All in Managing Intangibles

Newcastle United FC is a storied franchise in English football and 'my club' in the sense that I was born a Geordie (the name used to describe people from the northeast of England) and therefore am genetically predisposed to being a member of The Toon Army, as frustrating as that can be. My father (long deceased) was a friend of one of the team's legends, Jackie Milburn ('Wor Jackie' as he is known), from when they both lived in Ashington in the 1940s.

This past season was a disaster for the club, with managers changing three times during a 38-game season and poor performances on the field by highly paid "stars'. The result is an ignominious demotion to the Coca-Cola Championship from the Barclays Premier League (where such other well-known franchises as Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool play).

The owner -- Mike Ashley, who has been problematic, if not a disaster, from the beginning according to most reports -- has been trying to sell the club since at least the last day of the Premiership season. It is now being coached by an interim manager.The players are furious and many of the first string players are asking for transfers. Even Ashley admits he has made a mess of things: “It has been catastrophic for everybody. I’ve lost my money and I’ve made terrible decisions. Now I want to sell it as soon as I can."

I have watched the public relations calamity unfold online on an almost daily basis through news reports from British newspapers and the NUFC's website (which tends to report absolutely zilch about what is going on). The extraordinary thing is that management appears to be saying naught. News reports are based almost exclusively on comments by players or "sources' close to the club.

From what I can tell, management has said nothing to reassure the city of Newcastle nor the club's extraordinarily devoted fans that the coming season in the lower division will be nothing short of a debacle. No reassurances are being given; no sympathy expressed; no plans outlined; no time frames given; no deadlines offered . . . in other words, completely counter to basic crisis communications principles.

Okay, maybe management doesn't see the situation as a crisis. Maybe management's solicitors or investment bankers have said it must say nothing. Maybe it is sending out news updates that no news outlet is picking up. Maybe it has a social network, YouTube channel, blog or Twitter presence which I just haven't been able to find. Or maybe management simply doesn't recognize the damage that is being done to its reputation.

The supporters will be there for the players on the pitch when the dust settles: but when Geordies are called on to support an NUFC management business initiative, when the city is asked for a concession or a tax, or when the club's history is written, who will be there to defend management's interest and its "license to operate" the Geordies' club?

Lots of juicy factoids and information today that add a little more to my thinking on new communication memes:

  • Twitter_logo_header Of the many striking statistics in a report called 'Inside Twitter' out of Canada's Sysomos people, this one stands out for evidence of the sheer stupidity of the hordes who now call themselves  'social media consultants': "Of people who identify themselves as social media marketers, 65.5% have never posted an update (on Twitter)."  I guess they just can't be bothered . . . or don't have time?
  • To be filed under the tab 'Public Relations Through the Rear View Mirror', according to an article today in the Ottawa Citizen Canada's National Defence HQ has a new 'conduit' approach to public relations (in which all media questions are funneled through public affairs staff, with the journalist never allowed to speak to a subject matter expert directly) that the writer calls the 24 DAY news cycle: "Into this brave new world of hyper-speed news gathering, NDHQ has rolled out what I’ve termed, the “24-day news cycle. Yes, 24 days…..That’s about the length of time I figure that it takes NDHQ to answer a question from the news media…..if it is answered at all."

  • Bear with me on this one. Those who follow me on Twitter will know that as a native 'Geordie' I am an ardent -- and frustrated, some would say foolish -- supporter of the Newcastle United football club, formerly of the English Premier League now relegated to tier two football as a result of an abysmal season this past year. Thankfully, the owner has put the club up for sale (at 0,,10278~3488677,00 about US$200 million). Before he did so, he published a statement in which he said "I'm sorry" about four or five times. Frankly, it sounded hollow given Ashley's unwillingness to invest in the club and his lack of commitment to its success in spite of having one of the most loyal fan bases of any football club. The lesson here is simple . . . saying 'Im sorry' in a crisis is not enough. An apology has to be backed up by action to resolve the underlying problem. In this case, the owner getting out is the right move, although that is not counsel I would give to many CEOs.

  • Finally, this about philanthropic giving . . . "Today, the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) shares a first-look at results from its annual philanthropy survey of nearly 140 leading companies, revealing that 53% of companies increased their total philanthropic donations in 2008, and 27% increased their giving by more than 10% year-over-year." So things are not as bad as the CR critics would have us believe.


