field of dozens, being so distinctive has made him the center of attention, which he maintains by consistently “surprising” everyone. He even got a full news cycle’s worth of coverage for staying overnight once in Iowa instead of flying back to his New York penthouse.

If those are his good traits, what are his bad ones? It is pretty much the same list.

Trump barks his key message because he doesn’t have – or doesn’t want to share – many details of what he would do if elected president. Yes, we know he would tear up some executive orders, but how would he build that huge wall between the United States and Mexico, how would he deal with Chinese leaders, how would he increase the wages of average Americans? And what exactly about America’s past does he view as so great to warrant its revival?

Trump is long on passion, but short on persuasion. Sooner or later, when emotions cool, you want some real answers.

Speaking the language of those you seek to reach is critical, but not all-encompassing. Sometimes leadership requires speaking above the crowd, raising its sights. You can summon the “better angels” of ourselves with familiar phrases used in powerful ways.

People who conduct media training teach how to bridge from awkward questions back to key messages. Sometimes, however, the most provocative thing to do is actually answer that awkward question.

Being different is a good thing, but it isn’t the only thing. Building trust, showing emotional intelligence and displaying grace under pressure count, too.

There should be no argument that Trump is an accomplished ringmaster in the communication circus. What may seem like indulgence may, in fact, be a disciplined, if highly irregular, approach to gaining and retaining notice.

Consider Trump’s decision not to participate in the final GOP presidential debate before next week’s Iowa caucuses. Was it really meant to snub Megyn Kelly because of her questioning in an earlier debate? Or was it a shrewd maneuver to thwart the plans of his Republican rivals to gang up on him during the debate?

Like him or not, Trump is a study in how to communicate. Some good, some not so good. He definitely is not a loser, though, even if you view him as a lousy candidate.

Gary Conkling is president and co-founder of CFM Strategic Communications, and he leads the firm's PR practice, specializing in crisis communications. He is a former journalist, who later worked on Capitol Hill and represented a major Oregon company. But most importantly, he’s a die-hard Ducks fan. You can reach Gary at  garyc@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at@GaryConkling


Two Visions for Successful News Outlets

Philadelphia newspapers are entering a new era after H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest, right, handed over ownership of the Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com to the nonprofit Institute for Journalism in New Media. Meanwhile, journalist-turned-entrepreneur Steve Brill, left, says newspapers fail to understand how to operate paywalls and produce the kind of content readers will have to pay to get. 

Philadelphia newspapers are entering a new era after H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest, right, handed over ownership of the Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com to the nonprofit Institute for Journalism in New Media. Meanwhile, journalist-turned-entrepreneur Steve Brill, left, says newspapers fail to understand how to operate paywalls and produce the kind of content readers will have to pay to get. 

Philadelphia’s newspapers are entering the uncharted territory of nonprofit ownership. Meanwhile, journalist-turned-entrepreneur Steve Brill says newspapers are clueless about paywalls and generating the content readers will pay to read.

For Portlanders, both trends may seem like more promising options than witnessing the slow shrinkage of The Oregonian.

In Philadelphia, H.F. “Gerry” Lenfest handed over ownership of the Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com to the Institute for Journalism in New Media, a newly created arm of the Philadelphia Foundation. The keys to the publications came with a $20 million endowment from Lenfest.

But largesse won’t keep the presses rolling in Philadelphia. Earnings from the endowment will be given as grants for reporting projects and journalistic innovation. The publications will retain independent management and remain dependent on advertising and subscription revenues.

While reaction in Philadelphia was generally positive, Brill is cajoling newspapers to take bolder steps that may seem counterintuitive to newspaper owners. Brill says newspapers should beef up their reporting staffs to produce content that people will pay to read through paywalls. The challenge today, Brill says, isn’t the idea. It’s having anything left in the newsroom worth paying for.

"We had a meeting at one big paper – I think it was the Atlanta Journal Constitution,” Brill told James Warren, writing for Poynter. "They were psyched to do this, but one editor walked us out of the building and said, 'It's a good idea but I'm not sure we still have anything left to sell.’"

Brill cited an example of a Montana newspaper with a successful paywall. "They were covering the local school board, local politics, local sports – and people wanted to buy it,” he said.

Categorizing newspaper owners as something less than “swashbucklers,” Brill predicts, "Some smart venture capitalist is going to bottom feed a large company and bring in people who do it right. That means beefing up the website, making it the place for information and news in a community and getting people to log in so often, you will be able to get by with only printing, say, once a week, maybe on Sunday. And online will be a seven-day-a-week product that everybody will be happy with and will be self-sustaining.”

Brill sees his mission as "hand holding with publishers and people in newsrooms to get them to support investing in the newsroom.”

"This is not a group of business people who are real business people,” he says. "They either inherited monopolies or were, by then, part of big chains in the hands of debt holders. The industry wasn't full of high quality, big thinkers, in terms of the people running it, since for many years it didn't have to be.

"For years, if you had a paper, for many advertisers, you were the only game in town. If the Oldsmobile dealer wanted to announce a sale, you got the ad. Now there isn't even an Oldsmobile dealer, and the car dealers who are left have multiple ways to market their cars and infinitely more efficient ways to market used cars. The underpinning of the business was eviscerated and in many places the people who inherited the businesses weren't prepared, since they never had to really compete.”

Brill believes investigative journalism is key to paid content, though he concedes readers are unlikely to be willing to pay its full cost.

“In the history of the world, if you are talking about quality journalism, where you have to pay people to do real reporting and go travel to do interviews, it would be hard to name the quality journalism organization that existed solely on advertising revenue,” Brill admits. "The closest is the broadcast networks in the '60s, '70s and '80s when they had 90 percent of the eyeballs in the country. And even then their news operations mostly didn't make money and were really considered a public service.”

Brill, 65, earned his cred in 1978 with an exposé book about the Teamsters Union. A graduate of Yale Law School, Brill founded Court TV (now truTV), a cable and satellite channel that gives viewers an inside look at courtrooms. In 1998, he launched Brill’s Content as a media watchdog, which ended with a controversial piece alleging independent counsel Ken Starr leaked grand jury proceedings involving the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Brill has written attention-grabbing pieces about educational inequality and profit-making gaming in the health care industry. He most recently produced a 15-part documentary about Johnson & Johnson titled, “America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker.”

