Politics and Public Affairs

The Push for HITECH is On: Marketers Can Make a Difference

Last month, I attended the Massachusetts Health Data Consortium’s "HIT 2010: HIT at a Crossroads" event. Why is health IT (HIT) at a crossroads? We’re at a critical juncture in the history of the healthcare industry. The industry and the government must figure out how to progress from the enactment of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009 to making billions of dollars available to providers to use healthcare IT in meaningful ways. We need to move from the ideas to the action.

One topic that I found to be interesting was the Regional Extension Center, which will offer providers in Massachusetts technical assistance, guidance and information to update their medical record systems and train workers on new technologies. The US Department of Health and Human Services awarded $375 million to 32 nonprofits for Regional Extension Centers around the country.

Rick Shoup, Ph.D., director of the Massachusetts eHealth Institute (a division of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative) and Massachusetts State HIT Coordinator, said that the state has appropriated $15M for 2009. The Regional Extension Center will not only create jobs, but should also help hospitals and providers figure out what they need to do to comply with meaningful use and implement EHRs.

Ray Campbell, MHDC’s executive director and CEO, said that the key to disseminating knowledge and experience will be through the Regional Exchange Centers. The MHDC is working on a mentor program to do just this, as well as a private online community.

John Glaser, senior advisor, Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT and CIO of Partners HealthCare, also spoke at the conference. He is a major advocate for electronic health records and said that that interoperable electronic health records are a critical contributor to efforts to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of care. Requirements for meaningful use include maintaining an up-to-date list of current and active diagnoses, sending reminders as needed to patients and providing summaries of care.

One thing I found during the show is that although the industry is honing in on the definition of meaningful use, it’s still not entirely clear how they are going to check off all of the boxes. A healthcare IT marketer’s challenge is to take what’s there and develop a vision for how you can add value. If we know that e-prescribing, certification, interoperability, test result management, patient safety and quality reporting are pieces of information available, the HIT marketer will speak with decision-makers about how their products meet these requirements now and in the future. HIT marketers should also find out how they can partner with the Regional Extension Centers.

In the absence of certainty, the HIT marketers and the Regional Extension Centers might be the ones to ensure that providers will approach meaningful use appropriately for their organizations, and implement the right processes and technologies to comply with the requirements.

Posted by Davida Dinerman on March 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Brown vs. Coakley: Who is winning the social media campaign?

Today the citizens of Massachusetts are electing a new Senator. The race has garnered national headlines, and those of us living in Massachusetts have been deluged with ads, calls and editorials for the past few weeks.

We are not taking a position on the election or either candidate, but wanted to answer a simple question - which candidate is using social media to create the most buzz? This question popped into my head when I noticed Scott Brown was trending on Twitter but Martha Coakley was not.

Looking at overall social media engagement, Scott Brown is creating about 46% greater discussion volume than Martha Coakley over the past week. Although it is interesting to note how the discussion spikes are eerily parallel. No one candidate has created discussion without the other.

When we narrow it to Twitter, Scott Brown and his supporters seem to be using the channel more effectively, with 182% greater volume than Martha Coakley.

I also looked at tonality (quickly) and although the tool was automated (and therefore suspect) both candidates were receiving about 28% positive coverage. Scott Brown was receiving 6% more negative coverage than Coakley.

How will this translate into success at the polls? We will find out tonight at 8:00 p.m.

Posted by Mark McClennan on January 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

President Obama, Always Remember Media Training Rule #1

The Twittersphere, talk radio and the Web is abuzz with a recent comment from President Obama about Kanye West. During an "off the record" part of a CNBC interview, a reporter asked President Obama what he thought about Kanye. Obama called him a jackass.

Now based on a poll on TMZ.com, about 98% of the American public agrees with him. (And I do as well), but it also means that for a few seconds, President Obama forgot rule #1 of media training.

Or to paraphrase Jack Palance in City Slickers "The secret of media training is one thing."

Nothing is off the record.

Ever.

Rule #2 is a variation on the theme - Don't say or write anything you do not want to see in print.

PR professionals remind our clients about this regularly. And yes, there are times you need to make judgments and share confidential information when speaking to analysts and reporters who agree not to use something or get deep background.

But as I remind my clients, even then, even if you have an NDA, there is still a chance it can and will get out. So be careful what you say.

My favorite example of violating rule #1 occurred about 10 years ago.

