November 1, 2007
05:25 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I always watch the presidential candidate debates, both sides, because as an expert in political communication, the press often calls on me to get my take on things. As my long-time readers already know, when it comes to presidential politics, I believe that he – or she – who communicates best, wins!
So when I was Tuesday night, I was struck by the sound of Hillary Clinton’s voice. It sounded good! I’m surprised because although I’ve commented on it before, it’s never been consistent. She’d seem to change it for the better, then revert to her habitual sound, which is generally harsh and unpleasant. (Click here to see Hillary speak in Feb. ’07 and here for samples of her performance on Oct. 31.)
The speaking voice is a powerful communication tool that is usually overlooked. Right now, however, it’s a hot topic among training pros and I’ve certainly noticed increased interest among my clients. Despite our (over)reliance on email, IM and txt, we’re still using our voices an awful lot. Used well, the voice can captivate and hold audiences’ attention; use it poorly, however, and the snoring begins. To prove my point, all we have to do is think about the voices we love to hear: James Earl Jones and Diane Sawyer are great and current examples. So what are some things mere mortals can learn from such mastery? There are 3 things to focus on.
#1: Tone: Beautiful tone is pleasing to the ear. It sounds smooth and rich. There is no strain or hoarseness. It is resonant in the same way a beautiful violin solo is. Expression and volume are parts of tone. And here there is a real virus going around: the corporate monotone. Formerly expressive people get to the job and in a relatively short period of time, all expressiveness is flattened out. If this happens to you, try upping your level of expression just a bit. It won’t go over the top and will help you to make your points more easily. Also, watch your volume. It’s no good if you speak so softly that people must strain to hear you and no good if you’re always shouting. Find a moderate volume level and stick to it. Finally, find your optimum pitch level (OPL). This is a level that is not too high or low in the spectrum, but just right. It never feels pushed or strained. Women often have to lower their voices slightly and men must raise them (sorry, guys, not everyone is a baritone).
#2: Breath: Breathe from the core. If you’re into yoga, you’ll know what I mean. If not, recall that the way we usually breathe is shallow and facilitated for the most part by muscles in the chest and shoulders as evidenced by shoulders and chest heaving. When you breathe from the core, however, your shoulders and chest are still. Deliberately take a core breath and exhale slowly while speaking. Note how your voice feels. It should feel less tense and have more freedom.
#3: Rhythm: Rhythm encompasses the percussive aspects of speech including diction or enunciation, accents, dialects, rate and pace. In our frenzied world, there is a notion that he or she who speaks fastest is smartest. What isn’t often said is that if he or she speaks too fast, it won’t matter how smart they are because they simply won’t be understood. Slow down a bit and crisp up your diction by being sure to put on word endings. For example, in the word “want” should be pronounced “wan-t” with a real focus on the “t.” Other consonants/blends to pay attention to are s, d, sh, ch and k. If you focus on diction, you will automatically slow down. If you have an accent (foreign) or dialect (regional within same language) – and we all have one or the other – that is fine, but only if people can understand you.
Improving your voice takes time, by the way, and practice. In the meantime, watch and listen to other voices. Get a little digital voice recorder (check out the Olympus 300 series) and read aloud focusing on the things above. Be sure to play it back. If you’re diligent about this, you will eventually see changes.
Hillary has made changes relatively fast and if she can do it, so can you.
technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, communication, speaking voice, vocal tone, diction,Diane Sawyer,James Earl Jones
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 23, 2007
02:08 pm | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
I was driving around my town the other day, one of those upscale places where there are a lot of nice cars. I stopped at the local ice cream place and noticed an unusual car parked on the street in front of me. My husband pointed out that it was a Bentley, the Continental GT, a sporty version of that venerable brand. Apparently it’s the least expensive of the Bentley line, priced at $150,000.