Gary Conkling is president and co-founder of CFM Strategic Communications, and he leads the firm's PR practice, specializing in crisis communications. He is a former journalist, who later worked on Capitol Hill and represented a major Oregon company. But most importantly, he’s a die-hard Ducks fan. You can reach Gary at  garyc@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at@GaryConkling.

The Profound Transition of the News

It isn't just the news business in transition. The switch to mobile devices is driving news content and delivery in new directions.

It isn't just the news business in transition. The switch to mobile devices is driving news content and delivery in new directions.

Everyone acknowledges the news business is undergoing a fundamental transition. That transition, however, may be more profound than we realize.

It is obvious print and electronic news media are moving rapidly to establish or enhance their online presence. Less obvious is the shift to delivering the news on mobile platforms such as smartphones.

Gone are the days when a large percentage of the population sat around the kitchen table in the morning reading the newspaper or coming home at night from work, putting on slippers and watching the nightly news on TV. Nowadays, people experience the news almost constantly on electronic devices. 

Instead of making a point of intersecting with daily news events, readers and viewers today are soaked with a persistent shower of news, which they tend to read in spurts.

News people talk about the reality of a 24/7 news cycle, with fluid deadlines and an imperative to publish first (and clean up later). That 24/7 news cycle is paralleled by a similar change in news consumption habits. People expect to find out what's happening – not just what happened – when they light up their phones and tablets.

The news has a shadow in the form of social media. News outlets use social media to promote their stories. But social media itself has become a barometer of what's trending, an indicator of what's collectively viewed as important, or at least interesting, in the moment.

While websites, especially news outlet websites, routinely feature multimedia content, social media sites increasingly enable one-click access to videos. It is another sign of the news reaching viewers without going through a news channel.

New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet reflected on these changes in an interview published over the weekend in the newspaper's "Sunday Review" section. The Times, he said, has divided its prodigious news resources into a "print hub," responsible for the newspaper, and a video team.

The video team's assignment, Banquet says, will be to identify and pursue stories that appeal to corporate advertisers. However astute that may be as a revenue-generating stream, it may overlook why viewers are fascinated with video.

Because video is no longer the hostage of expensive or unwieldy production equipment, almost anyone can shoot it and edit into a comprehensible story. The appeal of video is its authenticity. It puts the viewer on the scene to see for himself or herself.

More importantly, video works a lot better than a lot of words on the small displays of smartphones. You don't have to read about what's happening right now; you can see it and experience it in something closer to real time.

News outlets have tried to latch onto this real-time fascination by emphasizing "breaking news." Too often, however, that has become a path to covering fires, shootings and ice storms in lieu of more challenging stories about policy debates, community problems and disturbing trends.

The real power of video is to tell a story in a compact, emotive manner that holds strong appeal to a wide range of viewers. Videos are very versatile. As we've seen, they can show a police officer gunning down an unarmed man or they can make a complex story approachable and understandable.

As news producers race to catch up with news viewers, those of us who pitch stories on behalf of clients have to don running shoes, too. Pitching will still be a person-to-person activity, but what we pitch needs to change dramatically.

News releases prepared by public relations professionals have already become more sophisticated, with visual assets, infographics, B-roll video, charts and links. Now, we will need to go further.

With shrunken news staffs and heightened demand for video content, news outlets will be more open to accepting volunteered video content. This is a great opportunity to tell stories that otherwise would have little chance of ever seeing the light of day in traditional or new media. It also is a moment that requires building trust so we aren't pushing brand messages in the guise of news or distributing intentionally distorted, one-sided information.

The key takeaway is that how the news is distributed and read will have a strong bearing on what news is conveyed. The transition underway in the news media is causing a transition in what is viewed as news. Consumers of news, who now have an exploding number of options to get "news," will have to take more responsibility for the economic survival of the news channels they want and trust.

News influencers, including PR professionals, need to shoulder some of the same responsibility if we want trusted news channels to exist. 

Tags:    News, news coverage, news channels, social media, smartphones, news videos, story pitching, marketing PR, public affairs, Dean Baquet, CFM PR

Words to Quit Living By in 2016

Awesomesauce, one of the quirky words or phrases everyone should consider dropping from their vocabulary in 2016. 

Awesomesauce, one of the quirky words or phrases everyone should consider dropping from their vocabulary in 2016. 

One of the virtues of English is its adaptability, which also can be one of its most distressing downfalls as it adopts annoying words and phrases.

Here are some that you might consider excising from your vocabulary in 2016.

1. Literally: This is a perfectly good word that has been hijacked as a catch-phrase that distorts its actual meaning. People say “literally” much like they once said “really.” For example, if you said, “He literally stood on his head,” you could just as well say, “He stood on his head.”

2. Awesomesauce: This was cute, sort of, in a credit card company ad, but it is a silly, sophomoric expression, pretty much like “secret sauce.” Of course, if you want to sound silly and sophomoric, these are perfect word choices.

3. For all intents and purposes: We all know what it means, more or less, but it serves mostly as a 5-word delay of what you want to say. Skip the prelude and spit out the main message.

4. Walk it back: We have sports broadcasters to thank for this animated version of “strike that.” Walk your dog, not your retraction.

5. Next level: Experts tell us to take it to the “next level.” What does that mean? It sounds more like directions at a multi-story department store. “Where can I find men’s underwear?” “Next level, sir.”

6. Little did I know: This is one of those phrases that don’t require a confession. We’ll be able to tell on our own.

7. Leverage: This is a word borrowed from physics and construction. I admit to using it regularly as a short cut for explaining how to exploit an advantage. Leverage is used correctly, just too often. Give it a rest in 2016.

8. Elephant in the room: When originally used, this was an arresting way to refer to the big issue left undiscussed in a meeting. Don’t pen in your elephant. Just say, “Let’s talk about the big issue that we are avoiding.”

9. Par for the course: Golf is on the decline, and so should the use of this tired phrase. Ditto for “bang for your buck,” “we lack the bandwidth” and “think outside the box.” They served their purpose and now deserve a respectful retirement.

10. He/she is a rock star: Meant as a compliment, this reference is muddy at best. Do you mean he/she has a big following, a good voice, an outrageous lifestyle? It isn’t appreciably better to compliment someone as a “guru,” “jedi” or “ninja,” which all have a mixed bag of qualities. Try complimenting someone on what they actually are good at.

11. FOMO: Yet another in an endless line of acronyms, “Fear of Missing Out” seems more akin to a psychological problem than a useful phrase. The good news is that FOMO-phobia is curable. Resolve not to miss out. If you do, look for a BOGO.

