Got Your Six—Now What?

Perhaps you saw Tom Hanks wear a “6” lapel pin at the Oscars. Ryan Seacrest did the same on this week’s “Idol.” So are Alec Baldwin, Brian Williams and a gaggle of other celebrities in this new video. 

It’s all part of “Got Your 6,” a well-coordinated campaign that aims to:

“Create a new conversation in America, one where veterans and military families are perceived as both leaders and civic assets.”

I support everything about “Got Your 6”—a military expression for “Got Your Back”—and the group’s efforts to help returning vets and their families.

But like so many campaigns of its kind, “Got Your Six” drives me to its website, and then fails to close the sale. 

What, exactly, do you want me to do beyond “change the conversation”? 

There’s an answer, but it is hidden on the group’s website. And it requires a lot more “clicks” (and effort) than most visitors will take. 

Non-profit organizations need to stop obsessing about “awareness” and get focused on “action.” You got me curious; you even got me to your website. Tell me what you want me to do. 

Online retailers have perfected “Buy It Now.” What’s your organization’s “Do It Now” button? 

Prediction: Burger King Will Rebrand as BK

If you visit Burger King’s website, you won’t find a masked king, a subservient chicken or any of the other advertising icons created last decade by Crispin, Porter + Bogusky. 

In fact, there isn’t even a whiff of a single hamburger among the six images that rotate on the chain’s home page. Same for new celebrity ads, featuring Salma Hayek, David Beckham and others. 

Critics have panned the new family-friendly “exciting things are happening” repositioning. But same-store sales are actually up for the first time in more than two years at Burger King, rising 4.2 percent in North America during the first quarter. 

I would never have predicted that. Transforming the home of the Whopper into another Panera-wanna-be sounds more like desperation than a strategy to me. 

But I will predict this: With an IPO rumored for this summer, Burger King will officially change its name to BK. (Or at least it should.) 

Just makes sense, doesn’t it? 

Common Good Starts by Finding Common Ground

Many corporations share a common delusion: “If people only knew about all the good things we do, they’d think more positively about us.”

That’s why we see ads that feature smiling employees planting trees, cleaning up playgrounds, and painting wall murals with disadvantaged kids. (Bonus points for a rainbow.)

The problem, of course, is that we’ve all seen those images a thousand times, from companies good and bad, so we filter it as “corporate propaganda” or shrug with an indifferent “so what.” 

Exxon Mobil, which has fallen prey to same clichés, has taken a different tack with this new ad (click here or on the play button above) that promotes its support of the National Science and Math Initiative. 

I don’t know enough about Exxon Mobil’s effort to tell you whether it is sincere or meaningful. But I’d give the energy giant an A+ for understanding a fundamental communications lesson:

Until you find common ground with an audience, you have no chance to work for common good. 

The common ground here? Anxiousness that the U.S. is falling behind in math and science, and that our school systems are inadequately equipped to fill the void. The common good: Better schools, better students, better scientists, and a more competitive economy. 

That’s an entirely different frame than “Exxon Mobil cares.” 

Dear XOM execs: Use this program to establish a real dialogue with people, rather than as another platform for pumping corporate platitudes. Then don’t ask for credit; let us do the talking. 

Update on Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:36PM by Frank J. Oswald

DIFFERENT AD, DIFFERENT TAKEAWAY. Compare the well-executed Exxon Mobil ad above to XOM’s feel-good “celebrating teachers” ad that falls into familiar traps: from the stock music and corny classroom imagery to its faux-folksy payoff (“thank you, Mr. Davies”). The story may be real, but it doesn’t feel real. Big difference. 

Walmart’s Blind Spots: Why Do Good People Do Bad Things?

Updated on Fri, April 27, 2012 at 5:28AM by Frank J. Oswald

Do the right thing for whom? Walmart’s Global Ethics website. (Note spelling of “descisions.”)I’ve been quietly cheering about positive changes at Walmart over the past few years. And, like Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, I’ve admired the retailer’s gutsy sustainability leadership. 

But this week’s news that Walmart execs paid bribes to grease its growth in Mexico have all but eroded my trust in the company—just as it has eroded billions in the low-price leviathan’s stock value. 

Why do people make such poor ethical decisions, especially when the stakes are so high? I wrote about that topic a year ago under the headline, “Be the Conscience in the Conference Room.” The time feels write to reprise that post (in italics below). 

A good reminder to all: Trust is earned in inches and lost in yards. 

(Mental Shavings, June 21, 2011) We all like to think that we’d “do the right thing” when faced with an ethical dilemma.

But the hard truth is that we often fail to recognize the ethical dimension of many of the decisions we make.

Click to read more ...

Newt’s Moral Obligations

Photo by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, (cc) some rights reservedI read the news today, oh boy. Newt Gingrich says he’s staying in the presidential race because the Republican Party has “a moral obligation to defeat Barack Obama.”

The righteous phrase sounded familiar. So I decided to look up “moral obligation” and found (without much digging) that Gingrich has used it liberally in the past, declaring: 

* An “absolute moral obligation” to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons.

* A “moral obligation to take care of the ecosystem.”

* An “absolute moral obligation” to work with President Clinton. 

* A “moral obligation to set up a [healthcare] system” that facilitates “the best possible health.”

* A “moral obligation to the cause of freedom.”

* And, to Gingrich’s credit, a “moral obligation” to personally pay $300,000 in sanctions for his violation of House rules. 

Since this is a blog about communications, I won’t comment on Gingrich’s moral compass—or question the difference between a “moral obligation” and “an absolute moral obligation.” (Is there wiggle room?) 

But notice how reckless repetition dilutes the former Speaker’s dire rhetoric. We have a moral professional obligation as communicators to help our clients avoid the same Chicken Little syndrome.