From time to time, we also see the occasional Ferrari or Maserati (usually during the summer, rarely parked and much more expensive than the Bentley) and there are loads of BMWs and Mercedes (they’re parked all over the place). Almost every other car that I haven’t mentioned so far is late model and nice.
Such cars are emblems and increasingly the type of thing we use to delineate and display our status without showing the bank account. And not just the car, but where and even if it gets parked, marks the driver either as someone who is of such sufficient status that a scratch, ding or dent is no big deal or someone who isn’t. Homes are also emblems and clothes are, too. For women, the latest “it” bag or Jimmy Choos or Manolos are emblems. For men, a popular emblem is a wristwatch, which, at a certain level, must be Swiss (think Yo-Yo Ma and his Rolex). Sometimes it’s jewelry, big jewels (I call them “headlights”) – for both men and women, though often it’s the woman wearing the jewels and the man wearing the woman. Or maybe it’s vice-versa. All emblems.
Emblems can certainly be less precious and say even more about us than our level of success. Think about walking down the street with a Starbucks in hand or carrying the latest cell/PDA (iPhone anyone?). What about computers? Are you a Microsoft or Mac person? As a long-time Mac user, I can clearly remember early on when people who owned Macs were viewed as somehow lower-status, less technologically savvy, not to be taken seriously as business people as those who tussled with Windows. Perceptions change (and we Mac fans always knew they would).
Even the field you’re in is an emblem. Think about how you may view people who are in technology and wear jeans and T-shirts to work vs. how you view someone who is in a job that requires they dress in a suit and tie. Do you get your shoes shined? I was up at a New York law firm last week and the shoeshine person actually set up her stand in the hall. So some people do.
What’s on your iPod? Do you even have one? Is it rock, country, alternative, orchestral, opera? Maybe you enjoy them all.
Cars don’t do it for me. I drive a plain-vanilla Toyota Camry with a 4-cylinder engine, comfy, reliable and good on gas. I desperately need a new watch (have you seen the new TX line from Timex?). My engagement ring still has the small diamond that my husband could afford at the time. These are certainly also emblems that say something about me.
I do splurge on clothes and recently bought myself a gorgeous and very expensive Italian suit. I’m planning to wear it this week for the first time and really looking forward to that. What do I hope it communicates about me? Smart, chic, sophisticated, together and, of course, successful would do nicely.
How are you marked? What are your emblems of success?
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
tag technorati
emblems
communication
Bentley
Mercedes
BMW
Ferrari
Maserati
Jimmy Choo
Manolo Blahnik
Microsoft
Mac
Starbucks
iPhone
Timex TX
Toyota Camry
Yo-Yo Ma
Rolex
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 17, 2007
09:24 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of hearing Kelly Flatley, CEO of Bear Naked Granola, speak at an event for the Women’s Business Development Center (WBDC) of Stamford, CT. I serve on the board of WBDC, which provides education and support for people (mostly, but not entirely women) who want to start and grow businesses. It’s a great organization with a mission I’m passionate about, so I always feel especially proud when we’re able to secure a great speaker and entrepreneur of the caliber of Ms. Flatley.
Mind you, Flatley started this company in 2002 at the tender age of 23 in her kitchen and grew it in 5 short years to a multi-million dollar enterprise with national distribution in thousands of stores coast-to-coast. As she told her story – which is the Bear Naked story – she shared a number of entrepreneurial tidbits that I found very inspirational.
1. Believe. Granola was certainly nothing new and oats are not sexy. Still, Kelly and partner Brendan Synott thought she made a better granola and that they could make it fly.
2. Work really hard. In the early days, 100-hour weeks were the norm. They worked day and night – mostly night when the bakeries whose ovens they leased were available.
3. Take risks. No one would give them start-up money, of course, so they maxed out Kelly’s credit cards (Brendan couldn’t get any) and kept working.
4. Learn constantly and from everyone. Neither Kelly nor Brendan knew anything about the food business. They were given a lot of advice from parents, relatives, friends and customers. Some was not so good, but a lot was great. They took the good advice and ran with it.
