ROI: New Book Gives a New Look at New Media

As the old saying goes, if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. So how do we know if our social media activities are successful? Mark W. Schaefer guides us with his book, Return on Influence: The Revolutionary Power of Klout, Social Scoring and Influence Marketing (McGraw-Hill), which comes at a most opportune time. As our mobile connections grow, most of us have unprecedented reach in our communications. (As Schaefer was wrote the book, 84 percent of American adults and 80 percent of teenagers had cell phones, more than half of adults with laptops have mobile ties, and 11 percent have tablet computers.) But how influential are we, really?

Schaefer sees many benefits to being a “citizen influencer” — the new breed of online communicators who can become a rock star in that world. He describes personal influence as “the marketer’s Holy Grail.” He notes how such influencers get the opportunity to test-drive new cars, receive the latest technological toys and more. His advice, essentially, is to become an influencer in a particular area to become a celebrity. “Bloggers may not have the societal authority of a physician,” Schaefer writes, “yet there are certainly many badges and symbols on the Internet that can reliably trigger our compliance in the absence of the genuine substance of authority.”

However, he also warns readers to be authentic on the Web, lest they undermine their own credibility. (One particularly telling anecdote concerns a man who makes a comfortable living by creating false Twitter accounts preloaded with thousands of followers, which he then sells on eBay.) According to Schaefer, the three best ways to increase your Klout scores are to build a relevant network, provide compelling content, and systematically build a network of fellow influencers who will distribute your content virally. Most important is to create content that is RITE: relevant, interesting, timely and entertaining.

Schaefer advises organizations that use social media to become content publishers, rather than just republishers of others’ information. He reminds social media practitioners to think about the content they publish in terms of its relevance to its audience.  “If you create great content, the social Web will do the work for you,” he says. He also reminds readers that the social media are two-way. Therefore, we should do our best to interact with the audience, letting them set the tone for a conversation. (Schaefer points out that social media have replaced the old “letters of compliant” from customers.)

To provide “social proof” (Schaefer’s term) of reach and influence, he teaches us of the various measurement tools, such as Klout and Peerindex. These have become so legitimate that many communicators are listing their scores on their resumes and in other documentation.  

I found a welcome bonus at the end of the book: Schaefer lists many of the current influencers in social media, along with contact information, so readers can follow these folks and stay up-to-date with latest philosophies and practices.

I recommend ROI as a critical resource for beginning and journeymen social media practitioners. George Santayana once said, "Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality." The book makes clear that online activities can be meaningless without measurement, turning it into a narcissistic experience. The principles in ROI serve not only us as readers but also our audiences.

Pulitzers Honor More than Print with their Highest Award

Yesterday, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service -- the highest award among journalism's highest awards -- went to the Philadelphia Inquirer for "Assault on Learning," a series on violence in the city's schools. In all the excitement, it is easy to overlook that the Prize honored more than print.
The prize for public service goes to an entire paper rather than an individual. The Pulitzer committee said the Inquirer's series used "powerful print narratives and videos to illuminate crimes committed by children against children and to stir reforms to improve safety for teachers and students." The Inquirer created a database to document tens of thousands of serious incidents, ranging from robberies to sexual assaults. It was a year-long project by a team of reporters, editors, photographers, designers and multimedia specialists.
Other new media journalists were honored by the Pulitzers, notably The Huffington Post. The Emmys have been honoring interactive television for a few years now.  All of these examples remind us of the many tools at our disposal to get our messages out. Press releases are not moribund, but neither are they the only weapons in our arsenals. They are just one part of a strategic campaign, combined with blogging, Twitter and more.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, a member of the supposedly staid Fourth Estate, recognized this. Yesterday, it paid off big for them. Also for many students in Philadelphia.

You can view the entire series Assault on Learning by clicking here.

Our Responsibility with Social Media

Any of us who choose to blog, Tweet, trade opinions on Quora or otherwise disseminate information via the social media assume a great responsibility. Once we attain a position where people trust us, we become their quick and easy route to information. But what happens when we are wrong? 