A senior executive at one of my clients was being interviewed by a major national magazine for a standalone profile. The interview went great, the key messages were clearly communicated, things were looking great. The reporter closed his notebook, put it in his pocket and as they were walking out the door the reporter asked the client "You know, it seems like you really have fun here and enjoy your work."

A nice, innocuous question.

My client, thinking the 90-minute interview was over (despite our earlier prep) told the reporter. "Yes. It's so much fun here it's like I am smoking pot all day."

Now I fully admit, I did not say "Don't make illegal drug references" as part of media training, but after this was said, all I could see was a pull quote in 36 point type. Luckily, we managed to kill it, but that one, post "formal interview" comment could have had a very negative impact on the entire story.

As for rule #2 - I remember one executive who was a thought leader on financial services and technology. He was regularly quoted in the top trades and national media. During one interview he was commenting negatively on another executive and how he managed to take a top company and ruin it. The comment made great copy and was prominently displayed. But what the executive didn't know was that another division of his company was working on a deal with the company he just insulted. Needless to say, things went poorly.

Which brings me to media training rule #3 - Always think before you speak. Every executive needs to remember and follow those three rules.

Posted by Mark McClennan on September 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Cash for Clunkers? Ads vs. PR

As many Americans know right now, the government Cash for Clunkers program is kicking off. Auto dealers and manufacturers are making a big push behind it - and here in Mass. the push is even greater with the sales tax increasing by 25% shortly.

What stuck me interesting is PR Week's take on the situation. Its Breakfast Briefing newsletter was all about "Automakers are kicking off an advertising blitz to coincide with the federal government's "cash-for-clunkers" program...Among the participants, Toyota began running national and regional ads late last week for the program, which goes until November 1. GM and Chrysler ran full-page print ads as part of the effort."

That's great and advertising is part of the communications mix, but I would be interested in learning more about the full PR effort - not just the advertising push. There are 1,900 videos on the topic on YouTube alone. How are manufacturers looking to stand out from the pack? (Note: Kelly Blue Books video here caught my eye) - but I am not sure the manufacturers want their message communicated in that way. Twitter is also abuzz.

It's an interesting program and many stakeholders are keen to educate consumers and communicate their own key messages.  This is a topic all communications professionals should watch over the coming week. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

For me, while I have a "clunker" as defined by the government. I plan to keep it for now. The one message that never seems to get out is that when you trade it in and get a new car - you also get car payments...

Posted by Mark McClennan on July 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Is the Declaration of Independence on message?

As July 4th approaches, more and more people in the United States take time to reflect on their country, patriotism, the struggles of our founding fathers, and the courage shown by 300 average citizens in Lexington and Concord, just a few miles from Schwartz's headquarters. Americans think of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the Constitution and those that gave the last full measure of devotion.

Like many, I believe the Declaration of Independence to be one of the most powerful pieces of prose ever written in the English language.

In honor of the upcoming holiday, we created a word cloud of the Declaration of Independence and decided to look at it from a communications standpoint.

The good news? Not only is it powerful prose, but it is "on message." The key themes shine right through - laws and people are equally balanced. Rights are a close third. Repeated usurpations (a key complaint of the colonists), assent, free and government come through as well. People looking at the word cloud (inserted in this post below) can see the key messages. It is very effective and resonates still today.

If you haven't re-read the Declaration in a while, take the time with your family this holiday weekend to do so. And from all of us at Schwartz, we wish those in the United States, and Americans abroad, a safe and happy holiday weekend.

For a full-sized version of the world cloud, click here.

Posted by Mark McClennan on July 2, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Most Effective Communications Channel?

Today, many Americans were anxiously awaiting the California Supreme Court's Decision on Prop 8. With offices in California and Massachusetts this is something I have been following.

As the buildup was happening to the 10:00 a.m. PT ruling on Proposition 8, I was wondering which communications channel people would turn to for the news. Would it be Google News? CNN? Drudge? Twitter? So I asked on Twitter...One person commented that the most effective channel is the one that is open - and that is an important lesson for communicators to remember.

Yes, you want broad reach when disseminating your message. But if you have timely news, you want to reach the channel in which your customers and prospects are engaged. It doesn't matter if one channel reaches two million and the other three million, if the one reaching 300,000 has 250,000 engaged and interested parties - that may be the best.

For the record, I found the news out first on Drudge, then Twitter and then CNN. The site refreshed more quickly than my Twitter stream. But I could gauge reaction to the ruling much more quickly on Twitter than any of the other channels. Which brings up another key point to remember - the best channel for communicating the message is not necessarily the channel that will energize your base. Once the message is out there, it will take on a life of its own. Communicators need to be aware of these nuances and incorporate them into their plans.