I was delighted to discover today that McKinsey & Company agrees with me about the reputation challenges facing companies globally and the new approaches needed to meet those challenges.

Okay, maybe I am not given credit anywhere in the McKinsey Quarterly article called Rebuilding corporate reputations (registration required). Yes, I know others have been saying the same thing for a number of years. And native humility prevents me from claiming anything more about my contribution to these discussions among public affairs specialists. But it was satisfying nonetheless to read that the consultants in McKinsey & Company's strategy practice ALSO agree there are three changes profoundly altering the reputation management landscape:

"Those changes include the growing importance of Web-based participatory media, the increasing significance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other third parties, and declining trust in advertising."

Add to this the recognition in the report that traditional media relations strategies alone are simply inadequate to deal with dispersed opinion shaping never mind stakeholder expectations for participation, dialogue and transparency, and you have the skeleton of most of what many of us who advise companies on reputation management have been clamoring about for a number of years.

Perhaps now that McKinsey & Company has said it senior executives will be more disposed to our strategies.

Reputation risk for companies is an underestimated consequence of global concern about climate change. Rather than expending more inventive energy on denying a relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature, smart businesses should be looking for ways to gain come reputation capital by managing climate change risks in cooperation with communities and global agencies.

Last week, the UN Global Compact and the Pacific Institute released a short paper on climate change and its impact on water which recommends a number of sensible management strategies. The context for the paper is the statement that:

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are reaching levels that are likely higher than in the last 20 million years.Rising CO2 concentrations along with other greenhouse gases (GHG) are changing the planet’s climate. Global mean temperatures have increased three-quarters of a degree Celsius since 1900 and 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 1996.These climatic changes are expected to accelerate over the coming decades."

The paper argues that a significant body of scientific evidence suggests climate change will affect the scarcity, sustainability and quality of the global water supply, which increases business risk, especially with respect to energy supply management, raw material inventories, industrial production systems and the associated financing costs.

Reputation risks can easily follow, for example as "people become more aware of their rights to access water . . . local businesses may find themselves using copious amounts of water in regions where people lack sufficient water to meet basic needs."

The paper outlines some business strategies which mirror two dominant themes on how businesses today need to think of corporate responsibility (CR): CR as part of business strategy discussions (integrating "water and climate change into strategic business planning and operational activities") and engagement of stakeholders in responsible planning (engaging "key stakeholders as a part of water and climate risk assessment, long-term planning and implementation activities").

Philip Sheppard, a past president of the International Public Relations Association, brought to my attention this exhilarating and numbing video called Did You KNow? posted on the Pilot Theatre (from Wakefield West Yorkshire) website . . . Lots to make you think about business, communications, knowledge management and North American education (strengths and failures).

The stock of CSX Corp., a Jacksonville Florida-based railway company has been discounted as a result of lingering criticism of "poor management", according to UBS analyst Rick Paterson as reported today in the Financial Post. (I can't find a link: The Financial Post's website doesn't make it easy.) It should be trading at a premium to its competitors according to Paterson.

He goes on to say "Four or five years ago that ("poor management") was probably true, but we think these days are long gone and (mis)perception is lagging reality."

If that's the case (and I have no idea if the company has been actively trying to restore its reputation), then why is it that investment bankers and equity analysts stubbornly resist the idea that a good reputation, consciously developed, nurtured and communicated, can have a measurable impact on valuation? And why is it that some companies have such a hard time understanding that reputations don't recover solely through solid financial performance?

There are strategies for reputation recovery. But they require commitment, humility and honesty . . . and the support of financial advisers, lenders and legal counsel.

The Economist, not normally a booster of corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainability as it  tends to be known in Europe, this week has a piece on CSR that hits the mark. The author concludes that corporate philanthropy (contributions to charitable causes) is being cleaved but the attention being paid to behaviour -- ethics and governance in particular -- is holding steady, as it should.

"There is one other important reason for thinking that companies will maintain their commitments to sustainability through the downturn and beyond: the need to restore confidence in business. The financial crisis was triggered by a bout of corporate social irresponsibility on a massive scale that has tarnished the reputations of even the bluest of blue-chip companies. Now corporate leaders have a chance to show that they are not just motivated by short-termism after all."