5. Go with your gut. Bear Naked comes in cellophane, resealable bags with a transparent window. One time, the owner of a major supermarket took them to the cereal aisle to show them the sea of boxes. He told them that unless they packaged their granola in a box, it wouldn't sell. They felt strongly that part of what they were selling was transparency -- they wanted customers to see and even be able to feel their product. They didn't take his advice.
6. Stick with what you love. Brendan loves marketing. Kelly loves making granola. They've stuck with what they each are good at and grow and grow and grow.
7. Be bold. One time, when playing an endless game of phone tag with a major buyer, Kelly and Brendan decided to show up with breakfast in “bed.” The buyer wasn’t in, but the owner just happened to stroll by. They flagged him down, he invited them into his office for a 2-hour meeting and ordered 50 cases of the granola for the following day.
8. Don’t listen to the naysayers. There were plenty of tough times and times when people – even people close to Kelly and Brendan – told them that the company probably wasn’t going to make it. They ignored them.
9. Connect your work with your passions. Kelly is an avid outdoorswoman and sports enthusiast and looks it. She also a supporter of environmental causes. Today, Bear Naked supports a number of events and organizations that are close to her heart such as cycling and the environment.
By the way, Kelly was dressed beautifully. She may be in her 20s and she may wear jeans and Bear Naked T-shirts when she bakes granola but when she’s the featured guest speaker, she dresses up as the true leader she is.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
technorati tags:
Halloween
Kelly Flatley
Bear Naked Granola
granola
cereal
women entrepreneurs
entrepreneurship
P.S.: Halloween is almost here and Bear Naked makes these delicious snack packs.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 9, 2007
01:00 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Last week I was invited to attend one of Winston Wenyan Ma’s “China Dinners.” I’ve known Winston for several years, having first met him when we had mutual business at the large, white shoe law firm where he practiced. We stayed in touch when Winston left the firm to pursue an MBA at the University of Michigan, then got reacquainted when he returned to New York as an investment banker with a particular expertise in derivatives. In his spare time, Winston has written the best-selling business book, Investing In China: New Opportunities In A Transforming Stock Market (London Books, 2006) and he is planning a new book that addresses China and its global market impact from the opposite P.O.V.
I’ve always appreciated Winston’s tremendous energy and passion for networking and communication. Early on in our relationship, we had great, long conversations about the importance of building relationships and effective self-marketing and I loved being filled in on cultural differences between the U.S. and China. He now tells me that he thinks about these things constantly, believing they are the best methods of bringing people of disparate backgrounds, areas of expertise and points of view together. He's right about that and it's music to my ears.
Winston’s dinners are fashioned on the salons of the early 20th and 19th centuries. Salons originated as a periodic gathering of people of particular social and intellectual distinction. They've always been around, of course. At this dinner, there was a wide range of expertise. In addition to Winston, there were two journalists, an owner of an import/export company, an analyst from a major investment bank and a representative from a federal regulatory agency. Still another member of the group was a partner at a big consulting firm. And me. The nationalities were representative of Asia, the U.S. and a mix of both. 5 of the 8 were fluent in Mandarin in addition to English. Age ranged from 20s to 50s.
The discussion topics were equally extensive as well as provocative. We covered everything from the future of China (democracy maybe?) to the latest business news from that part of the world and how the globalization of trade affects everything. I led a discussion on the vital importance of good communication as a precursor to and indicator of success, especially at the senior executive level and absolutely critical in high-stakes situations. I also got to brag about my involvement in the new Ang Lee film, Lust, Caution, a Chinese language espionage thriller (with English subtitles) that takes place in China during WW II. (BTW, run, do not walk to the nearest theatre to catch it when it opens in your area – ignore the NYT review and focus instead on the one in the LA Times; this is a GREAT film.) As a result, I learned that there were other great Asian films I should see. Needless to say, the conversation was dynamic and fascinating. I was sorry when we had to go home.