Posted by Mark McClennan on May 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Is it OK to *Not* Announce on Twitter?

While in San Francisco last week for the RSA conference, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced he was running for Governor. He made his announcement on Twitter.

At the same time, the Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, announced he was running for re-election. He also first "officially" made his decision on Twitter. [Since I work for a Boston PR firm, I had to get the hometown plug in here.]

I remember that when Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President, she did so on YouTube. It was clever then. Now it seems a political candidate must use a new media method to announce their intentions, or risk being clumped in the "old school" category.

While the new media tools are changing the way communication is done, they are not replacing reporting from reporters. And they are not replacing the content created by reporters.

The same morning Mayor Menino made his announcement on Twitter, The Boston Globe ran a front-page story discussing his planned announcement. The Mayor's campaign website launched the same morning, as did a Twitter account and a Facebook fan page. These new-media vehicles were pre-populated with content.

At Schwartz, we incorporate new media into our healthcare PR and technology PR programs. We constantly coordinate the creation of content for press releases, contributed articles, or blog posts. We dovetail published content with our outreach efforts to reporters.

At the same time, we must be cautious. Since new media is a buzz word, new media tactics often overshadow tactics to reach reporters and others who then publish content read by strategic audiences. For all the popularity of new media tools, the results of Schwartz's clients still show that the best way to drive interest is by generating media coverage.

New media cannot be overlooked. Coordination is critical. And the combination of publicity and using new media to attract an audience is vital for marketing success.

Posted by Ross Levanto on May 2, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Red Flags Rule Enters with a Whimper

Today is the day the Red Flags Rule goes into effect for financial services companies and other organizations. What is this rule? According to the FTC, "The Red Flags Rule requires many businesses and organizations to implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program designed to detect the warning signs – or "red flags" – of identity theft in their day-to-day operations."

While there was some talk about this late last year, the overall volume of the discussion has been very light. A quick Google search turns up just 57 articles on the topic over the past week as the deadline approached. The blogosphere has been more active, but this is a relatively quiet topic.

This is not a Rule with little impact. The Federal Trade Commission projects it will affect more than 11 million creditors and 3,500 financial institutions. It impacts any business that extends credit to customers, uses credit reports to make credit decisions or  extends, renews or continues credit. According to the release this includes many service companies such as: "finance companies; automobile dealers that provide or arrange financing; mortgage brokers; utility companies; telecommunications companies; non-profit and government entities that defer payment for goods or services; and businesses that provide services and bill later, including many lawyers, doctors, and other professionals (emphasis mine)."

Of course, as of yesterday, today really isn't the day, as the FTC announced another delay in enforcement of the new rules - this time until August 1. More information on the Red Flags Rule is available from the FTC here.

This is more than just a compliance requirement. It provides services companies an opportunity to communicate with their customers and reassure them of their security commitment and plans. Keeping customers informed of your compliance with these rules can help build a deeper bond and allay any fears they may have. This is a key issue that is often overlooked - compliance reporting can be leveraged to help businesses. In this era of transparency Red Flags Rules should be discussed more and should be a key part of organizational communications around fighting identity theft.

Posted by Mark McClennan on May 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Communications Lessons from the NYC "Photo Op"

By now, people have likely read about the Air Force One "Photo Op" in New York City that caused significant panic among some residents of the city and outrage by the mayor.

This reminds me of two truisms:

1) There is always someone who doesn't get the word.

2) If you can think of a way for what you are doing to be interpreted negatively/inappropriately, thousands of people are thinking of it that way.

But in today's connected communications environment, there are more channels than ever for services companies and organizations to get the word out.

I am admittedly playing Monday Morning Quarterback here, but the Air Force is very good when it comes to social media communications. From the blogging decision chart  to the Twitter channel  they know how to get the word out. I am surprised they did not use those channels to inform people of the event, or respond to criticism.

I am not here to cast blame, but rather look at best practices services, technology, consumer and other companies can use in their PR efforts to avoid events like this.

1) Game out scenarios and prepare response channels - Proper planning is essential. This is Crisis 101. When developing an event, be ready for what can go wrong and have a response plan in place. Even if nothing goes wrong, it is not a wasted effort.

