How you arrive to the pitch room sets the mood for your whole presentation. That’s why the car executives bungled so badly by all taking fancy private jets to Washington on the day they asked taxpayers to pay them $25 billion. Brian Ross of ABC news exposed the auto executives as idiots. Worse, once exposed, they refused to acknowledge there was any problem with this extravagance. The executives are showing that they just don’t understand how they have to restructure at every level. Their rational is that their board of directors requires them to travel on private planes because of “security concerns.” The thinking is that these execs are worth so many hundreds of millions of dollars that they are at high risk of kidnap. Maybe, in the past, but if they are paid a dollar a year, then no one will want to kidnap them.

The executives could have spun this PR disaster in their favor. Any one of them could have said this the day after their private jet fiasco emerged. “I was wrong to have taken a private jet to DC when asking for public money from taxpayers. I have seen the light. I have called an emergency meeting of my board and recommended that we sell our fleet of jets and passed a companywide policy that all executives here will fly coach at all times. There is a new era of belt tightening. The board unanimously agreed and the proposal was passed. There is a new era of belt-tightening here in Detroit and I intent to lead by example.”

A statement like that would go a long way to repairing Detroit’s image, but the statement never came.

The following is from the Daily Beast. If you are looking for an example of someone who can consistently frame every single thought into a perfect sound bite, then look no further that Mike Huckabee. 

Mike Huckabee is saying what a lot of people are thinking about the danger of Obama tangling with the Clintons. “If he’s floating that balloon it better fly, because I think that to float the idea, and then to pull it away, I just think it would be disastrous for him from a public relations standpoint,” the former Arkansas governor told The New Yorker’s Lauren Collins. “It would be twice having rung the doorbell and not taken her to the dance.” The Obama camp is playing with fire, he suggests. “Surely they did know that she was married, and that her husband is named Bill, and that he used to be President. It wasn’t like they woke up and said, ‘Oh my, you know, I forgot all about him.’ You don’t open the door when you’re pretty sure there’s fire on the other side of it that’s going to come in and scorch the room.” Hot stuff.

***

Huckabee consistently speaks in concrete, visual terms. He uses humor and emotion. His communication skills alone almost garnered him the GOP nomination in 2008–and this was when he had no money, no name ID and no national platform. Come 2112, Huckabee will have have all of those things, plus superior communications skills. He’s my pick for the early GOP front-runner for 2112.

By TJ Walker

Barack Obama’s greatest challenge, perhaps of his entire presidency, will be to get a handle on how to communicate complex economic solutions and principles while trying to solve the financial crisis. The challenges for the Obama Administration are that they must come up with policies that A. Benefit the economy as a whole, B. Help as many individuals as possible, C. Minimize taxpayer risk, D. Help to create smarter government intervention in the economy but not necessarily bigger government, E. Does not redistribute wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and F. Appear Centrist and pro-capitalist.

 Here are 10 specific messages and principles that would go a long way toward winning over the public to his plans:

1. No Wall Street Bonuses. Period. Bloomberg News and other sources are predicting a 40% reduction in Wall Street Bonuses for this year. Only 40%???!!! In a year when banks are losing billions of dollars by the day? The average taxpayer will be thinking “why should there be any bonus if their company lost money and I had to bail them out?” And that taxpayer would be correct. Imagine next March when the New York Times tracks down some snot –nosed 28 year old Goldman investment banker who is complaining that his $2 million bonus from last year shrunk to a measly $1.2 million this year. When taxpayers realize they are, in effect, paying for this bonus, there will be a bloodbath in the streets of New York, Washington and across America. Secretary Paulson stupidly believes his crony CEO buddies when they complain that have to continue giving massive bonuses in order to stay competitive and not lose talent. News Flash—nobody is hiring bankers! In fact, hundreds of thousands of them are being fired around the world. This bluff won’t work any longer.

2. No Bank dividends. It has been insane for banks to give dividends for quite some time. But it is doubly insane for tax payers to subsidize dumb investors. No financial institution that receives a single penny of government money should be able to pay a dividend until this crisis is over and every tax dollar has been paid back, with interest!

3. No Shareholders bailouts. The government has a vital interest in helping industries and the economy as a whole stay alive, but not in preventing harm to any particular set of investors. Shareholders should be completely wiped out before government steps in to take over, say, a car company.