What was particularly interesting was the way Winston set it up. I received the invitation about a week in advance with the list of guests who had confirmed thus far. About 2 days before, Winston confirmed the dinner with an updated guest list and included links to several news articles concerning China and business. He also mentioned some of the guests' area of expertise, including mine, so we could all do a little research beforehand. This truly greased the wheels.
This is a terrific social/business model for anyone who wants to build new business relationships or cement old ones. What a great way to meet new and interesting people whom you would not ordinarily meet and whom you can add to your network. Someone just needs to take the lead. Why not you?
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
tag technorati:
China
communication
networking
leadership
Ang Lee
Lust, Caution
interpersonal communication
building business relationships
social networking
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 2, 2007
12:30 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
What are we to make of Hillary Clinton’s recent tendency to laugh loudly and fully when being peppered with questions by the media and Rudolph Giuliani’s acceptance of a cell phone call from his wife, Judith, in the middle of an important speech to the NRA?
When I saw Hillary Clinton on Face The Nation last Sunday and she went off on her laughing bender, seemingly unable to curtail her giggling, I was disturbed. It seemed programmed and unreal but I didn't know for sure. It wasn’t until I watched all 5 of the Sunday morning shows and saw that she did something similar on each program (though Face The Nation was the worst), that I became certain this was a tactic, not the overtired adrenaline rush behavior of someone who may have been up all night preparing.
I had a similar reaction when Rudy Giuliani took that call from his wife. Those of us in the New York Metro area have many memories of Mayor Giuliani (no one called him Rudy – no one would have dared!), none of them even remotely resembling sweet-talking a loved one like he did at the NRA. No, the mayor’s modus operandi was tough, nasty, take no prisoners and ask questions later. And, incidentally, that was not a bad posture for a mayor of what was then a very dangerous city. So to hear him speak in saccharine tones to his wife was enough to gag me. That he took the call in the midst of a major, formal speech to a constituency that has strong doubts about him was nothing short of bizarre.
That these outbursts were staged at all was hugely risky. Couple them with two people who are ill suited to play-acting and they were bound to fail.
What these two candidates – and most of the other front-runners – consistently fail to recognize is that voters are longing for the real deal. Will one of them say one thing that he or she really, deep in his or her heart of hearts, believes, PLEASE? Don’t they or their campaign teams realize that these types of diversions only deepen the hole these candidates have dug for themselves? (Hint: If the media is still covering it more than a week later, it was a bad move.)
Of course, both Clinton and Giuliani bring considerable baggage to the campaign trail and thus, they are desperate to find ways to humanize themselves. This is not the way to do it, however. Aides’ protests notwithstanding, these were poor choices for them both.
Hillary’s lack of charisma and difficulty coming across as anything close to being warm or having a sense of humor must be driving her advisors to distraction. Outbursts of laughter –- now labeled by some as “the cackle” –- cannot soften up her image and actually worsen it (only witches cackle). What might do the trick is if she would speak with passion about something, anything. She seems to be passionate about health care, says she loves talking about it, so why not give it a try with that? Or tell us a mother/daughter story, something personal. Hillary, we hardly know ya!
Rudy is just not the lovey-dovey type and no amount of staged interruptions during major speeches to speak to Judy, (whom he repeatedly referred to as “Dear” making him sound like he was 100 years old) will make voters think anything else. He should stick to his law and order persona; it works. Even when he told that woman in one of his audiences to “leave his family alone” (she was hammering him about why his kids don’t even like him), he sure wasn’t making nice, but it was pure, authentic Rudy and we appreciated it.
Politicians often make the mistake of thinking voters are not smart, that they can be fooled by these types of antics. We business people must watch and learn. Clients, too, long for authenticity in relationships with vendors and others they deal with. They want to feel as if their trust is well-placed. Trying to be something or someone we're not such as behaving in a way that is inconsistent or off-brand only serves as an excuse for a client to go elsewhere, especially in today's ultra-competitive marketplace.