As Intel (a client) says in the management analysis and strategy portion of its 2008 corporate responsibility report (Note . . . I agree with ridding CSR of its restrictive 'S'),  "By incorporating corporate responsibility directly into our strategy and objectives, we manage our business more effectively and understand our impact on the world more clearly."

Corporate or 'strategic' philanthropy is a programmatic means by which a company contributes to its community. Philanthropy evidences a corporate recognition that profits are derived from the community and that a return to the community in the form of wages paid for labor and consistent dividend payments to shareholders as well as steady share price growth is -- at least in terms of today's social expectations -- insufficient.

Communities expect companies to give back, and companies have obliged either through random acts of kindness or more structured investments in causes which match company values or business goals.

But let's be honest. Philanthropy is unlikely to define or affect company behaviour when it comes to choosing business strategy, rewarding employees, managing supply chain relationships, committing to respectful and sensitive business principles and overseeing board and C-suite conduct. 

A generous philanthropy program, and commitment to a cause, can comfortably sit side-by-side with dishonest accounting, excessive senior executive compensation, autocratic and harsh management, deferential governance, poor labour and sourcing practices, and denial of environmental impact. Philanthropy provides a reputational sheen, but it doesn't de facto require ethical conduct or a socially astute business strategy. Philanthropy buys goodwill but it doesn't drive responsible behaviour nor build social trust.

If The Economist is right, and I think it is, and the decline in spending on smoke-screen philanthropy is NOT being matched by a retreat from investment (time, focus, intensity) in better behaviour, then maybe out of the current crisis we will see a steady push-back within companies against insular corporate boards, inappropriate rock star-like CEO salaries, and short-sighted and opaque business strategies.

CEOs must have a tough time deciding what to read among all the blogs, online news sites, management school journals and mainstream media which offer points of view on how CEOs can lead better. Alright, they likely don't read any of them.

Should they change their minds, here is a recent addition to the plethora of leadership punditry that may be worth watching: The Syd Blog is by Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth Professor of Management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. The blog is subtitled "Insight into the force and follies of leaders."  His latest post looks at how Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, who was stripped of his chairman title last week, may still lose his CEO position even though Bank Of America is run by what Finkelstein calls a "rubber-stamp board."

Sounds like Finkelstein would not be displeased.

The legislators in the Canadian province in which I live recently charged the Ontario Securities Commission with reviewing corporate reporting standards in order to establish best practices for disclosure of environmental, social and governance practices. The commission has been asked to report back to the House by January 1st of this year. The announcement warranted only about 125 words in Canada's national newspaper which means it can easily die a languid death.

Behind the order to review disclosure practices (other than the standard opportunism of politicians looking to take personal advantage of a crisis in trust), is acknowledgment that the public and minority shareholders have this indistinct but genuine feeling no one in corporate boardrooms is championing good behaviour.

Never having sat on a corporate board (I have been a director on a hospital foundation board) I have no idea how discussions about things like executive compensation, minority shareholder rights, and environmental and social commitments are raised and debated. Having read Dickens, Marx, Althusser and Levy, and being ready to believe anything Gretchen Morgenson writes about boardroom mischief, I do feel a sort of native mistrust that the impact of a decision or policy on ordinary shareholders or a community ever factors into the colloquy. Worse, I end up silently cheering regulators (although seldom legislators) when they study corporate reporting standards and insist on more transparency, even though I know I shouldn't given the nasty stuff they can foist on business.

By all appearances, I'm not alone in mistrust.

But I also know that many corporate directors are honest and ethical people. They work hard to balance conflicting interests and to do what is right for the company, its shareholders and the community. So let's hope that out of the OSC's review the government doesn't default to punitive regulation. Rather it should encourage board-lead custody of ethical, inclusive and open behaviour. A good start would be to put forward suggestions for ways boards can collect and aggregate meaningful contributions (not just by shareholder resolutions and voting proxies)from people who deserve to have a say in crucial (not all) decisions -- in particular minority shareholders and 'communities of interest'.

More Fortune 500 companies are blogging, but the pace of growth is still shall we say restrained.

The full results of a study by Dr. Nora Ganim Barnes, Ph.D. and Eric Mattson, CEO of Financial Insite Inc., a Seattle-based research firm are available here and a summary of the key findings are in a news release by the Society for New Communications Research.