12. Netflix and chill: Okay, I admit I had to look up what this meant as code for a hookup. Clever, especially with a gratuitous product mention for Netflix. This phrase should go in the same trashy bin as “twerking” and “fap.” You can look up “fap” for yourself.

Of course, no list of New Year’s word resolutions would be complete without a desperate plea to end the contagion of Valley-Speak. “How, like, could you, like, do that?” I mean, like, how can you seriously talk like that?

Nothing drives me to distraction quicker than the ubiquitous overuse of “like,” the generational substitute for “umm” or “uhhh,” which may date back to the prehistoric hominid period. Hominids were just figuring out how to speak. Today’s generation of “like” speakers seems bent on returning to those primitive roots.

My most important New Year’s word resolution – don’t utter “like” in my presence unless you literally like something. Kapish?

Good Communications = Good Business

A recent Fortune 500 company survey says chief communications officers are gaining more access to C-suite decision-making. That's a good trend, but it's also an old trend that somehow got sidetracked.

A recent Fortune 500 company survey says chief communications officers are gaining more access to C-suite decision-making. That's a good trend, but it's also an old trend that somehow got sidetracked.

A recent corporate survey reflected a growing reliance in the C-Suite on chief communications officers. While this is encouraging, it is about time. Or, more accurately, about time again.

"These best-in-class corporate affairs officers shoulder a broadening scope of responsibilities and an increasing mandate to act as high-level strategic advisers to CEOs, and they frequently serve as members of the senior leadership team," according to a Korn Ferry Institute survey.

Good news, but the public relations profession in the United States began as senior advisers, usually reporting to the president of a company. Only over time did PR became a department that was shuttled down the hall. PR became a corporate function, not a source of valued advice.

In fact, heads of PR departments struggled to be in the room when key corporate decisions were made. Sometimes they were given directions, but never consulted on matters revolving around communications.

There may be many explanations for why the role of a senior communications officer has been resurrected and accorded more respect. Certainly one reason is the rise of online content marketing and the eclipse of traditional advertising. Customer engagement puts a higher premium on two-way communications, and brands can be negatively impacted by an ill-advised CEO tweet or an inappropriate or ill-timed post on Facebook by a staffer.

In a digital world where everyone with a laptop, tablet and smartphone is an editor, communication strategy and style plays a larger role in cultivating and maintaining a brand.

Internal communications is no longer just about a bland note from the CEO or pictures from the holiday party, but a forum for continuous improvement and an advance warning system of competitive trouble.

A communications crisis can happen any time, requiring companies to respond rapidly using tools like Twitter to provide real-time updates to the media, employees and impacted communities.

While companies certainly need hands on deck to pitch stories, write ads and engage on social media, they also need a voice or voices at the very top level to ensure corporate strategies reflect sound communication strategy. That's where senior PR counselors started and, hopefully, that's where they will return.

Embedding smart communications into an overall corporate strategy is good business. And it has been good business for a long time.

A White House Lesson on Choosing Words Wisely

In his condemnation of Donald Trump last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest reminded us all that a slight misuse of a word in a press conference can create lots of confusion in the news. 

In his condemnation of Donald Trump last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest reminded us all that a slight misuse of a word in a press conference can create lots of confusion in the news. 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest proved last week that a careless word in a press conference can ignite a media firestorm. 
 
Taking to the podium to condemn Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, Earnest said: “The first thing a president does, when he or she takes the oath of office, is to swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And the simple fact is, that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president.”
 
As the word “disqualifies” rapidly made its way across the web in headlines, sound bites and new memes about Trump, Earnest’s statement incidentally convinced many Americans that he actually had been booted out of the race. 

That afternoon, tweets paired with the hashtag #TrumpIsDisqualifiedParty soared to the top of Twitter’s list of trending topics. As a testament to how viral a tiny misstatement can become, in the week since, the hashtag has made millions of impressions on Twitter and some news organizations even doubled back with stories making it abundantly clear that Trump was not disqualified. 
 
The reaction to Earnest’s statement is an extreme example of some of the greatest challenges spokesmen face in dealing with the media. As the news industry relies more on controversial sound bites and the public takes less time to seek out the greater context beyond a headline or a tweet, it’s increasingly important to choose words carefully. 
 
It’s safe to assume Earnest meant to say that Trump’s idea makes him “unqualified” for the presidency. But to many, the point was lost in his phrasing and the ensuing coverage. 
 
White House: Donald Trump Muslim plan 'disqualifies' him from presidency,” a CNN headline read, perfectly encapsulating the common response across the media landscape.

Hard to blame the media for jumping on this. The blame rests with Earnest for being careless with what he said.

This should reinforce the need for scripting what you say before talking to the media, paying special attention to what not to say. It takes discipline for spokespeople to say what they need to say and no more.

Crafting a relevant key message and wrapping it into a quotable sound bite takes time, and it demands practice to pull it off.

Media training helps. But common sense helps, too. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to recognize words, phrases or expressions that will create a headline. As an experienced communications professional, Earnest should have known better when he uttered the word "disqualified." Even "unqualified" would have been a headline-grabber. He, after all, is the White House press secretary, not a TV commentator.

Word choices can make a huge difference in conveying your point and not letting the story line – or a headline – get away from you. In a world of skimmer-readers, the headline is all they may see and ingest.

Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter. Would you overlook a showstopper line, regardless of whether the spokesperson meant to say it or not?
 
No matter how long an interview goes or how much you have to say before it’s done, reporters  look for just a few punchy quotes to inject into a story. Often a single quote defines the story, yet you never know which one a reporter will use. So, always choose your words wisely.
 

The Too-Much Answer

The spokesperson's role isn't to gush information, but to deliver a key message with words that a reporter can quote and an audience can grasp.

The spokesperson's role isn't to gush information, but to deliver a key message with words that a reporter can quote and an audience can grasp.

Eager spokespersons sometimes share too much information when answering questions, obscuring the key message they intended to highlight.

Spokespersons who turn into gushers when asked questions typically fail to know their mission, which is to deliver a message, not act like an encyclopedia.

Saying the right thing with just-enough language requires discipline. That usually comes from media training and experience. The kind of experience when your key message is omitted from a story and replaced by something less important, trivial or wrong.

Don't blame the reporter, who has to make sense of what you say and turn it into a short clip for TV or radio or a couple of quotes for a print or online article. If the reporter can't decipher your central point in your flurry of words, blame yourself for creating the confusion.