2) Answer questions before they are asked - If a call comes into 911 or the customer service center, it is often already too late. Yes, those people need to be prepped (and NYC did a good job there), but realize there are multiple channels consumers turn to for information. Have your Website updated, Tweet about it, reach out to all stakeholders, prep your sales force and your marketing team. If it is a big enough initiative, make sure everyone in the company is away - for in today's social media environment, everyone is a company spokesperson. Even better, be proactive and post the information prior to an event if possible.

3) Overcommunicate: Include everyone who can be effected - There are times to talk quietly, but when doing a major public event, make sure all key stakeholders have been contacted and are aware of what you are doing and why. This ties back into proper planning, but there is no excuse for companies not to communicate with all stakeholders.

4) Respond quickly and accurately - Changing the story mid-way is not a good response. Give the facts and give them quickly.

By following these four steps, people would have been better informed and much of the criticism would have been muted.

Posted by Mark McClennan on April 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The power of (semi)personal connection - PBS does well

Like millions of Americans, my wife and I are watching the Democratic National Convention this week. We have settled on C-SPAN as our network of choice, for we want to hear the words and see all the speeches, and not be told by commentators what to think.

I always seem to end up at C-SPAN (it's where I watch State of the Union). But we always give the networks a try.

While I was washing dishes, my wife was listening to a speech by Lilly Ledbetter. She had settled on PBS - for her opinion was their commentators would be the most intelligent and the least intrusive. I suddenly heard her screaming at the TV (words I can not write here and calling PBS anchors a bunch of self-deluding X). This is not a common occurrence.

Basically, they were commenting on the speech as if wage inequality was something of the distant past that still does not occur today. They said  - You know, it really did happen. I remember my first newsroom job 30 years ago...

My wife was upset for she knows it is still an issue.

But now for the fun part. I made a semi innocuous post on Twitter "Watching the convention on C-Span. Let me make up my own mind and hear the speakers please. Wife almost strangled PBS commentators last night."

The next morning, PBS' DC office responded: pbsengage @mcClennan sorry for the delay in replying, but what was your wife unhappy about?   

I live in the social media world. But I was still floored that PBS took the time to respond. It has given me an even better impression of the network, and I am telling everyone I know about PBS' outstanding response.

There is a lesson here. Finding my post and responding cost them practically nothing (Free RSS search from Summize/Twitter) But the positive goodwill they received will last for quite a while.

If you aren't monitoring Twitter and other social media channels- you need to be. PBS is doing it and doing it right, and I am sure their budget is extremely tight. If they can do a good job, so can your company.

Posted by Mark McClennan on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Different Dialect

The view from the Motherland across the clear blue water of the Atlantic Ocean is so often a contrast of differing approaches; two countries divided by a common language, to paraphrase an eminent Irish playwright. So it plays out in both politics and communications. In the past few days Barack Obama has declared himself the winner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, with his rival Hillary Clinton formally endorsing him over the past weekend. The Illinois Senator’s slick yet professorial – and at times fervently hyperbolic – style has wooed large swathes of an American electorate seemingly hungry for change. Such has been Obama’s impact that if polls are to be trusted, then the sanguine politico could well become the first black President of the United States.

Home, and just a stones throw from Schwartz’ London offices, the tormented leader of the Labour party, Gordon Brown, seems to stumble from one self-made communications crisis to another.

Immigration, unpopular tax changes, crime, economic slowdown – pick any one of a dozen issues and Brown has seemingly struggled to control media criticism. The Fife MP may only have been Prime Minister for a little under a year but his demeanour couldn’t be of greater contrast to Obama’s. In a time of financial and political turbulence, the American people – at least those of Democratic persuasion - have turned to a man who voices the promise of hope. Britain, so much of the media would have us believe, is to be led into the same mêlée by a beleaguered and increasingly idea -shorn general.

American elections have always differed in style and tone to those in Britain. The seemingly constant public campaigning and media saturation in the US, contrasts so markedly with the ‘in the shadows’ briefings of the Westminster Village. Indeed, Obama’s campaign team has made judicious use of the internet – turning to social networking sites to raise campaign funds, increase voter registration and project not only a consistent message but an image of an engaged and youthful leader. By contrast, Brown’s recent foray into self-broadcast on the Downing Street YouTube channel was as uncomfortable to watch as it undoubtedly was for the man to film. The media’s rather predictable reaction was to mock Brown as the fish out of water he was.