Of the findings posted in yesterday's statement, here are few of particular interest:

  • 81 of the Fortune 500 or 16% currently have public-facing blogs, compared with 39 percent of the Inc. 500, 41 percent of the higher education sector and 57 percent of the nation’s Top 200 Charities.
  • 28 percent of the Fortune 500’s blogs link to Twitter accounts
  • 90 percent of the Fortune 500’s blogs have the comments feature enabled

Maple Leaf Foods (not a client) today launched a blog in response to the 2008 Listeria deaths caused by eating its deli meats and, as with much of how the company handled the crisis, it is a very good model for the language and tone of effective messaging . . . frank, honest and contrite. (Although its design is quite lackluster.)

The first post is by CEO Michael McCain and here is how it begins: "Since August 2008 twenty-one Canadians have died after eating Maple Leaf deli meats contaminated with Listeria.  We all watched in horror as the worst food safety crisis in modern Canadian history rolled across the country." Now that's frank and the antithesis of how many companies begin apologies after serious events.

Later in the post Mr. McCain writes "This was by far the most awful event in the one hundred year history of our company.  I can’t properly describe the overwhelming sense of grief and responsibility we all felt … I felt, personally (emphasis added).  You may remember seeing me on television back then, apologizing for the tragedy and vowing to develop the most comprehensive anti-Listeria program of any food company in Canada." He then goes on to outline in details the changes Maple Leaf has made to reduce Listeria findings in its plants.

Even more significant he actually raises three subsequent issues related to Maple Leaf Foods' safety performance that most people had likely forgotten.

Textbook . . .

Buried in a recent survey of corporate directors conducted by McKinsey is a finding that 29% of respondents report that one of the procedural changes corporate boards are making to deal with economic turmoil is "Promoting conversations that are more frank than usual"; further, 24% believe this is an additional change boards should make "to become more effective in managing the global economic crisis".

No mention is made of whether Twitter is a preferred tool for intermediating this new focus on conversation.

Ontario quietly passed Bill 108, the Apology Act, yesterday . . . although for some reason media coverage has been very limited and more detailed information doesn't seem to be available on the website of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General.

According to soonews.ca, "The legislation would allow an individual or organization to offer an apology as part of the dispute resolution process without concern over legal liability. The Apology Act provides that an apology made in relation to a civil matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability and would not be admissible in a civil proceeding."

What coverage there is focuses on the impact of the Act in particular on medical and other professionals and how it may assist in dispute resolution.

The important question is whether the Act will encourage legal counsel in Ontario to be more flexible in their advice to companies on what they can and can't say when their products or services cause harm. Is it too much to hope that this may open the door for companies to consider more active reputation defense strategies -- starting with expressions of regret and compassion -- rather than relying only on legal-driven refusals to comment for fear of legal liability?

What I like about Sun Life Financial Inc. giving shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation (joining seven other Canadian financial institutions including most of the large banks, although not Toronto-Dominion Bank and Manulife Financial Corp.)is that the company has evidently recognized something has to be done by business to rebuild shareholder and public trust.

Since the Enron years, most polling acknowledges a steady decline in trust in business and financial institutions. Any doubts about the extent of the decline are obviated when you look at the results of a recent Harris Poll:

"Those who think 'most people on Wall Street would be willing to break the law if they believed that they could make a lot of money and get away with it' are up to 71%. The highest number previously was 64% in 1996"

True, this is Wall Street we are talking about, ground zero for dishonest and manipulative practices in investment and compensation strategies. But mistrust is becoming indiscriminate and ubiquitous.

There are those who think this trust deficit is temporary, a function of the economic tsunami hitting global finance. Once things go back to "normal", the argument goes, the pressure for greater transparency in compensation policies and increased board oversight will whither away in a sea of fatter profits.

Ian Davis, worldwide managing director of McKinsey, arguing the contrary, is closer to the truth: He has written a piece called 'The New Normal' in which he forecasts that:

". . . around the world governments will be calling the shots in sectors (such as debt insurance) that were once only lightly regulated. They will also be demanding new levels of transparency and disclosure for investment vehicles such as hedge funds and getting involved in decisions that were once the sole province of corporate boards, including executive compensation."

This will be the new normal, and without actions similar to that of Sun Life and the seven other Canadian financial institutions increased shareholder activism, loud public displeasure, media sniping, punishment by consumers and abrupt regulation will surely follow.

Spirited debates happen all the time when people talk about corporate responsibility (CR) especially now that our economies are stumbling along and evidence continues to leak out about the governance missteps that led to egregious examples of greed-driven shortsightedness.

