“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word “crisis.” One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger, but recognize the opportunity.” – President John F. Kennedy.

Even though toy-manufacturing giant Hasbro hadn’t been forced to issue a single recall related to 2007’s lead-paint scare, the company heeded this sage advice to make the most of what could have been a disastrous situation. Hasbro knew that when a crisis is industry-wide, even the innocent can be tarred with the same brush that stains the brand credibility and trust of those that brought it about.

So rather than rest on its laurels and simply hope that the toy-buying public would recognize that its products were safer than its competitors’, Hasbro seized the opportunity inherent in crisis. Through its highly-effective “Total Safety Program,” the company distanced itself from the competition, branded itself as the gold standard in toy safety, and even assisted its industry partners by turning attention away from the manufacturers and correctly toward a regulatory structure badly in need of reform.

Hasbro emerged from the industry crisis as a leader – and it was recognized as such by consumers, investors, lawmakers, and the news media. In October of 2007, the company reported a nearly 64 percent increase in profit to $161.6 million, or 95 cents a share, from $99.6 million, or 58 cents a share, just a year prior.

President Kennedy’s words ring just as true today as when he first spoke them. Every crisis presents an opportunity. If it is recognized and seized, even the most destructive events can be transformed into springboards to future success.

Last week marked the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which is widely considered to be the greatest enunciation of the fundamental ideals enshrined in the American Constitution. Yet on the day that is was delivered, Lincoln’s speech – not to mention his appearance itself – was supposed to be merely an afterthought.

Edward Everett, a Secretary of State, Governor, Senator, Congressman, and President of Harvard was the day’s keynote speaker. Considered to be the greatest lecturer of his time, he delivered a compelling speech to a crowd of 15,000 people. But Everett’s 13,607-word, two hour oration was eclipsed by the masterfully succinct address that followed. Lincoln stepped up to the podium, delivered his 10-sentence speech in under three minutes, and had sat back down before most of the audience even realized that he had spoken.

Today, not one person in 100 could tell you who Edward Everett was. But almost everyone knows that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches ever given. What’s the lesson for business? That leadership isn’t defined by a lot of words; but rather the right ones at the right time.

Despite all the furor they generated in the blogosphere and beyond, the ads themselves are really rather benign. It’s a clever take on the popular practice of mothers carrying infants in a sling on their chest – something that might give mom a bit of a backache – a backache for which Motrin might be the perfect treatment.

So far, so good. Undoubtedly, the folks at Johnson & Johnson and their agency considered carefully whether the ads would offend anyone. That’s just common sense. Undoubtedly, they tested the ads in focus groups. Standard practice before a multimillion dollar campaign is unleashed. Obviously nobody saw any storms on the horizon.

Then came the online outrage. And within a few hours the ad was being widely condemned as demeaning to women and insulting to mothers. The joke about babies being a hot new fashion accessory wasn’t all that funny anymore.

And it didn’t take long for this latest eruption on Twitter and the Internet to become a widely reported story in the mainstream media. Johnson & Johnson wisely chose not to try to explain the joke. They opted instead to cut their losses, pull the ads, and apologize. But for what?

Once again, perception proved to be reality. The vast majority of women who saw the ad probably got the joke and weren’t offended by it in any way. Most probably had better things to do than get upset over a Motrin ad. Once upon a time anyone who didn’t like the ad would probably complain to a friend and perhaps refuse to buy the product.

Whatever anyone says or does anywhere is likely to annoy someone. That’s old news. But blogs and social networking sites have forever changed the landscape. That’s what’s new. The blogosphere gives voice to complaints of any kind. For others who are exposed to those complaints in the blogosphere the thought process goes something like this. “If someone out there is this deeply concerned about this issue, perhaps I should be as well.”

Then the group mentality kicks in and the next thing you know an online firestorm has been ignited. A firestorm that is just about impossible to extinguish. That’s how a clever ad for a pain pill was turned overnight into an insult to motherhood. That’s why the lines between “okay” and “too close to the edge” are being re-drawn. Anyone who ignores that is in for trouble. Just ask the folks who make Motrin.

A recent New York Times article examines the attention that one such site is already attracting from local audiences – including the traditional media outlets that used to dominate investigative journalism but are now being forced to play catch-up.

VoiceofSanDiego.org has already uncovered municipal government malfeasance, misleading crime statistics, and a number of other local scandals with great success. In fact, the site is attracting so much attention that it lead Dean Nelson, a journalism professor at San Diego’s Point Loma Nazarene University, to say “This is the future of journalism.”