4. Bondholders must lose all or most of their money. Same as above. The government has an interest in making sure millions of workers who directly or indirectly are a part of the automobile industry are not suddenly unemployed and applying for welfare. The government has no compelling interest to make sure bold holders don’t lose money.

5. Bailouts will only be given with a thousand strings attached. (See above). The days of Paulson and his “Liberal” giveaway programs with no strings attached must become a thing of the past.

6. Cut taxes—on payroll taxes. After 8 years of sermonizing from the Bush Administration on how cutting taxes is the solution to every problem, the Obama Administration should take this ball and run with it. Only this time, the first $5000 normally paid for by workers and their employers would be eliminated. The cap on payroll taxes could just be rolled upward $5000. Workers who currently make more than $80,000 would not see any net change in their social security taxes, but the majority of workers making less would receive a dramatic tax break. Better, employers would have an easier and less costly time hiring new workers. Would this throw a monkey wrench into the Social Security accounting in 20 or 30 years or so? Maybe, but so will the end of capitalism, if we don’t do something quickly. 

7. Bailouts for anyone making less than $100,000. If we are going to have another massive $700 billion bailout, why not give it directly to taxpayers? Why not just send a $7000 check to the least wealthy 100 million Americans. For many, that would pay several over-due mortgage bills and the money would no doubt be spent right away. A Keynesian recovery is still a recovery.

8. Solve the housing crisis by letting anyone in the world have a US green card if they buy an existing house in the US. This would instantly cause a surge in housing sales as successful entrepreneurs from Mexico, China, India and Korea would surge into the US. Overnight, abandoned neighborhoods would become full. Housing prices would instantly stabilize and then perhaps enjoy moderate growth. Obama and his party would become overnight and permanent heroes to millions of immigrants. Non-white immigrants would coalesce disproportionately around Obama and the Democratic Party. The increasingly white Republican Party would be further marginalized by its likely opposition to this proposal.

9. The term “Free Markets” will be banished from all Administration members’ vocabulary. Four out of five billionaire hedge fund managers testified in front of Congress his week that they believe even hedge funds should receive more regulation. As long as there is a phony debate about “free markets” versus “big government” there will never be time for an intelligent, rational debate of what is the right amount of proper and smart regulation.

10. Return Eisenhower-era 90% marginal income tax rates to Joe the Plumber! Of course the legislation could be withdrawal after one day, but the message would be clear: now is no time for the national economic debate to be dominated by incredibly stupid, ill-informed people who say demagogic things about tax policy that are completely unsupported by facts.

Following up from Friday, here was the headline on the Drudge Report:

 Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for ’seance’ crack…

As I predicted, Obama’s mentioning of Nancy Reagan’s astrological proclivities during last week’s press conference turned into a minor blunder. Once the sensitivity police took notice, it was only a matter of time before Obama was forced to apologize to the defuse the situation.

This was a small matter that will quickly be forgotten, but for an incoming President, the lesson is clear: humor, sarcasm, snarky comments, and even mild teasing of others doesn’t get you very far–unless your intended destination is the dog house. Obama was on much safer ground when he said that he wanted to get his girls a “mutt” dog because then it would be more like him. Self-deprecating humor, unfortunately,is the only kind of humor politicians can get away with these days. All other kinds of humor become political landmines–with self-deprecating humor there’s no one to take offense.

Obama showed remarkable restraint in avoiding sarcastic humor during the last 22 months (let’s see if he can teach Biden). But if the new president thinks he can relax now that the campaign is over, he had better think again. 

When President-elect Barack Obama was asked if he had spoken to many presidents before, he replied this way.

“I have spoken to all of them who are living,” he says. “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances,” he says.

Obama was making a reference to Nancy Reagan’s well-known reliance on astrologers during her husband’s terms in office.

Obama’s statement was true, fair, and honest, but…it wasn’t very politically astute.

Obama did a great job during a 22 month campaign of keeping his foot out of his mouth by avoiding smart-ass remarks—now isn’t the time to start. Nancy Reagan is a 90-something wisdom in failing health, so she is now above the political fray and should be seen as off-limits by current political actors.