Research studies and white papers on the subject also proliferate, at least as fast and as often as politicians blaming their predecessors for current problems.

Here are a few that have made their appearance recently:

  • The Conference Board released the results of a survey yesterday on the future of corporate giving programs. Corporate giving officers are noticing their companies are concerned about their overall financial health when considering the allotment of their philanthropy dollars. Not surprising. But remember, public expectations about behavior -- and the punishment it inflicts on transgressors -- are not significantly influenced by random acts of kindness no matter how generous or strategic.
  • Yesterday, the Rotman/AIC Institute for Corporate Citizenship also released what it calls "a real-world guide that helps business leaders understand and prioritize key social and environmental issues and identify opportunities as well as potential risks." Called 'What's a CEO to do?", it is described as a toolkit and is built on a model introduced by Rotman School of Management dean, Roger Martin, called the "virtue matrix" which he wrote about in HBR a few  years ago. I haven't had a chance yet to do a deep dive into it, but Rotman often produces worthwhile management frameworks. (Disclosure . . . I have an M.B.A. from Rotman.)
  • The third is truly timely . . . an article in the Deloitte Review called "The Responsible and Sustainable Board. (Sorry I can't find a link to it but it is Issue #4, 2009). It includes a warning to boards of directors that "Even if your organization is disinclined to tackle CR&S issues voluntarily, you may ultimately have no choice if, as expected, regulatory requirements take hold." 

Maybe there will be some kind of retrenchment back into the philosophy of 'the business of business is business'. (Simply wishful thinking on the part of cave-dwellers?) Evidently though it doesn't stop the think tanks from thinking about it.

Since I have such respect for the quality of writing and ideas (although not always the politics) in the British magazine The Spectator, I am always delighted when the point of view of an editor or writer corresponds to my own. (I am not foolish enough to think there is any correlation between the two other than coincidence).

So imagine my contentment in reading the February 14th number when both the lead editorial and a column by Sarah Standing echoed comments I have posted here and here over the past few weeks.

Sarah Standing on saying sorry:

" 'Sorry' has lost its mojo for me, it's gone mainstream. It's one of those words that began life as a covetable Chanel handbag only to end up as a worthless flake flogged on eBay . . . I no longer believe in all these force-fed public apologies. They're starting to sound very hollow . . . I'm old school and from where I stand a true apology should come from the heart."

And not, I would add, because a crisis communications or political consultant has said it is necessary to apologize when harm has been caused. Without sincerity an apology is nothing more than gamesmanship. 

The editorial 'Bonus Points' calls out many British bankers for the damage caused by the huge payouts they received, which lead as the editors conclude to the wrong balancing of risk and reward

"Bankers must face reality and bring about changes themselves, rather than trying to face down public disgust with a last-ditch defence of the status quo. Their profession has to revert to being dull but respectable, decently but not lavishly paid, transparent in its accounting practices and the way it measures profits, intelligently regulated, and by nature risk-averse. And if that means talented people drift away from the banking sector, so be it: there are plenty of other parts of the economy that urgently need them".

Better said than by me, but at least my ideas are in line with some top notch writers.

It should be unnecessary after so many years of the corporate responsibility (CR) "movement" -- if it is right to call it that -- to have to jump to its defense and provide arguments for why CR makes a difference. But the harrumphing of the troglodytes has started again, this time under the pretext of determining whether our wretched global economy will cause companies to re-think CR actions and investments.

In one of those dismissive, glib pieces favored by business journalists when writing about CR, Stefan Stern of the Financial Times (registration required) writes from Davos "Thank goodness, now the recession’s here we can forget all that nonsense about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and get back to trying to make some money." Canada's own Terence Corcoran followed suit in his remarks to a recent panel on CR reported in one of Canada's national newspapers.

Communications professional Paul Seaman takes up the discussion in his blog and comes down somewhere in between supporting the preeminent goal of business to make profit yet recognizing that "Traditional values and professional ethics will become highly valued virtues and the true measure of corporate responsibility."