As you climb higher business and the field narrows, it often is a choice between you and the other player, just like a presidential election. Being yourself, speaking with confidence and passion, letting people on to a little bit of your personal life by being carefully self-disclosing -- these are critical relationship-builders. Since the time of JFK, the candidate who is the better communicator and who connects best with voters has always won.
So do you think the ultimate nominees will get this or will we continue to see more of the inauthenticity sweepstakes? It's going to be a long (and interesting) election season. Stay tuned.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 24, 2007
09:09 am | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
I’m in the middle of reading a fabulous book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear, by Frank Luntz. Luntz has made his fortune advising Republican politicians on communication strategy and crafting their messages. Luntz is responsible for converting “estate tax” to “death tax,” and “drilling for oil” to “energy exploration.” His handiwork teaches important lessons about the power of language to motivate and persuade.
If you are in the business of persuasion (and if you aren’t, you are not really in business), you MUST read this book. If your politics lean more leftward, don’t let it stop you. Luntz is a master and he lets us in on his many secrets here.
What Luntz writes about so knowledgeably is that to persuade, a number of linguistic issues must be considered. He mentions 10 “musts,” but I’m going to focus on the four that I think are the most important.
Brevity - Reduce your thoughts to the least number of words that work. Think about a few of the most memorable and effective advertising slogans: Got Milk? I’m Lovin’ It, They’re Greeeeaaaattt! Also, think visually and I’m not talking about loading up your PowerPoint with everything you’ve ever thought on a topic. Keep visuals simple and impactful. (For more on this, read my FC blog post Death to PowerPoint!)
Credibility – How many times have you seen the words “new and improved” and know it’s nonsense? We have to make sure our messages are backed up by our product or service. People see through it, otherwise, and faster than you might think. And recovering from this type of mistake is difficult. Once people are made to feel foolish, it’s very difficult to undo the damage and bring them back into the fold.
Consistency – I call this message discipline and without it, we’re doomed as communicators and business people. The best at this skill develop phrases and messages that work and then repeat, repeat, repeat. Ad nauseum. While in certain communications the same, exact words don’t have to be used each and every time, any variations should be very sight and really, it’s safer to stick with the original words. Boring? Yes (to the speaker). But very effective. Sticking with a good message takes determination and, as I mentioned above, discipline.
Speak Aspirationally – This cannot be overstated. Language that gives people a reason to act is the best kind. Think I have a dream or A diamond is forever. It doesn’t have to be positive or flowery language, either.
An example of how to convert a ho-hum message to language that conforms to 3 of 4 of Luntz's rules follows:
Hillary Clinton recently started delivering a new stump speech. In it, she used the following language:
"Restore America's standing in the world."
"Rebuild America's middle class and the economy to support it."
"Reform our government."
"Reclaim the future for our children."
This language follows a number of rhetorical principles: active verbs, parallel language and alliteration. Restore is a good word implying that something has been destroyed. Rebuild implies something similar. Reform brings change to mind. Reclaim is the best word because it implies that something has been wrongly taken away—even stolen—by someone (guess who?). Reclaim gets the nervous system firing. It’s a rich and motivational word could be used for all four of those statements:
"Reclaim America's standing in the world."
"Reclaim America for the middle class."
"Reclaim our government."
"Reclaim the future for our children."
Brief, consistent and aspirational. (Credibility, in this case, rests with the speaker and that is a judgment best left to each reader.)
By changing just one word (and a little wordsmithing for the second statement), this message morphs from something that’s not very inspirational and, frankly, forgettable, into a memorable series of statements that builds in impact and pushes all the right emotional buttons. In fact, if people just remember the word Reclaim and associate it with Hillary Clinton, it will have been a success. Powerful stuff.