The contrasting styles between these two much talked about politicians are potentially as much about cultural differences as generational and personality traits. The US culture of immediacy has, after all, given birth to Facebook, YouTube and the rest of the web 2.0 media revolutionaries. Even media friendly Tony Blair was a novice when it came to use of the internet. And just as communication style impacts media and public perception of our politicians, then cultural factors influence the style of communication between the PR community and the press too. This has been the subject of much debate between Schwartz’ US and European offices in recent weeks.

In many ways globalisation has brought our two countries closer together: American TV, music, commerce, brands – and particularly politics – have impacted greatly on the British way of life. The primaries, for example, were covered daily by the nation’s leading newspapers and rolling news stations. Even so, the three thousand miles of water that separate our offices sometimes makes it easy to forget that the US is a young country, with an aggressive, entrepreneurial economy, where short term goals come to the fore.

The pace of life here in London is fast, but the ethic of business – and therefore the media agenda – often differs from our friends across the pond. The UK media, for example, is focused on issues and trends, personalities and opinion, rather than products and services. It’s a fact that calls for international campaign management, for international PR campaigns - proving the old adage that one should always think local, even when acting global. It’s a path that many a President has trodden before.

Posted by Ed Barker on June 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton, Obama and Social Media: What We Can Learn

Considering how the media have lavished attention on the 2008 Presidential race, it's surprising that it does not show up more on this blog. For me, the reason for not writing on the topic is my personal interest in the race; I have made an effort *not* to write about the campaign here since I am so interested in the contest outside of the office.

But Fast Company, a publication I respect and read to provide guidance to my growing clients, crossed the chasm between tech and politics in this month's issue, and it has pushed me to write about the connection now. Fast Company is not the first to discover how tech can help politics. Many other blogs report on this topic regularly, including how political social media campaigns are eliminating the need for the politicos to advertise online.

A reporter and friend of mine at the Denver Post, Kimberly Johnson, wrote about Facebook and campaign fundraising last month. Interestingly enough, Kim called me and asked for my insight on the topic after notcing a Facebook post I made referencing a previous entry on this blog (a mini-example of the power of Facebook marketing).

A quick summary of my thoughts on the topic: Both Democratic Presidential rivals are using new media to reach important demographics; as it turns out, the audience influeced by social media is a more likely Obama voter, and for that reason, Obama's online efforts have been more extensive. In each case, proper use of social media tactics depends on the strategic target for the overall campaign brand.

The article in the April 2008 Fast Company discussed the Obama brand. I had not heard that the whiz behind Obama's online efforts was none other than Facebook founder Chris Hughes. What he has done to define and extend the Obama brand is a lesson to any company:

-- Giving the power to the supporters. Through a portion of the Obama campaign website, supporters can launch their own Obama blogs. They can also use their Obama websites to organize fundraisers. The key here is the Obama site powers the transactions, and automates receiving necessary contribution information to comply with federal laws. A supporter could set up a mini site and run a fundraiser with zero involvement from the campaign staff.

-- Bringing information directly to other online communities. The article talks about how a post on a Community Connect niche demographic website drove a lot of traffic to the Obama web presence. The Obama team noticed this and responding by reaching out to Communicy Connect and ultimately setting up a presence through the Community Connect online community.

-- Understanding that social marketing is about giving up some control. A lesson to all marketers: The days of having 100-percent control over your message are long gone. While this reality is not new, Obama is the first candidate to embrace this. His team understands that bringing constituents into the process is part of Obama's brand itself---that he is about letting people invest in the campaign in any way they can. Social media is a great platform to let voters exercise this, and at the same time accentuate the campaign's brand and image.

The now-infamous "Yes We Can" video, starring a singer from the Black Eyed Peas and several of his friends, is a perfect example noted in the Fast Company article. The video is extemporaneous and viral, and some have called it the best marketing vehicle for Obama to date, which is ironic given it was made free from Obama campaign involvement or investment.

An online video created by Clinton's campaign is in many ways the exact opposite. "Hillary's Leaving the Band" is a scripted story with hired actors and is described in Fast Company as being too slick to be accepted by the online demographic.

Obama's use of social media reflects his need to connect to one of his crucial demographics-- young and tech savvy voters-- so called "millennials" who want content brought to them in a method of their choosing. One cannot fault Hillary for not catering to this demographic. It's not really her target. For her voters, the scripted, slick actors work just fine.

While Obama is more flashy, new and connected, in reality his brand is just catering to the voters he must influence, while Hillary's brand is far different. In either case, the teams behind the brands are using social media wisely. How the overall brands will impact voters is a separate discussion.
 

Posted by Ross Levanto on April 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)