'Scuppies,' Distractions and Product Placements

Earth Day/Pennsylvania primary day brought a new term, SCUPPIES, to my attention, along with an extremely distracting, inadvertent (?) product placement.

"Scuppies" are supposedly Socially Conscious Upwardly (mobile) Persons. They love the earth while living the good life. Sounds good to me. Catchy name, but it would be nicer if the acronym actually fit. There's the whole matter of that inconvenient "m" in the middle. And, let's not even consider what you've got if you just call them the Socially Conscious Upwardly Mobile. Maybe we should go back to the genesis of the original term, "yuppies." Remember? They were "young urban professionals." Now, I guess, both "urban" and "professionals" seem too exclusive or maybe even exclusionary.

The Democratic candidates both did themselves proud with their speeches following the Pennsylvania primary last night. I'd call it one of Senator Clinton's best-written speeches to date. Strong, positive and gracious. In an earlier interview yesterday with National Public Radio, Senator Obama seemed tired. However, by the time he got to Indiana last night, he was hitting his stride again. Gracious, confident and inspiring, all at once. Now to the distracting part: Am I the only one who noticed that the three guys standing right behind the senator all seemed to be wearing tee shirts touting Abercrombie & Fitch?

Now THAT's product placement!

Spitzer, McCain and American Idol

Sometimes Bad News Takes a Turn for the Better – But Not This Time

Today the New York Times is reporting New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has admitted his own “involvement in a prostitution ring” – after he had prosecuted several such rings. A couple of weeks ago, The Times reported a suspected inappropriate relationship between Sen. John McCain and a female lobbyist.

Both stories involved the possibility of illicit sexual activity by high-level politicians. The McCain story ended up eliciting a backlash of support for the senator, when the innuendoes on which the story was based proved to be particularly flimsy. So could Spitzer, too, end up somehow benefiting from his possibly tawdry association?

Probably not.

Why? Well, for a minute, let’s put aside the fact that one man denied the story while the other “admitted” it, and then there’s all that legality stuff.

At a basic level, it all comes down to how we initially react when we hear about things. Is our gut reaction “Hmm” or “Eww” or at least “What the heck were you thinking”? The difference between those reactions makes all the difference.

Let’s look at two other examples.

I don’t watch American Idol. (Yes, I know that puts me in a minority of about 14 Americans, most of us under the age or 4 or over the age of 100.)

Still I know the name of one of the contestants: David Hernandez. Why? Because allegations (revelations?) that he had worked as a stripper in a club mostly frequented by men made the major news outlets last week. The America Idol folks said Hernandez would not be booted out, and he’s made it to the finals. The supposedly negative reports of his bad behavior ending up making Hernandez more famous, without costing him his spot on the show. To stretch an analogy, Hernandez, like McCain, ended up benefiting from what could have been very negative media coverage.

His is a very different fate from that of Frenchie Davis, a contestant from an earlier American Idol contest. According to the news reports, Davis previously had appeared on a website for people interested in underage girls. She was kicked off the show.

In each case when we read something negative, we have to decide: Just interesting? Naughty? Illegal? Disgusting?

How each of us perceives the likely truth and degree of immorality of what is reported has a marked effect on our view of the participant. How we as the public in aggregate view these bits of “news” determines whether we briefly consider the information and move on or rise up with a call to “throw the rascal out!” Of course, some of us may care more about our Idol favorites than the people who are elected to serve and discipline us.

Plus, it is often true that, as my friend Dayna Steele said about Britney Spears’ mom’s plan to publish a book on parenting, “You can’t make this stuff up!”

Quote of the Week

“You can be graceful and beautiful and well-poised and skin a muskrat.”

So says Samantha Phillips, a contestant in the 2008 Miss Outdoors pageant, in Golden Hill, Md., the Houston Chronicle reports. Both she and the winner of the title, Dakota Abbott, chose skinning a muskrat as their talent in the annual competition. Usually, the beauty pageant and muskrat skinning are two separate competitions at the annual National Outdoor Show. Still, if these young ladies had chosen singing or dancing or twirling flaming batons, we’d never have heard about them way out here in Texas.

Way to go, ladies.

As they say in the musical Gypsy: “You gotta have a gimmick!”

Please, Oh Please, Read (and respond to) My Email

With millions of emails going back and forth all day long, how do you communicate effectively with colleagues and clients when you aren't face to face? Also, how can you get them to respond when they themselves are inundated with messages?

Here's a list of things to try:

• Don't write the entire message in one long string, with no punctuation.
  
  
• Start your message with a personal greeting and/or acknowledgement. At least, "Hi, John." If it's somebody you haven't communicated with in a while, take a minute to be even more personal. "Hope you're doing well. Had a chance to play any golf lately with this weather?"
  
  
• Next, give some context to what you need. "I know this has been a crazy day for you but I need to get that report on the monthly budget by the end of the day."
  
  
• Help the reader to get the gist right away. If you need a response to more than one matter, say so up front. Then bullet each item, so it's easier for the recipient to quickly understand everything you need.
  
  
• And most important, be appreciative. "Thanks so much for your quick attention to this - it is really appreciated."
  
  
• When you're reading your emails: Make sure to read the entire message before you respond. Please! The important part may be at the very end.

And, of course, no matter how stressed, you are, keep the message tone polite. You know, it's that whole sweeter honey and bees thing.

Where's Our Great Communicator?