I’m only about halfway through Luntz’s book and will write more when I finish it. In the interim, think about your communication. Start by examining the words you use. See if they conform to the rules above. It's not easy to come up with this material, which is why people like Frank Luntz are able to get rich doing it for others. Buy the book and you'll have a head start.
Luntz, Frank; Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear; Hyperion, 2007
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 11, 2007
10:20 am | 0 recommendations | 16 comments
In the wake of the unprecedented response to last week’s post about Michael Vick’s apology, I thought I’d continue that line of thought with a look at another recent apology by someone on a bit of a different plane – Steve Jobs.
As most readers no doubt know by now, Apple reduced the price of its highly touted, long-awaited iPhone by a third. And they did it only a little over 2 months after the phone first came to market. This is the phone the company spent a year doing an excellent job hyping; so successfully, in fact, that people camped out overnight and waited in lines wrapped around the block for a chance to be one of the first to own one.
Furthermore, this is the company that never discounts its products (they cost the same at the Apple Store as they do online – ok, maybe they’re $2 cheaper online). So customers who had purchased the iPhone for a hefty $599 were correct to feel a sense of betrayal when Apple announced unexpectedly that, effective immediately, the phone would cost $399.
Of course, people like me, a forever Apple user, who did not buy the phone smugly breathed a sigh of relief and patted ourselves on the back for not being taken in by all the hype in the first place. Longtime fans know never to buy the 1st generation of anything Apple puts out and sometimes, not even the second. And in my case, although I longed for an iPhone (and sort of still do), my decision was made much easier by the inclusion of AT&T as the sole carrier, a company that I vowed years ago never to do business with again if I could help it.
Even so, as a member of the Apple family, I shook my head and felt that same sense of outrage when I heard the news. Apparently, the emails poured in and Steve Jobs and his marketing team knew they had a problem. So they sprang into action and posted a letter to the Apple website. After several paragraphs making the business case for the price cut, the one line that has any meaning appears: “Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.” It’s the only line with any heart.
But if actions speak louder than words, then Apple’s attempt at mollifying irate iPhone owners was a dandy. Apparently “living up to that trust” means a $100 store credit. Some people were placated, but others felt used and let their feelings be known. As one irate customer put it, “I was a $200 iPhone beta tester for Apple.” This could have something to do with another line in the letter that really gets to the crux of things: “This is life in the technology lane.” BAM! Any hope an early iPhone customer might have had that Steve Jobs felt their pain was wiped out. He might as well have yelled, “Suckers!”
This is known as the “Sorry, but” form of apology. “Yes, we admit it, and we're sorry, but you were stupid to think we wouldn’t” or some other form of blame-the-victim. According to the “rules” for apology I laid out last week, Apple and Jobs failed at every, single one:
1. Accept total responsibility. Nope. Blaming the customer for not being up on the latest tech pricing schemes is more Jobs’s style.
2. Apologize. Jobs actually does use the words “We apologize.” In this case, it's just words.
3. Accept your fate. No punishment here. The store credit is nice, but it would have been better and seemed more sincere if a rebate check was sent because, let’s face it, a $100 store credit means it only costs Apple about $50, maybe less. So that’s a smoke screen. It’s like “re-gifting.” (This one really sticks in my craw.)
4. Deliver the apology believably. Nope, failed this one, too. We get the feeling that Jobs and friends didn’t lose a moment’s sleep over this.
Bottom line, Apple screwed its customers that it professes to value so highly. And its efforts to make amends are half-baked, at best. This is not leadership in my book and it certainly doesn't pass for an apology. "Sorry, but" from Jobs and Apple? More like sorry butts.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 4, 2007
09:50 am | 0 recommendations | 33 comments
I was struck by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick’s recent statements, which he made last week before and after pleading guilty to felony charges of conspiracy related to running an illegal dogfighting operation.