More often than not, the critics use ideology rather than evidence to back up their arguments. They ignore books like Lynn Sharp Paine's exhaustive study of the financial benefits of responsible conduct called Value Shift (Sharp Paine is the John G. McLean professor of business administration at Harvard Business School), or a recent study published in MIT's Sloan Management Review called Does it Pay to be Good? The conclusion of this study by two professors at Canada's Ivey School of Business about consumer behaviour and sustainability:

"Yes customers will pay a premium for ethically produced goods. Conversely, they will punish companies (by demanding a lower price) that are not seen as ethical. The punishment exacted is greater than the premium customers are willing to pay. Companies need to be 100% ethical to be rewarded."

Detractors like Stern and David Henderson (author of Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility) also don't seem to be able to make the connection between the frequent lapses in ethical judgment of some senior executives and the idea that "profit" at any cost -- without the filter of some moral or ethical framework (a basic tenet of corporate responsibility especially as it relates to governance)-- can be a precursor to greed. And look at what unrestrained greed has wrought today.

Will there be a step back from good governance, social engagement, committed citizenship, defense of human rights, product innovation driven by environmental concerns, willing social and environmental problem identification and resolution, and efforts by companies to control their GHG emissions? I doubt it. Why would companies set aside years of building reputation capital (an intangible with enormous financial value) for a short-term retreat from responsible conduct? Why would senior executives look on now as an appropriate time to set aside public concerns, when trust in many of them has eroded even further over the past six months and led to precipitous government and regulatory action?

Bruce Sewell, posting on Intel's CSR blog from Davos, (disclosure . . . my company's client although I don't work on the account) made this observation about the mood of the meetings: "Gone was the patina of entitlement, replaced instead with a palpable sense that at some profound level this collection of bankers, regulators and politicians had failed to read the writing on the wall, and for that omission the world as we know it will pay a stiff price."

The CR "movement" can only benefit from a flight from entitlement, from some sense of guilt about transgressions, from a recognition that a "stiff price" may be exacted from those who don't take care to act responsibly . . . or are dismissive.

President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's strictures on the salaries of investment banks and dealers which the government had to bail out has caused the usual punditry about the best and brightest now fleeing Wall Street for more lucrative fields (manufacturing perhaps?). Terence Corcoran in the National Post, for example, foresees "an exodus of talent"!

Let's parse that idea closely. The critics apparently believe there is a magical stratum of celebrity CEOs who somehow so outstrip the talents of their rivals they can command astronomical sums, even when they completely fail at the competence for which they are rewarded . . . making sustained profit for the company or firm in such a manner as to ensure a solid return for owners (shareholders) without running afoul of regulators and leaving a legacy of a respectable reputation.

John Moore also of the National Post (while dancing around criticism of his more dogmatic colleague Terence Corcoran) put it better than me:

"Pity the bankers and brokers of America. Having run their enterprises into the ground and gone begging for government money to avoid bankruptcy, they're now being forced to get by on $500,000 a year. Worse, their bonuses are being questioned. It really is scandalous that people who aren't any good at their jobs are being publicly shamed about how much money they paid themselves while wrecking their companies."

This is the talent that will now flee Wall Street.

Is it possible the people who end up running these firms for $500,000 a year will be no less competent -- and possibly more humble, restrained and thankful for the hard work of their executives and line staff, and more grateful for their social 'license to operate'  -- than those paid the big bucks who failed so badly? Is it not possible there is a great deal of executive talent waiting in the wings, and that many of those who failed will be relatively easily replaced? And is it also not possible this is often the case and that board compensation committees can stop being held hostage by the idea of the "celebrity" CEO?

With all the parsing of the implied criticisms of George Bush in Barack Obama's inaugural address, few  noticed the VISUAL affect of the cameras lingering over the outgoing president's departure.

An acquaintance of mine who runs a public relations agency in Paris, Christophe Ginisty, noticed this about the long goodbye to Bush and read into it an oblique (or stage managed?) wish to demonstrate that Obama's inauguration finally brings to an end eight years of "cauchemardesques" (nightmares):

"Le deuxième élément est la longueur de la séquence qui a accompagné Bush dans son départ. D'habitude, les télévisions se concentrent assez peu sur le sortant. On voit la sortie, on s'attarde sur la poignée de main, le départ de la limousine (ou de l'hélicoptère) et puis on revient au nouveau Président. Hier, j'ai trouvé que les télévisions avaient vraiment consacré du temps au départ de Bush, comme s'il était aussi important de montrer que ce sinistre chef d'état partait bel est bien, que c'en était vraiment fini de ces huit années cauchemardesques."


Imagery can be telling, whether planned or not.