Ronald Reagan was once referred to as the Great Communicator. Not sure any of the current crop of presidential-wannabes rates quite that high. In fact, I wouldn't give any of them close to an A yet. Here's what I would advise:

• Clinton – Finally found your “voice.” Great. Okay, so you’re under different/tougher scrutiny than the men. Life is tough; politics is tougher. When you teared up and people actually saw your softer side, it worked. That’s where you have the advantage over the “old boys’ network.”
  
  
• Obama – You need to stick with the “hope” message. Down and dirty, even a little bit, is never going to work for you. Tell your staff and supporters that, too. Hillary was right about it taking Dr. King AND President Johnson working together to get civil rights laws passed when they were passed.
  
  
• Edwards -- Biggest house in South Carolina. Dad was a “mill worker” for only a short time. Disconnect between who you are and what you’re saying. Get a message that fits.
  
  
• McCain -- Contrarian, curmudgeon? However you style yourself, it’s working with voters -- for now. Positions that make you look more like a Democrat than a Republican may run out of steam before November, however. Voters have a long memory, and the media is there to remind them.
  
  
• Romney – Prettier than Edwards, but too bland, too nice. Who are you? No message that sticks. Also, unless you plan to buy Detroit and give everybody a job, let’s watch the photo ops in front of the closed auto plants.
  
  
• Huckabee -- What do you stand for? You’re a Baptist preacher. Great. Tell us how that will make you a better president. By the way, we already had one president from Hope, Ark. Who cares if you lived there longer?
  
  
• Giuliani -- When your whole campaign can be described -- accurately -- as “noun, verb, 911,” you’re toast unless you’ve got something else to offer. You’re running a campaign for president, not mayor. Get a message that fits you and the voters. See Edwards and Romney, above. (Note: People DO care about the relationship with your wives. If asked, admit mistakes. If Sarkozy is following your lead these days, you’re both in trouble. Also, he has the advantage in the tackiness sweepstakes because he’s FRENCH. You’re not.)

Last but not least, he's not a candidate but he was a president:

• Bill Clinton – Advisor, attack dog, defender of the Mrs. Whichever role you’re playing, you’ve got to keep it low key. You’re the ultimate politician, but YOU’RE NOT RUNNING THIS TIME, so keep your cool! Don’t become the story.

A Shave, A Haircut and a President

Finally one of the most honored traditions of election-year news coverage has reappeared – the interview of the guy sitting in the barber chair. It’s never in a big town or a fancy salon. We always get an introductory shot of the rotating barber pole out front (in red, white and blue, naturally). Ah, Main Street USA.

How could anybody be more credible than a guy who’s basically sitting in a big high chair, with an over sized bib around his neck! It’s a ridiculous place to be. You’re sitting there the same way you’ve sat since you were two years old. Your mom probably still has the pictures of your first shearing. Nobody could be calculating or anything less than totally honest, just sittin’ there, getting his hair shaped up. (“Not too short on the sides, Ed.”) Guys who go to barber shops are the backbone of this country. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a “salon” wearing one of those slinky, supposedly unisex (but they never really seem that way) smocks. No, sirree! We need that big bib to keep the cut hair off our lap and pants, not just our shoes. Skip the blow dryer and don’t even get close to us with mousse. Unless Brylcreem makes it, I don’t want any of that goo on my head.

Course not. We’ve got our image to uphold and this year, a president to pick. Have to look serious at all times.

And don’t expect to see any women interviewed while they get their hair styled/done/fixed. Women seem to know better than we do what photo ops are most attractive for TV -- and which ones are not.

Not Exactly A Home Run

Roger Clemens continues to pay the cost for waiting so long to speak up about the accusations in the Mitchell Report – and for being less than direct in getting his story out. Right after the report was released, Andy Pettitte went a long way toward taking himself out of the spotlight by getting out there right away with what seemed like a reasonable explanation for his inclusion in the report. Clemens remained silent, on advice of his attorney.

And the Clemens story just gets “curiouser and curiouser,” doesn’t it? I heard what Clemens attorney’, Rusty Hardin, said as the explanation for why he wanted Roger to wait so long, but I didn’t really understand it. Maybe that was the point. What info did they need to gather, anyway? I would think he either did it or he didn’t. If he didn’t, he should have said so – soon and often.

At his news conference, Roger sounded mad, which is appropriate, but he seemed to be mad at the fans, as well as the sports writers. Don’t the fans and sports writers make up the audience he needs to win over? Clemens said he’s amazed he wasn’t given the “benefit of the doubt.” Well, he might have gotten it if he’d actually come out right away and said: “That’s a damned lie! I never, never took steroids or human growth hormone!” And what’s with all the whining? So you’re in a tough spot, Roger. You also got millions of dollars for “working your butt off.” We might still give you the benefit of the doubt, but we’re not going to feel sorry for you.

It would have been a very different story if Clemens had gotten out there early, said he didn’t do it, and stuck with that same message. Did you see him on 60 Minutes? And what happened to the Big, Bad Mike Wallace. (Coincidentally, apparently a pal of Clemens.) The term is “follow-up questions,” Mike. Where were yours?

On that same program, if you look at it from a pure communications standpoint, you could argue that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did a better job of explaining his relationship to Benazir Bhutto and his actions before and after her assassination. Overall, he sounded very reasonable and straightforward. (One misstep, General: Don’t blame the victim. You got led into saying it was Bhutto’s own fault for getting shot. Oops! )