There is a fine line between a tight response and a terse response. A terse response can come across in the interview, and later on air, as evasive. A tight response, if delivered confidently and conversationally, can convey a sense of command by the spokesperson, increasing their believability. The only way most spokespersons gain that confidence is through practice. You need to now what you need to say and practice how to say it effectively.

Media trainers encourage chiseling key messages into sound bites. That may sound contrived, but the idea is to zero in on a message and the best way to express it. Not only will that help to ensure it is quoted, it will make the message more comprehensible.

In this regard, the spokesperson role is more like a playwright and an actor. You start with a goal, then think like a playwright how to present it – the words, the scenery, the staging. The actor's responsibility is to make the words come alive with his or her voice and body language.

Another critical aspect of media training is the art of bridging – how you take a question and turn it back to your key message. Instead of learning strong bridging phrases, some spokespersons think out loud and wander toward an answer, which may not be all that well thought out. The ill-considered answer too often is a launch pad for additional questions that pull the interview far away from your key point, maybe even into regions you sought to avoid.

Spokespersons are chosen because of their knowledge of a subject and/or their job title. However, their key message can be swamped by over-sharing or feeling they must get everything on the record. Digressions, windy explanations and technical jargon exasperate most reporters, at best, and confound them, at worst.

Transparency for a spokesperson involves telling the truth in a way that is meaningful and can be heard. Too much information is often the enemy of the truth. It buries what is important under the weight of interesting, but non-essential facts.

The best spokesperson is the one who knows what to say – and what not to say. The best spokesperson thinks about connecting with his or her audience through 12 seconds on air or two paragraphs in print.

Working with All Generations

 

Working with colleagues from a different generation presents a number of communication challenges. But with a few key principles, it's possible to bridge the generation gap in the workplace.  

Working with colleagues from a different generation presents a number of communication challenges. But with a few key principles, it's possible to bridge the generation gap in the workplace.  

While working with multiple generations in the office and with clients is nothing new, the digital era constantly brings about new challenges in communication.

Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and Generation X (early 1960s-early '80s) prefer emails and face-to-face communication, while Millennials (roughly 1982-2004) text and use social networks, like Twitter and Instagram, and messaging apps like Snapchat to communicate. 

There seems to be a new social media tool emerging every day, and while Millennials seem to instantly understand them, older workers often feel overwhelmed. In reality, too much reliance on one method can alienate coworkers and clients, making it difficult to communicate with someone from another generation with a different preference.  

There is a generational difference in formality, too. Suits have turned into jeans – and not just on casual Fridays. Abbreviated stream-of-conscious communication is replacing anguishing over a letter or email.

In many workplaces, the traditional at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday at your desk has been replaced with telecommuting. Measuring productivity now involves judging the quality of your work product rather than how many hours it took you to do it. 

So, in today’s fast changing workplace, how can coworkers from different generations work effectively with each other and their clients? Here are some tips. 

1. Understand work styles. Rather than assuming your communication style is best, notice how different coworkers and clients prefer to communicate. 

Does someone come to your office to talk instead of texting? Does a client respond to your phone call by email? Learn how others like to communicate and use it. If you’re not sure, just ask.  

2. Share perceptions and values. You can often avoid generational conflicts by learning one another’s perceptions and values. 

A Boomer may find the lack of formality and manners of a Millennial offensive, while Millennials may feel their opinions are not considered or appreciated. 

3. Be willing to learn. As an older Gen Xer, I tend to dismiss the newest social media tool by telling myself “it’s a waste of time” or “ it’s just a fad, so no need to learn it." 

But don’t be fooled. Older workers should always be willing to learn new communication tools since they will need them when working with younger clients. Don’t be afraid to ask the younger workers in the office for help. 

The opposite is true for younger workers. Abbreviations and short, incomplete thoughts are fine between friends, but that’s not a good way to communicate with clients. Learning how to write well is a trans-generational necessity, so be willing to learn from others on what makes a good writer.  

4. Realize the strength in all generations. The best communicators are comfortable with all generations of communication tools, and they aren’t afraid to try out new ones. Since most clients will be multi-generational, valuing the strengths of each generation’s communication style guarantees the best value to one’s client – and a more cohesive workplace.  

Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong

640x-1.jpg

Harvard's Greg Mankiw, author of the most popular college introductory economics textbook, is often regarded as America's econ teacher. He famously refers to his "Principles of Economics" as "my favorite textbook," and I must admit that it's also my favorite. It's written in a clear, explanatory style and covers the basics of most important theories in modern economics. 

But Mankiw's book, like every introductory econ textbook I know of, has a big problem. Most of what's in it is probably wrong. 

In the last three decades, the economics profession has undergone a profound shift. The rise of information technology and new statistical methods has dramatically increased the importance of data and empirics. This means that many professional economists are no longer, as empirical pioneer David Card put it, "mathematical philosophers." Instead, they are more like scientists, digging through mountains of evidence to find precious grains of truth. 

And what they have found has often been revolutionary. The simple theories we teach in Econ 101 classes work once in a while, but in many important cases they fail. 

For example, Econ 101 theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job -- supply matches demand. Less productive workers earn less, but they are still employed. If you set a price floor -- a lower limit on what employers are allowed to pay -- then it will suddenly become un-economical for companies to retain all the workers whose productivity is lower than that price floor. In other words, minimum wage hikes should quickly put a bunch of low-wage workers out of a job. 

That's theory. Reality, it turns out, is very different. In the last two decades, empirical economists have looked at a large number of minimum wage hikes, and concluded that in most cases, the immediate effect on employment is very small. It's only in the long run that minimum wages might start to make a big difference. 

That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, of course. It probably only describes a small piece of what is really going on in the labor market. In reality, employment probably depends on a lot more than just today's wage level -- it depends on predictions of future wages, on long-standing employment relationships and on a host of other things too complicated to fit into the tidy little world of Econ 101. 

For academic economists, that's no problem. If existing theories explain only a sliver of reality, they simply roll up their sleeves and get to work. Many labor economists are now working on complex theories that model the process of employees looking for work and employers looking for people to hire. For professional theorists, empirical failures simply mean more work to do. 

But for Econ 101 classes, explaining only a small slice of reality isn't good enough. If economics majors leave their classes thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct, they will make bad decisions in both business and politics. We shouldn't train tomorrow's business elite to have faith in theories that have only a small amount of empirical success. 