As major newspapers and local broadcasters begin to find a niche in community reporting rather than national news, the potential for these Websites – which can now be found in places like Seattle, St. Louis, and Minnesota – to do major damage to a brand or reputation is palpable. In response, it’s time for businesses to rethink how they’re relating to these new media pioneers who could one day land them in hot water.

Monitoring these sites for mentions of your brand is only the beginning. You have to know these reporters – and they are professionals, many being veterans of major news operations – before you need them. Develop relationships with those that cover your industry or community. Invite them to news conferences. Put them on your media lists. Offer them a scoop from time to time.

Taking these steps will make it far easier to deal with this new breed of watchdogs should you ever become the subject of their local exposés. Remember, the fact that their stories aren’t on the front pages each morning doesn’t mean that no one is listening. In fact, in the Information Age, it could mean just the opposite.

I gave an interview for an article in The Politico on this topic last week – and wanted to take a moment to expand on a couple of points here on Bulletproof.

When Mark Foley sat down for his recent interview with the Associated Press, he was already dead on arrival – primarily because his indiscretions are indefensible. Simply put, it’s that they were boys, not men. However, I admire his courage and if he was trying to make peace with himself and help clear the air for his new, non-political career, then he deserves credit for making the effort. If he is looking for anything beyond that, however, then he will be sorely disappointed.

From a communications point of view, however, Mr. Foley still seems to have missed the point. Rather than look to the future during his first foray back into the public eye, Foley chose instead to make excuses and list – once again – the personal demons that led him to make such terrible choices. At some point, preferably early in a crisis, leaders in business or politics (or those that hope to be considered as such) need to say “I am responsible.”

All that Foley’s interview accomplished was to remind the public of the regrettable episode that led to his demise in the first place. Simply put, he failed to articulate why he should be trusted again or what he has to offer moving forward. This is not how you rebuild a reputation in the wake of a national scandal.

John Edwards faces a unique challenge in that his actions directly contradicted the caring, empathetic brand he built while running for and holding public office. Because of this, the possibility that he could win any election he’d be interested in running seems bleak. But he does have a chance to reassume a thought leadership role within his party – much like Newt Gingrich did after news of his affair broke – but only if he continues to emulate the rebranding efforts of his party’s top thought leader, Bill Clinton.

After his initial public confession, President Clinton remained quiet on the Lewinsky affair from there on out. He then sat out the 2000 election and slowly rebuilt his brand with public appearances that provided opportunities to spread Democratic messages.

By sticking to the issues and refusing to take media questions during a low-key appearance at Indiana University last week, Edwards did the same. He enabled friendly audiences to get used to seeing him in the public eye again without having to rehash the sordid details of his recent affair. Like Clinton, he seems to understand that a slow and calculated approach is most prudent when remaking a public image following an admitted scandal.

Finally, Sarah Palin is remaining in the public eye to put the luster back on the down-to-Earth, Wasilla hockey-mom shine that faded during the campaign. It seems that she’s trying to maximize the momentum she built among the Republican base – but rather than pursue an all-out media blitz, she might be better served to take a page from the playbook of an unlikely source – President-Elect Barack Obama.

Like Palin, Obama first took the national stage in the waning months of a presidential election (2004). Like Palin, he was viewed as a rising star within his respective party following that election. Like Palin, he was initially seen as a polarizing figure. And like Palin, he did seem a little wet behind the ears at first glance.

But unlike Palin, Obama laid low for a while after the 2004 election – opting instead for a slower, more strategic approach that allowed him to stay out of the media spotlight and assuage concerns that he was all style and little substance. If Palin were following Obama’s example, she might have a chance to accomplish that same goal while allowing the many missteps she made during the campaign to fade into history – which will be absolutely necessary if she plans to make a serious run at the presidency in 2012.

From here on out, Palin will have to use every opportunity to articulate substance over style. The apparent loss of Senator Stevens seat – a seat she was once considered to possibly fill – just made her road longer and harder, as she will have to do her rebuilding from Juneau, not Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee is making it quite clear that he believes he is the future of the Republican Party, and he has nothing but exceeded expectations serving as his legacy.

Remaking an image is never easy – especially in the political realm. But those that do manage to resurrect themselves from the political graveyard usually do so with a tempered, calculated approach that allows the public to forget the transgressions of the past and look forward with excitement to a brighter future.