There are many who think that no matter what Vick says now, there is no way to adequately make up for the horrendous crime he committed: the sickening abuse and killing of dogs in the pursuit of sport and gambling dollars. But they are wrong. Michael Vick can redeem himself and based on my reading and viewing of his statement, he is well on his way. Here are some of the things that Vick did that make his statement especially notable:
1. He accepted total responsibility. Vick did not blame anyone, did not roll over on anyone and did not hint at any anger at the people who may have blamed or rolled over on him.
2. He apologized. Vick mentioned the Falcons’ coach, owner and his teammates. He also directed his apology to fans, especially young fans, saying he had done something immature and needed to grow up.
3. He accepted his fate. Vick will be going to jail, perhaps for as long as a year. That is a big comedown from the heights he is accustomed to. He used the prospect of his incarceration as having “a lot of downtime” in which to consider his deeds and his future.
4. His delivery was believable. Vick did not seem rehearsed. His eyes were cast downward. His body language was closed, hands down, folded in the fig-leaf position, shoulders rounded. His voice was quiet and he seemed to not be reading from prepared text or using notes (nothing of that nature was in evidence). He seemed genuinely humbled and shaken by what had transpired. He looked and sounded ashamed.
Before I go any further, let me say I am no fan of football or big sports of any kind, especially the ones comprised of aggressive men who hurt each other for a living. Nor am I an apologist for dogfighters. I love dogs, have had several of them as pets and know how sweet they are and what great companions they can be.
To those who argue that Vick is not sincere, that he is just trying to repair his badly tarnished image so he can get back to football when he gets out of jail, I say not so fast. “What took him so long?” these people are asking. “This has been going on for years and now he sees the error of his ways? Oh please.” I understand. I am as cynical as they come and it may be true that Vick is just a good actor and a master manipulator. Truth is, we’ll never know for sure.
Nonetheless, he has put in place the right elements for a comeback. It is a bold approach although it shouldn’t be. When was the last time you heard anyone in the public eye who had done something wrong come forward with a statement as forthright and clear as Michael Vick’s? I can’t remember the last time. More often than not, such people blame others or situations out of their control. They disappear quickly into rehab. They find God. They sometimes resign and disappear for a time. They never apologize.
Apology is among the most powerful communication tools in the arsenal. It is an unparalleled defuser of highly charged situations. It persuades the most stubborn to take another look. Don’t you wish that people in business and politics would do it (and mean it) more often? I do. In fact, I crave it. I think the rest of the public does, too.
Michael Vick apologized for his crime. He did it correctly. He did it well. He is a role model for taking ownership when things go wrong. I believe it will go a long way toward softening the public’s – and perhaps the sentencing judge’s – view of him and pave the way for his eventual return. It will be interesting to see if that happens.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 28, 2007
10:04 am | 0 recommendations | 9 comments
I have been struck by the branding effort by Washington Mutual to reduce its name to WaMu. Washington Mutual is the monster financial institution and retail bank. When I was traveling in California recently, my two kids, both teens, had a field day shouting WAAAAMUUUU! as if they were caged animals every time a commercial for it came on. They then would laugh. It does sound like an exotic creature one might find at a zoo. And I don’t think that’s the bank’s intention.
The problem with the word is that it blends two sounds that sound ugly and unpleasant when combined in such a way. It doesn’t sound like English. Washington Mutual actually holds my home mortgage so I’ve been aware of the WaMu thing for some time. It’s been their domain name for years. But now it looks as if it is embarking on an effort to replace what is an elegant sounding pair of words with something much less so.
I suspect this is a result of current thinking in marketing that shorter is better than longer. The words Washington Mutual are a combined six syllables whereas WaMu is only two. Perhaps they were thinking of others who have done it successfully: International Business Machines became IBM, Macintosh became Mac and even Dairy Queen is headed toward the abbreviated DQ. It is also the result of our wish for ease when thumbing those text messages. I mean it would be difficult to type out Washington Mutual each and every time. Maybe WaMu is a result of insiders’ shorthand.