Another example is welfare. Econ 101 theory tells us that welfare gives people an incentive not to work. If you subsidize leisure, simple theory says you will get more of it. 

But recent empirical studies have shown that such effects are usually very small. Occasionally, welfare programs even make people work more. For example, a study in Uganda found that grants for poor people looking to improve their skills resulted in people working much more than before. 

This has big political implications. If we train tomorrow's business elites to think that welfare encourages laziness, they may block support for policies that really improve the lives of the poor -- and the economic productivity of the whole nation. But this is precisely what Econ 101 is now doing. 

So what's the solution? Complex theories sometimes do a better job of explaining reality than simple ones, but these theories are way beyond the mathematical skill of most undergrad econ majors. A better alternative is to start teaching empirics in 101. 

Current textbooks, including Mankiw's, almost all play down the role of data and evidence. They sometimes refer to the results of empirical studies, but they don't give students an in-depth understanding of how those studies worked. Yet this wouldn't be very hard to do. The kind of empirical analysis now taking over the econ profession -- often called the "quasi-experimental" approach -- isn't that hard to understand. Simple examples could even be done in the classroom, or as homework assignments. 

In other words, the economics profession has gotten real, and it's time for Econ 101 to do the same. We now have an academic economics profession focused on examining evidence and an Econ 101 curriculum that focuses on telling pleasant but often useless fables. Econ education needs to get with the times. 

The Seven Deadly Sins for PR Pros Working with the Media

Working with the press can be challenging for PR professionals, but following several key guidelines can make the job quite a bit easier.

Working with the press can be challenging for PR professionals, but following several key guidelines can make the job quite a bit easier.

When you sit behind a reporter's desk, you see the good, the bad and everything in between from public relations professionals. Now that I'm on the other side of the desk, here is some advice on how to take your best shot at smoothly working with reporters.

Think of these as the seven deadly sins of PR. Avoid committing them, and you should be just fine.

1 Not taking controversy seriously: Controversy drives the news business. No matter how small the issue, always, always, always take a serious approach in responding to a reporter’s questions about any potential problem.

A few years ago as a reporter for The Spokesman-Review, I exposed an embarrassing oversight in the search for a new chief for the city’s troubled police department. It turns out one of the four finalists for the job had fabricated his academic credentials, listing on his resume two degrees from a diploma mill in Louisiana that the FBI had busted several years earlier. The man dropped his candidacy the morning we broke the news.

But the story only became more embarrassing for the city when I inquired about how the situation arose in the first place. Spokane has a history of rooting out public officials with degrees from diploma mills. So, why hadn’t anyone caught the phony degrees before we’d gotten to that point?

The best explanation the city’s spokeswoman could offer: “These things happen.” The city hadn’t done a background check yet, and the whole thing was no big deal, she said. Well, it actually was a pretty big deal to the public and the media. 

That quote was fair game, so I ran with it in print. And so did one of our most popular columnists, who ridiculed the city’s response at length in the paper. He even went so far as to make and distribute pins sporting the quote.

All that embarrassment could have been avoided if the city had taken the situation more seriously. We’re all human, and it’s better to admit to a mistake than to diminish the legitimacy of a controversy.    

2 Incessant follow-ups: This happens all the time. A reporter doesn’t respond to your press release, so you send another email, and then a third. Finally, you’ve lost your patience and decide to call and ask if the reporter received the press release and what he plans to do with it.

One email will do just fine. If the reporter hasn’t contacted you for more information, he’s probably not interested in the story or he may just not have time to pursue it yet.

We live in a time of shrinking newsrooms. Keep that in mind, and remember that as staffs continue to dwindle, reporters have less time to respond to every email and phone call. That trend means there is an ever-increasing need to write more engaging press releases. 

3 Getting mad: Whatever you do, never lose your temper in an interview. Nothing will make you look worse on camera, and unless you and the reporter have already agreed to keep your conversation off the record, it could end up in a story.

Unfortunately, reporters sometimes ask insensitive or uninformed questions. Sometimes, they run a little too far with rumors or misinformation. And sometimes, they can be invasive or exploitative, especially in times of loss or personal crisis.

But when it comes to dealing with a reporter in a difficult situation, getting angry is the last thing you want to do. Take a breath, if necessary. Pause to collect yourself, and then carry on with the interview.   

4 Knowing nothing about the reporter, the organization or the coverage area: Every day, reporters receive numerous press releases sent out in email blasts to all sorts of news organizations. These become problematic when it’s clear that the sender knows nothing about the reporter or the coverage area.

“Dear _____:” Believe it or not, empty fill-in-the-blank press releases that start just like this make their way to reporters all the time. And there’s no faster way to turn a journalist off to your big announcement.

Before sending out a press release, take some time to get to know the receiver. What is the reporter’s name? What’s the coverage area? Would the news organization be interested in this? If so, how can you tailor it in a way that makes it more likely to get coverage? 

5 Burying the lead: If you’re wondering why you never got a call back about that press release you sent out a couple days ago, maybe this was your mistake.

Reporters have less and less time to spend on any given story in today’s fast-evolving newsroom. That also means they have less time to read press releases.

Stick to the basic rules of newswriting when reaching out to the media. Remember the inverted pyramid, the fundamental structure of a simple news story: the most important information should go at the top of your press release. As you wind down to the bottom of the page, your paragraphs should become less and less essential.

Place the heart of your message – the biggest news you have to announce – in the first paragraph of your press release. That way, you’re guaranteed to grab the reporter’s attention. 

6 Ignoring the media: Unfortunately, reporters won’t just disappear if you close your eyes and pretend they don’t exist. They keep calling or writing. And if you continue ignoring them, they’ll publish the most dreaded words imaginable: so and so declined to comment.

I can’t count how many times I’ve written that phrase, but it never reflected well on the people who decided not to say anything. When in doubt, almost any response is better than silence. Ignoring the media only makes the public suspect you have something to hide.

Instead, prepare a well-thought-out statement or simply agree to an interview. Planning ahead pays off, so try to anticipate what questions the reporter might ask and think about your responses beforehand. Try not to sound rehearsed, of course, but keep your main points in mind throughout the interview. 

7 Using jargon: Reporters tend not be experts in, well, just about anything. They specialize in distilling complex issues into simple explanations communicated to the masses. So, it’s best to avoid using industry-specific jargon in a press release.

Otherwise, you stand the risk of confusing a reporter. In that case, a reporter is likely to make an error in the story, which can be embarrassing for both journalists and PR pros alike. 