It started on a Friday night, when blogger Jessica Gottlieb got wind of the Motrin ad campaign, which had actually been running for nearly two weeks. She thought the ads implied that Moms use their infants as fashion accessories and vented her outrage to her more than 1,000 Twitter followers. On Saturday, bloggers from coast to coast began posting on the story. By sunup Sunday, blogger Katja Presnal, who has 4,221 Twitter followers, had collected tweets (Twitter posts) from offended moms and turned them into a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 50,000 times.

To its credit, J&J (which wrote the crisis-response handbook with its now legendary response to the Tylenol tampering episode in the early 80s) has handled the situation in textbook fashion – and once again offered a template for other companies to follow.

First of all, the fact that J&J has already suspended the ad campaign demonstrates that it was watching the social media space – and Twitter in particular – for mentions of its marquee brands. This should now be standard operating procedure across Corporate America. Tools such as TweetBeep, Twist, and Twinfluence can keep companies ahead of the game on Twitter. And sites such as Technorati can help companies cover other realms within the blogosphere as well.

Second, J&J went beyond simply issuing an apology. Kathy Widmer, the VP of Marketing at McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which handles the Motrin brand, immediately began connecting with angry bloggers via e-mail. And by engaging the blogging community, she made allies of those that had been lobbing darts at the Motrin brand just hours before. In fact, blogger Amy Gates even posted a personal note from Widmer on her blog, Crunchy Domestic Goddess.

By watching the blogosphere and joining the online conversation, J&J has once again set the gold standard in crisis response. Now that social media has officially arrived, we should all be paying close attention.

It used to be that wire service coverage represented a major coup for communications professionals. When the Associated Press or Reuters picked up your story, it would be seen in newspapers around the world, picked up by radio and TV stations and – more recently – linked to the inboxes of millions of web-based e-mail users. Most important, you could always depend on the balanced reporting that helped the wires build an almost unassailable brand of journalistic integrity.

As a former AP reporter myself, I have always been proud of the organization’s reputation for fairness, objectivity, and straight-down-the-middle “Sergeant Joe Friday” brand of news reporting.

But now, according to a story published in The Washington Post, it seems that open competition with the blogosphere and 24-hour cable news and the evolving needs of the news audience has taken a toll on one of the last redoubts of pure journalism left in our global society – but not in the way that many might think.

The wire services still break news at a pace that other media outlets find tough to match. With bureaus just about anywhere that news could be made, they have a reach that is simply unbeatable. But today, at least one wire service (the AP) isn’t just racing to be first with the facts, it’s vying to be first with critical analysis as well – bending a key tenet of pure journalism and possibly giving rise to a trend that all crisis communications professionals should be watching closely over the coming months.

The Washington Post’s piece references AP headlines or leads from the 2008 election cycle such as “Obama Walks Arrogance Line,” “Slick Hillary,” and “Biden Pick Shows Lack of Confidence” to make its point. And it cites anonymous AP reporters to strengthen its case. One such reporter said “It’s enough that we’re expected to always be first, this incredible pressure to break the news… But now we also have to magically find a brilliant and nifty lead, the unique angle, while still beating everyone else.”

What this portends is that we may be nearing the end of days for balanced journalism as we know it. After all, if the AP is offering commentary, there simply aren’t many outfits left that don’t. And if breaking news is going to be accompanied by instant analysis moving forward, then crisis managers need to evolve to meet the needs of those that are not only telling their stories, but editorializing.

Specifically, that means greater emphasis has to be placed on controlling the story from the outset. Messaging needs to be nuanced to offer reporters a hand in drawing conclusions. And reporter biases need to be anticipated so that they can be somehow neutralized in each communication.

This is a watershed moment in the history of modern journalism – and it’s those that recognize it as such that will be able to turn a disturbing trend into a tactical advantage 

The New York Times Magazine recently published a story about Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle that any corporate communications professional facing pressure from interest groups should read. The piece opens at the abandoned grounds of the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino California and recounts how a Humane Society undercover investigator surreptitiously taped so-called “downer” cattle wobbling and flopping on their way to the slaughterhouse.

The ghoulish video was quickly posted on YouTube and Internet blogs around the world, ultimately leading to the largest beef recall in American history and the bankruptcy of Westland/Hallmark.

The Humane Society’s outing of Westland/Hallmark was successful on its own – even though many companies have since learned to combat such tactics by posting signs that expressly prohibit unauthorized photography and videotaping on company property. But Pacelle and the Humane Society have stayed ahead of the game by applying a political strategy that has broader implications for businesses, large and small.