I don’t think Obama was being mean-spirited with is remarks about Nancy, but his enemies will soon try to spin it that way. Obama will be better off not making any cutting remarks about former first ladies, especially of a certain age.

Any new product launch is always a challenge for managers. A political candidate for president is the ultimate new product; you either convince half the consumers/voters to purchase you on Election Day, or you are out of business—forever.

Over the entire campaign, there were six main communications categories both candidates had to deal with.
1. Positive message about their own candidacy.
2. Contrast/negative message about their opponent.
3. Defending negative messages from their opponents.
4. Quick reaction to opponent’s blunders.
5. Adaptation of messages to shifting macro-political climate.
6. Visual/stylistic communication.

1. Positive Messages. Obama had three specific messages: (1) Change away from Bush policies, (2) Activist government to help with issues like the economy and healthcare, (3) Opposing an unpopular war. Obama had great message discipline and it served him well throughout the general election. His abstract message of change was made concrete by specific policy prescriptions.

McCain stood for three messages also: (1) Being a reformer, (2) Cutting taxes, (3) Foreign policy expertise. There were big problems with all three messages. “Reform” on its own, doesn’t mean anything. Reform is abstract. McCain never told a compelling story about what he would reform other than minor pork projects. The tax cut message didn’t resonate nearly as well because when people are seeing their incomes drastically cut or their jobs lost, taxes are not the primary concern. Additionally, after 8 years of Bush pushing tax cuts, the message now seems stale. Finally, foreign policy expertise doesn’t seem relevant to voters if, as McCain was, you are seen as a supporter and defender of an unpopular war.

Of all 6 categories of communication, the positive messages are the most important. When Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, he focused on three main themes: (1) Tax cutting, (2) Strengthening defense/increasing defense spending, (3) Getting the government off your back. He stuck to those three themes relentlessly and was victorious over Jimmy Carter who had a different message every day. Similarly, Bill Clinton ran on three messages in 1992: (1) Improve the economy, (2) Affordable healthcare for everyone, (3) Change in style and substance in Washington. Clinton stuck to his themes religiously, whereas George H. W. Bush shifted messages daily.

2. The case against the opponent. Obama made the case that McCain was exactly like Bush, he would continue the failed economic policies of Bush and he would follow same failed foreign policies of Bush. These negative charges worked because they were constantly supported with McCain’s voting record of having supported Bush 90% of the time. The charges also worked because they seemed relevant and fair, not personal. The Obama campaign wisely chose not to delve into the messy details of McCain’s divorce from his first wife as a means of painting a negative character portrait. Similarly, the Obama campaign did not waste time making the complicated but accurate charge that McCain flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and immigration policies.

McCain made negative charges against Obama stating that he is a Liberal, associates with dangerous terrorists and favors tax increases and socialistic/redistribution plans. The problem with the charge of being a “liberal” is that the brand of “conservative” has been so tarnished because of the Bush Administration’s failures. This charge seems stale because it has now become boilerplate after more than three decades of use against all Democratic candidates. The charge that Obama associated with dangerous terrorists didn’t work because the charges seemed too tangential. Fair-minded voters didn’t buy that Obama should be held accountable for something a terrorist did when Obama was eight years old. The final charge that Obama wanted to raise taxes and redistribute wealth didn’t cut because the issue has lost saliency and because of Obama’s skillful deflection. In summary, McCain’s case against Obama consisted of implying that Obama was too risky because he associated with terrorists (Ayers), people who hate America (Wright) and with philosophers (Marx) that espoused extremist views. The problem is that all of these charges seemed too extreme and were therefore not accepted by voters. For a negative charge to work, it has to appear credible to undecided voters, and McCain’s attempt to paint Obama as a dangerous radical simply didn’t seem plausible.

3. Defending charges from the opponent. Obama defused the “liberal” charge by redefining it to mean he has opposed Bush frequently. This then put McCain back on the defensive. Obama defended his association with terrorists by pointing out that top Reagan officials like Ambassador Walter Annenberg served on the same boards with Ayers and that the issue that brought them all together was education reform, not bombing buildings. If Obama is working with people that prominent conservatives associate with, then obviously the charge is silly. Obama let everyone know that he was eight years old when the terrorist in question committed terrorist acts, which made the McCain camp charge seem like an unfair guilt-by-association. Finally, Obama was masterful in rebutting the tax increase label. Every single time the issue of taxes came up, Obama said the flowing: “I will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. If you make less than $200,000 (or $250,000) per year, you will not see your taxes go up. John McCain wants to give all Wall Street CEOs a $750,000 tax cut.” This defused the issue and put McCain on the defensive. Obama was the only Democratic presidential candidate in thirty years other than Bill Clinton to handle the issue of taxes in an effective manner.