While a reporter might not let you proofread a story before it’s published, there is nothing wrong with asking to double check the facts first. It may sound pesky, but there’s nothing reporters hate more than having to write a correction to a story.  

Headlines Reinforce Crisis Response Reality

It shouldn't take a football team threatening not to play to spark a proactive response to a crisis, something University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe should have known.

It shouldn't take a football team threatening not to play to spark a proactive response to a crisis, something University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe should have known.

Fresh front-page headlines tell an old story – how you respond to crisis affects your reputation as much or more than the crisis itself.

University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe was pressured to resign after his indifferent response to on-campus racial incidents, including snubbing a group of protestors who surrounded his car demanding an opportunity to talk face-to-face.

Chipotle faces a sharp business drop-off after the trendy burrito chain cavalierly responded to more than 40 of its customers in Oregon and Washington coming down with E. coli food poisoning. The company’s sluggish response to the crisis will put a dent in its "food with integrity" slogan that has attracted a loyal following, and it will give fuel to its critics who have mocked the restaurant’s high-calorie menu in the Chubby Chipotle campaign.

Then there’s GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, who has drawn rebukes from his Republican rivals and even more investigative intensity in the past week. Carson found himself under the microscope after complaining about excessive scrutiny following press reports that questioned the accuracy of his statements about a scholarship to West Point and a violent past as a teenager.

Looking overseas, the initial response by Egyptian and Russian officials to the downed Metrojet passenger plane over the Sinai Peninsula in retrospect looks like an effort to avoid rocking the tourist boat. While the plea not to rush to judgment made sense, the quick dismissal of a terrorist act contradicted their own words. It took action by British Prime Minister David Cameron – who suspended British carrier flights to Sharm el-Sheikh – to bring to light the very real prospect of a bomb that brought down the plane. Now, the Russian government has suspended flights as it tries to find a way to bring home more than 25,000 Russian tourists.

In this situation, the Russians are displaying the same head-in-the-sand reaction to a damaging international report about state-sponsored doping by the country's track and field athletes.

If you are Russia, maybe you don't care what other people think. But for most of us, our reputation is our most valuable asset. Preserving that reputation in a crisis situation is a priority.

While no two situations are alike, there are universal crisis response fundamentals that apply to all of these situations. Chief among them is responding proactively by acknowledging the crisis and its repercussions, accepting responsibility and taking demonstrable action to address the cause of the crisis.

If Wolfe had acknowledged and denounced the inexcusable racial incidents that occurred on the University of Missouri campus, he would have placed himself on the same side as those who were deeply offended. In light of the racial tensions sparked by events in nearby Ferguson, Missouri, it is incredible that Wolfe could be so tone deaf.

Wolfe's resignation – spurred in part by the Missouri football team refusing to play this weekend – belatedly reflected empathy for the situation when he urged his departure to be the start of a healing process. Better late than never, but a proactive crisis response is always best.

Showing Rather Than Explaining

Showing what you mean is often the better strategy than trying to explain what you mean. Visuals grab attention and are more likely to be shared than narrative explanations.

Showing what you mean is often the better strategy than trying to explain what you mean. Visuals grab attention and are more likely to be shared than narrative explanations.

In the battle to win over public opinion, showing is a better strategy than explaining.

For the vast majority of people, public issues are often too puzzling to take the time to understand, let alone take sides. If you want them on your side, you need to reduce the issue to comprehensible size and give them a reason to pay attention. Only then will you have a chance to turn them from disinterested bystanders to supporters.

Getting people's attention demands simplifying what you share to essentials and focusing on what will interest your intended audience, even if it isn't your narrative. Showing your audience what you mean and why they should care may open the door down the line for them to listen to your longer explanation.

Visualization is one of the strongest ways to show what you mean. An image can show perspective. An infographic can give a visual description of a process. A chart can demonstrate critical contrasts.  An illustration can compress a lot of meaningful detail into an easy-to-grasp picture. Good design can guide the eyes of viewers to key information or the sequence of data that you present.

Shareability is a serendipitous byproduct of well-done visual explanations. Some people share stories with friends; a lot more people share cool pictures and infographics with friends.

Shareability is a great test for audience-centric communication because a "share" reflects whether a visualization conveys something important to the sender. 

Sending a message is important, but your message will never be received if you don't aim at the heart strings of viewers, which is a core difference between showing and explaining. You want to explain, but your audience wants to be shown.

Designing your information to show what you mean in an interesting, compelling, disarming or entertaining way is a more effective way to attract attention and sway opinion. Save your explanations for later.

Slow-Walking a Fast-Breaking Crisis

In the fable, the tortoise wins the race by slow, steady movement. In real life, slow-walking a crisis response is doomed to lose the race of telling your story.

In the fable, the tortoise wins the race by slow, steady movement. In real life, slow-walking a crisis response is doomed to lose the race of telling your story.

In the fable, the hare, after a fast start, loses the race to the slow-moving, but steady tortoise. In the real word of crisis response, the tortoise almost never wins.

We live in a real-time world where crises can erupt or be inflamed by an iPhone video. Trying to respond by telegraph just doesn't cut it. If you can't keep up, reporters will look for and find news sources who will, with or without all the facts.

Smart crisis response involves gathering your facts, crafting your message and telling your story. A slow-walking response to a fast-breaking crisis can bury your facts, message and storytelling in the blur. Worse yet, a slow-moving response can become another trigger that propels news velocity.

Large organizations that haven't anticipated cruising in the crisis fast lane struggle to approve key statements or proactive steps. Legal considerations often play an outsized role in bogging down a crisis response that can play a significant role in the court of public opinion.

Complex corporate structures and attorneys, however, don't have to be obstacles, and they shouldn't be excuses. The solution requires open-eyed crisis preparation, starting with an acknowledgement that a crisis can and probably will happen and the response must be in the same time zone.

Crisis preparation should include specific ways to speed fact-finding, conduct legal reviews and approve actions and statements. One or more officials must be identified to take the lead in the event of a crisis and undergo stress-testing before they show up in front of microphones.

Stress testing and incident exercises based on likely crisis scenarios go well beyond basic media training. They teach how to stay cool while walking on hot media coals, often with only shreds of verified information and sometimes after being ambushed by reporters. Being out front on a cascading crisis requires mental quickness that eclipses the sedentary pace of sitting down for a one-on-one media interview or chatting up financial analysts.

Ordinary question-and-answer prep doesn't prepare a spokesperson for answering a question in the form of a video shot by an eye-witness to the crisis event.