On Tuesday, Californians overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2 – a measure that mandates better treatment for farm and slaughter animals across the state. It passed thanks largely to the Humane Society’s efforts to build on public support gained during the Westland/Hallmark episode.

By employing ballot initiatives, public interest groups like the Humane Society are leapfrogging the circuitous and often costly legislative and regulatory processes – and in the process, they are neutralizing the sophisticated public affairs and lobbying techniques of the corporations that sometimes land in their crosshairs. Most important, they’re being patient, targeting one influential state at a time, banking on the likelihood that the reforms will be contagious.

Ballot initiatives in other states threaten massive repercussions for business as well. For example, a measure in Arizona would have resulted in the revocation of the business license of any employer who knowingly employs illegal immigrants had it passed.

If companies and trade associations hope to keep up with the innovative tactics of NGOs and public interest groups, their communications strategies must evolve to include effective Internet blogging, online videos, and viral efforts that blend digital media tactics with state and federal public affairs strategy. That’s how they’ll reach the greatest number people and ensure that the grassroots take precedence over the grasstops when the power shifts to the ballot box.

The landslide election of Barack Obama as the 44^th President of the United States was a watershed moment in American history – and one that demonstrates just how radically the communications paradigm has shifted in 2008. The rules are changing before our very eyes. Americans have voiced their frustration with business as usual and the bitter partisanship that was beginning to define 21^st Century politics. They are hungry for answers to our most pressing problems, no matter who they come from – and they expect them in short order. 

What does all of this mean for business? It means that a newly-empowered President and Congress will be eager to identify villains that justify their reforms. It means that the plaintiff-dominated blogosphere, which is poised to replace traditional media before Obama’s first term is up, will be all the more aggressive. It means that regulators and attorneys generals who are eager to renew waning watchdog credentials will be lobbing more darts at new targets. And it means that companies are going to have to start thinking differently about their approach communicating with all of their key constituencies.

In a post-partisan political environment, corporate messaging needs to be more solution-oriented and less ideologically-driven than it has been in the past. This is a time for publically-articulated leadership that comes in the form of fresh ideas, compromise, and groundbreaking policies that offer concrete solutions to concrete problems. Whether the issue is skyrocketing executive compensation, a windfall profits tax on oil companies to pay for renewable energy programs, or negotiated prescription drug prices, solutions are coming. And if companies don’t offer them themselves, politicians, regulators, and bloggers will fill the vacuum.

According to data recently released by law firm marketing consultants Alyn-Weiss & Associates, the number of transactional, corporate, and defense law firms that employ Search Engine Optimization (SEO) to generate new business has nearly tripled over the last two years. For the better part of the last decade, the plaintiffs’ bar remained a full Internet generation ahead of the defense when it came to Web savvy. Now, it seems that the competition – at least in part – is finally starting to catch up.

According to the survey, 59 percent of transactional, corporate, and defense firms used SEO tactics to boost their marketing efforts during the last 24 months – almost three times the number that did in the previous two year period. Furthermore, there is evidence that SEO is working, as 20 percent of firms responded that their new approach has resulted in new cases – more than double the number that did in the two years prior.

These are staggering statistics to be certain; but if 59 percent of law firms are utilizing SEO, that means 41 percent of law firms have still yet to fully embrace the digital technologies at the heart of this legal marketing sea change – and that statistic is downright startling. Given the fact that the Web is not only an effective sales tool, but a marquee venue for trying cases in the Court of Public Opinion as well, it’s becoming clear that those who continue to ignore the power of the Internet do so at their own peril.

With new research conducted by IDC (a global leader in tracking technology trends) showing that Internet-connected Americans spend an average of 32.7 hours a week on the Web – nearly twice the hours spent watching television and more than eight times the hours spent reading magazines or newspapers – it’s hard to understand why a law firm wouldn’t be working tirelessly to ensure that its messages are ranked above the competition when users search Google, Yahoo, or MSN for litigation-related information.

Whether it’s through landing pages, a frequently-updated blog, well-placed keywords, web video, or strategically-inserted links, the more than four out of ten law firms that remain behind the curve should be taking a more proactive approach when it comes to SEO. The Internet is no longer “new media.” It’s simply “media” – and those that fail to evolve with the times may soon find clients, cases, and winning judgments harder to come by as a result.

Of course, marketing is just Step One. The plaintiffs bar remains far ahead in trolling the Internet for clients. But that is a story for another blog.