Obama consistently defended himself by not defending. He simply defused each issue on his own terms and then counter-attacked McCain. This is what the most successful communicators’ from Reagan to Clinton always do.

McCain defended himself against Obama’s charges, but in a less effective manner. Too often McCain’s defensive sounded like, “yes I supported Bush, but…” and then he gave a complex argument on nuanced differences with Bush. During the debates, McCain had a snappy sound bite “Senator Obama if you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago.” But sound bites don’t always defuse negative charges, especially if they seem relevant and fair. Other than pork barrel projects amounting to less than 1% of the Federal budget, McCain never articulated any fundamental differences with the Bush Administration on economic or other aspects of domestic policy. With respect to foreign policy, McCain made numerous, nuanced critiques of Bush’s policies on the war and elsewhere that were so complex they were lost on voters. The big picture for voters is that McCain supported Bush’s War and Obama didn’t. Little else sunk in to voters regarding the war of foreign policy.

4. Quick reaction to opponent’s blunders. When McCain said that the economy was fundamentally sound, the Obama campaign had a new TV commercial on the air within a few hours. The “hook” of McCain’s statement was new, but the message of McCain being a part of the old, established Bush worldview was a consistent theme for Obama—that’s why it worked. McCain had the disadvantage of having an opponent like Obama who didn’t commit many gaffes. When McCain did react to breaking news, such as the blurb that Obama attended a fundraiser with another terrorist, the charge seemed so peripheral that voters dismissed it as irrelevant.

5. Adaptation of messages to shifting macro-political climate. With a major financial crisis and a near universal consensus that the private sector—especially Wall Street had nearly destroyed the economy, both campaigns had to adapt to the idea that the old dynamic of “Private sector good–big government bad” was no longer operative. Obviously, this is an easier change for a Democrat to make. Still, Obama showed restraint by talking up his associations with Warren Buffett and Robert Rubin, not Barney Frank and Al Sharpton. McCain didn’t seem to be able to adapt to the new political climate. So much of his campaign’s communications seemed indistinguishable from Republicans of 1988 or even 1984.

In an environment where people with big incomes are seeing their salaries and bonuses slashed dramatically and where people are losing their jobs, the issue of taxes does not cut as well as it might in good times. When Reagan ran on cutting taxes, it was with a backdrop of an Eisenhower tax legacy of 70% and even 90% tax rates. A tax cut message had a huge audience and it really resonated in 1980. After eight years of Bush tax cutting followed by increasingly bad economic news, the tax cut issue simply didn’t work as well in 2008.

6. Visual/Stylistic communication. Obama was launched into the national spotlight in 2004 because of his speech making abilities. He honed his skills more through the primaries and eventually learned to be great in media interviews as well as set speeches. Obama knows how to read a TelePrompTer (something any Ronald Ragan fan must respect). Whether it was a speech in front of thousands, standing on a stage during a debate, or answering a tough question from a reporter, Obama looked poised, comfortable, relaxed, polished, confident and at-ease; in a word, presidential. Obama also has great discipline when it comes to pausing and using the full range of his voice.

McCain can be an engaging debater, but was clearly out-matched on most oratorical contrasts with Obama. Due to war injuries, McCain can’t move his arms without looking stiff and even older than his seventy two years. Whether it is McCain’s excessive blinking, his (relatively) short stature, his verbal tics (the incessant “my friends”) or his inability to speak for more than 120 seconds without stumbling over a word, he did not win any communication style competition when voters compared him to Obama.

It is important to realize that Obama won, in part, because he consistently communicated more effectively throughout the campaign. The fact that Obama could read a teleprompter well is only one part of many aspects of communication where he beat McCain. The macro-political factors of 2008 certainly favored a Democratic message, but Obama’s campaign deserves much credit for successfully executing well at six different levels of communication.