Many corporate leaders don't want to be embarrassed by "failing" their stress tests with their top lieutenants looking on. But failure in this kind of media training is the first step toward success. Moreover, it is much better to fail in front of a few people you know than to fall flat in front of a bank of reporters.

If the thought arises that a slow-walked response could allow time to pass so the crisis goes away, think again. There are too many media incentives and too many communications channels for any crisis of note to disappear.

You wouldn't saunter to safety in the face of a swelling wave ready to pound the beach. You shouldn't saunter on crisis response, either.

Being Gracious Instead of Pugnacious

When you face an unruly crowd, tame your internal ninja and channel a kinder, more polite you. Grace under fire will fluster and disarm your opponents.

When you face an unruly crowd, tame your internal ninja and channel a kinder, more polite you. Grace under fire will fluster and disarm your opponents.

Hard-chargers are often chosen to be the face and voice of a campaign involving a contentious public policy issue. That can be a mistake if they come across as pugnacious rather than gracious.

Issue managers would love to believe that facts and firmness move the needle of public opinion, and they can. But personalities often are a bigger influence by establishing a bond of trust.

For example, the tenor of a public forum can turn on a presenter’s conduct. Being gracious can be a big help in quieting and even swaying a rowdy crowd. Civic conversation has grown coarser, or at least it seems so, as people feel unburdened by civility in the comments they make and questions they ask. A successful influencer doesn't take the bait. He or she receives comments or questions with equanimity, then thanks them for the challenge and answers calmly. Grace under fire flusters and disarms opponents.

A gracious person can disagree without being disagreeable. They see disagreement as a chance to make the case with convincing facts and logic, not trash someone else's point of view. They recognize this is the path to earn grudging nods of approval.

A gracious demeanor conveys humility, respect of others and a sense of self-confidence. You don't talk down to an audience or try to snow them with your superior knowledge. Being gracious means staying positive and paying attention when others speak. It also means saying thank you and acknowledging when someone else makes a strong point. Graciousness requires knowing what not to say as much as what to say. 

So tame your internal ninja and channel a kinder, politer you when you face a hostile crowd. Use graciousness as a weapon of choice.

The Benefits of Brevity

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivering a campaign address in November 1944 at Fenway Park in Boston. FDR, who charmed America with fireside chats and galvanized a nation with memorable refrains, said the key to successful speeches is to "Be sincere. Be brief. Be seated."

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivering a campaign address in November 1944 at Fenway Park in Boston. FDR, who charmed America with fireside chats and galvanized a nation with memorable refrains, said the key to successful speeches is to "Be sincere. Be brief. Be seated."

William Shakespeare called brevity the soul of wit, and Dorothy Parker referred to it as the soul of lingerie. In public affairs, brevity is a source of successful speechmaking.

The benefits of brevity are not a secret or a new insight. President Franklin Roosevelt said, "Be sincere. Be brief. Be seated." 

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, "It is my ambition to say in 10 sentences what others say in a whole book." 

And humorist George Burns quipped, "The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending, and to have the two as close together as possible."

Despite such sage advice, speakers continue to drone on, inducing drowsiness in their audience. Worse than that, longwinded speakers frustrate their audiences, drowning out what might have been a powerful, useful message.

Resonating with an audience demands several things, but chief among them is brevity. You need something worthwhile to say. You must organize your thoughts so an audience can trace your train of logic. You should illustrate your key point in memorable ways. And you need to get the job done while people are still paying attention, otherwise the point is lost in a wave of inattention.

Speech coaches properly concentrate on ways to establish immediate rapport, use vivid language and end on an up-note. But sometimes they forget about the health of the heart of the speech, the part about economizing what you say so your words and thoughts stick out.

Louise Brooks, the actress known for popularizing the "bob" hairstyle, offered this advice, 'Writing is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent elimination." Her point is well taken. When writing a speech, don't think of everything you can say; think of everything you can leave out.

It is not just an issue of shortened attention spans; it is a case of limited space in people's brains to absorb and store information. Making your point and being brief is one way to claim space in the mental warehouse of your audience.

In the public affairs world, too many people want to share "all the facts." Unfortunately, audiences and news reporters can be quickly overwhelmed. The result is you lose their attention and they wind up not remembering any of your facts.

A better approach is to select the most salient points. Talk about those. Show why they matter. Explain how they work. Then stop. The discipline of being brief usually brings about increased clarity to your message. You are forced to be specific, to focus, to stick to your main point.

The best compliment a speaker can receive is, "I could have listened to that person all night." Just remember, that's a compliment, not a stage direction.

Really Owning a Crisis

Mary Barra took responsibility for GM's mistakes, telling employees, "People were hurt and died in our cars." 

Mary Barra took responsibility for GM's mistakes, telling employees, "People were hurt and died in our cars." 

Crisis response gurus offer plenty of advice about owning a crisis, but there are too few high-profile examples of people following that advice. General Motors CEO Mary Barra has provided a great example.

"People were hurt and died in our cars," Barra told GM employees, as reported by The Detroit News.  "We didn't do our job, and as part of our apology to the victims, we promise to take responsibility for our actions."

Check. Check. Check.

This is the CEO of a major U.S. corporation speaking, not a PR flunky or a third vice president.

Barra makes a simple, candid declaration about corporate failure that caused people to lose their lives.

She offers an apology tied to tangible restitution to the victims of that corporate failure.

Yes, GM just reached a $900 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to end a criminal investigation. However, that doesn't detract from her statement. It might even enhance it.

GM is admitting its wrong, agreeing to make it right with those most impacted and taking actions to prevent such neglect and customer indifference from occurring again. Barra previously had fired 15 GM employees and disciplined five others for "incompetence and neglect." Under Barra, the automaker has attempted to change its internal culture regarding safety. In the settlement, the company agreed to an independent monitor of GM's safety procedures.

This isn't the first time Barra has expressed contrition for the ignition defect that has been linked to 124 deaths and nearly 300 injuries. But it perhaps is the clearest, most resonant statement she has made – and one that serves as an excellent example of what it means to own a crisis.

Ethics and Crisis

A crisis can test your ethics. An ethical crisis response can turn a mess into a reputation triumph.

A crisis can test your ethics. An ethical crisis response can turn a mess into a reputation triumph.

A crisis is an unwelcome way to prove your mettle and test your ethics.