Still, wherever it originates, I don’t like it. It just doesn’t sound right. Why would I want to go to a bank named WaMu when I could go to one named Washington Mutual? Why would anyone go to WaMu when they could go to Fleet or People’s or Chase or Citi? Every single one of those sounds a lot better and more like a place I would like to do business.
What do you think?
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 21, 2007
09:40 am | 0 recommendations | 3 comments
Netflix, the mail-order film rental giant, has set up a customer service call-center. No longer will customers be relegated to the Internet to get their problems solved. Under competitive pressure from Blockbuster, Netflix executives, including the CEO, Reed Hastings, decided that bringing human beings and their voices back into the mix would be a competitive advantage. That remains to be seen, as the transition to phone-based service is relatively new, but to me, this strategy sounds like a winner.
But there’s more good news. According to an article in the New York Times, Netflix’s web-based customer service has been eliminated. Furthermore, the center is in the U.S., near Portland, Oregon of all places, where Netflix determined people are nicer than in traditional U.S. call-center locations like Phoenix and Las Vegas, even though they have to pay higher salaries. This move is in striking contrast to years of companies not only making it virtually impossible to speak to a human being about problems with the products they sell, but when customers do finally get someone on the horn, the individual is often not a native-speaker, difficult to understand resulting in an unbelievably frustrating experience for the customer with no service in sight.
As we all know, the entire customer-service process in our increasingly web-based economy has become incredibly painful. First, we struggle to find a phone number to call because companies bury them on their websites. Then, when we do call, we are led through several prompts, the very last of which (if it even exists) starts with “To speak to a customer service representative.” But that’s just a tease because inevitably there are not enough representatives to handle the calls and we get the recording that begins with “Due to high caller volume.” Once placed in this queue, we hold our breath and pray that we won’t be disconnected and forced to repeat the entire procedure again. By the time we do get a human on the line, I don’t know about you, but I am in no mood to be friendly or accommodating or calm. Whatever unhappiness existed as a result of the original product problem has grown worse, exacerbated by the system forced upon me as well as the loss of that most precious commodity, time.
I think Netflix is onto something vitally important. While researching this strategy, the company found that there is a much greater likelihood that they will be able to retain customers or bring those who have departed back into the fold if they allow a conversation about a problem to take place. This voice-to-voice contact is rich with meaning and far superior to communicating via the Web, which is based on written language. As I mention every chance I get, writing and speaking are different. The meaning in writing is mostly verbal, i.e., in the words themselves on the page. With speech, however, the meaning is mostly non-verbal; it is created by how we say what we say. Tone, expression, volume, rate, pace -- even a pause or a deep breath are all tremendous influencers. Not to mention that customers actually have someone to listen to their problem. There is simply no way a customer can get the same amount of satisfaction from a written response to a complaint as he or she can from this type of human contact.
Another newsflash: Speaking is also so much more efficient. With the proliferation of communications technologies, we’ve duped ourselves into believing that email and other types of written communications technology are time-savers. That is pure myth. Much more information can be packed into a 10-minute phone conversation than in 10 emails. If time is money, Netflix stands to gain.
And there are still more interesting developments around Netflix’s new phone-based customer service. Representatives have more authority and discretion to give out bonus disks and credits to disgruntled customers and they are encouraged to err on the side of generosity. When was the last time you felt you didn’t have to fight for what little service you were entitled to? So to speak to someone who might actually be able to put a bandage on my booboo sounds like a real luxury.
I hope Netflix can make this cost-effective. But even if they can’t, I hope they keep going and start the pendulum swinging back to true customer service. I know I’d be willing to pay a little more knowing that if I had a problem, I could reach a person to resolve it. To me, it is about providing a greater value.
Netflix is also providing a model for other companies to do right by their customers. Anyone out there watching?
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