The chaos of crisis will challenge your calm, creating an opportunity to perform under pressure amid events out of your control. But crisis also will tempt you to cut corners, blame scapegoats and bend the truth. Your core values may take a backseat to expediency. Your ethics is one of the best tools to carry around in a crisis. 

Acting ethically in crisis, while hard, is the right thing to do. Ethical behavior is the path to a burnished reputation.

Johnson & Johnson's handling of the tainted Tylenol incident is the perfect example of a crisis response based on values. James E. Burke, CEO of J&J, challenged all his employees to put "Patients First," the company's brand promise. Pulling Tylenol from shelves, meeting with thousands of care providers and patients and developing the tamper-proof container were the fruits of following that core value.

Your ethics will be on the line when you are called on to stand in front of microphone, admit a mistake and take responsibility for a mess. Your reputation can take a hit if you hide out, shift responsibility and blame others.

People know stuff happens. They tend to judge based on what you do after stuff happens. Sluggish responses, fingerprinting and denial often leads to a cascading drop in credibility.

Here are four tips on how to integrate ethics into your crisis response:

Look in the Mirror
Before doing anything else, take stock of your reputation, your brand promise, what you stand for. Let that be your guide as you lead efforts to clean up a spill, stabilize a faltering operation or condemn a bad practice. Deputize everyone involved in the crisis response to follow the same guideline. Make an enhanced reputation your goal.

Be Proactive
Don't let events beyond your control define your response. Take charge of fixing what's wrong. Find a long-term solution. Communicate with your own employees and those who are impacted. Use tools such as Twitter that allow real-time communications.

Seek Advice
Owning a crisis doesn't mean dealing with it alone. It is a sign of strength, not weakness to seek expert opinions, consult your own employees and ask those caught in the crisis what they think should be done. Be curious and empathetic, not cavalier and impulsive. You may get conflicting advice, but you also will get invaluable suggestions.

See Your Actions in a Newspaper Headline
A simple test to assess your actions is to write the most slanted story and headline to describe them. If the result disturbs you, then reconsider what you do. Pursue actions that are unmistakably sound and reflections of your ethics, actions will are likely to produce headlines you would want your family and friends to read the next day.

The Power of a Picture

The picture of a limp 3-year-old Syrian refugee who drowned at sea struck a worldwide chord, melted hearts and galvanized humanitarian action.

The picture of a limp 3-year-old Syrian refugee who drowned at sea struck a worldwide chord, melted hearts and galvanized humanitarian action.

The immense power of imagery was reinforced last week when the face-down photo of a dead infant on a beach sparked worldwide outrage and political change.

The infant was 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, who drowned in the Aegean Sea along his older brother and his mother as his family sought to escape war-torn Syria. The family hoped to reach Canada and start a new life.

The stark picture, which received millions of views on social, online and traditional media, touched a nerve and underscored the vulnerability of refugees. It would not be overly dramatic to say the picture changed many people's hearts.

The lapping waves washing over Aylan's tiny, limp body made the flight from hellish conditions more personal. It was easy to imagine your own child or grandchild lying dead on a beach. It was also easier to understand a more human response than erecting a razor-wire fence or denying people access to trains or railing again immigrants.

The boy's father, Abdullah Kurdi, recounted the tragedy of how a wave flipped over the 16-foot dinghy, forcing passengers, including his family, to hold on for life. First one son died, then a second and finally his wife. Kurdi said the lifejackets they wore were fake. His story may never have been heard if not for a picture.

And there was a response. German removed its quotas for Syrian refugees. Hungarians sent buses to transport refugees it early rebuffed to Austria, where Austrians welcomed them with food, water and blankets. Great Britain Prime Minister David Cameron said Aylan's picture moved him to expand his country's welcome mat.

Those responses may not be adequate to deal with the tide of refugees fleeing Syria and other countries ravaged by violence and sectarian terrorism, but the responses may not have occurred at all but for a single picture.

Every picture doesn't have the potential to sway viewpoints or change minds. However, pictures can reach places in our minds and hearts that words never visit. Pictures can reduce a complex subject to its essential simplicity. They can convey emotion. They can deliver a message at a glance.

The concept of information design is not about substituting pictures for words. Information design is all about finding the best way to show what you mean. Words can be powerful tools. So can numbers arrayed in charts. Sometimes a picture can tell the story in a unique and stirring way that is without peer.

The voice of a great picture is clear, unmistakable and hard to forget.

Clinton and Bungled Crisis Response

60 percent of Democrats don't regard the email issue as all that serious. What bothers voters is how Clinton has handled the issue.

60 percent of Democrats don't regard the email issue as all that serious. What bothers voters is how Clinton has handled the issue.

The continuing saga of Hillary Clinton and her private email server serves as a fresh reminder that how you respond to a crisis is what influences public opinion.

Lanny Davis, former counsel to President Clinton and a Hillary Clinton supporter, shared a telling observation from his recent visit to Iowa:

"I was attending the Iowa Cubs (AAA minor-league team) baseball game. Interestingly, out of dozens of people I sought out and talked to about [Hillary] Clinton, their focus was not concern about her use of emails or housing them on her own secure server, but rather, what they thought was her absence of immediate transparency and explanation as to what happened and why."

In a piece written for "The Hill," Davis attributes Clinton's precipitous 13 percent fall in the latest Des Moines Register poll to her mishandling of the email server issue. He bolsters that conclusion by noting the poll shows Clinton still enjoys high favorability ratings (seven out of 10 Democrats hold a favorable impression) and 60 percent of Democrats don't regard the email issue as all that serious.

What bothers voters is how Clinton has handled the issue. Her death-by-a-thousand-cuts response has allowed the issue to fester in public and opened the door to questions about her trustworthiness, a nagging worry that has some history with the Clintons.

What's most evident and disappointing is that Clinton has missed an opportunity to enhance her political reputation by showing she can be trusted. Instead, Clinton treated the issue initially as insignificant and later made light of her decision to use private email while secretary of state. She turned over emails only after pressure built to do so. She failed to see the potential danger in this issue and, therefore, didn't take bold steps to own it and see that it was vetted fully as soon as possible.

Clinton is hardly alone in missing opportunities to build trust through a crisis. Often times it is the smartest person in the room who makes the dumbest mistake when it comes to crisis response.

Whether the email episode will derail Clinton's trip to the Democratic presidential nomination and ultimately the White House remains to be seen. But without question, Clinton has made the journey harder by how she mishandled this crisis and missed a chance to make it easier.