The damage is more likely to be small and personal rather than global or catastrophic. We can mistakenly or purposefully take a quote out of context and change the entire meaning of what was said. An innocent restaurant can be irretrievably damaged by a hastily, unfairly scribbled Yelp review once it hits the ether.

Check and double check your information before you hit that "send" button. Reassess your mood when you composed your post in order to eliminate any unintended bias. Will Rogers said in the first third of the 20th century that a lie can go halfway around the world before the truth gets its sneakers on. What would he have thought of the potential, damaging power of our viral media today?

Ranking the Oscar Nominees

This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated nine films as their best of the year. We’ll learn the winners soon, when they are announced on Sunday, February 26. But this year, my enthusiasm is a bit dampened. Of the nominees, I am enthused by four at the most, and I really love only my top two. And the public apparently agrees, given the downturn in the 2011 box office receipts.

Furthermore, many better films were overlooked by the Academy. Where is 50/50, an emotional, nuanced and finely acted film about dealing with cancer? Beginners told a unique story about the grief and freedom that can spring from the death of a loved one. And the Academy could have done worse than nominate Bridesmaids as best film; in fact, they did do worse by honoring several mawkish films rather than recognizing well-earned laughs. (At least Bridesmaids got a screenplay nomination, though this looks like a consolation prize when you consider the seeming inevitability of Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.)

Here is my take on the nine nominated films, ranking them in ascending order. While I loved my top two, I hope Oscar does a tad better next year. First, let’s look at the first three films that make up the bottom third of the list.

9. War Horse — Early in this tearjerker about a lovable horse sent into battle, there is a scene filmed with much drama, vivid camera angles and triumphant John Williams music. What has the protagonist done? Why, he plowed a field! Such is the overwrought emotion contained in this film by Steven Spielberg. (Really, would this film have been nominated if it were attached to a different director?) Yes, I got teary at the end, but I felt I had been emotionally bludgeoned in the process.  Someone told me that she believed Spielberg didn’t trust his audience, so he had overplayed his hand. Point taken.


8. The Tree of Life — “You either love this film or hate it,” a respected friend and fellow cineaste told me. Well, count me among the haters. Yes, the elusive and reclusive Terrence Malick’s film has beautiful sweeping images set to music, but so does a screen saver. And both of these lack an element crucial to good filmmaking: a narrative. Why was Sean Penn, apparently a son of the abusive Brad Pitt character, moping around the film? Why did Jessica Chastain’s character of the mother appear not so much as a person but as some idealized vision of maternity? I give Malick some props for at least trying to tell his tale in a unique cinematic voice, but in the end neither I nor the audience with whom I saw it understood him.


7. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close — This film completes our trifecta of works that seem to seem to shout, “This is an emotional film! Pay attention to the cues I’m giving you!” Lead character Oskar Schell has suffered an unimaginable tragedy, losing his father, played by Tom Hanks in flashback, in the 9/11 attack. But instead of heartbreak, we get little Oskar traveling at breakneck pace from one New York City locale to another, trying to decipher a posthumous message from his father. He encounters characters that are unlikely (read: unbelievable and illogical), such as the mute known only as The Renter, and an estranged couple, played with more conviction by Jeffrey Wright and Viola Davis than this film deserved. The fatal flaw here is the unrelenting quirkiness, which distracted me from the message. I found this movie extremely idiosyncratic & incredibly pretentious.


6. The Help —The Help centers on a group of African American women in the mid-20th century South who took one of the few jobs accessible to them — that of domestic help — and fulfilled it with conviction. One day, their lives, and those of their employers, are turned over and around by a book that uncovers their hidden feelings. Of all the vivid characters, perhaps the two who best anchor the film are the mischievous but strong Minny (Octavia Spencer) and Aibileen (Viola Davis), who is more reserved, but wears her pride, dignity and fatigue visibly on her passive face. Though The Help doesn’t break any cinematic ground, it is the most superbly acted film of the season.


5. The Descendants — As he did in 2004 with Sideways, Alexander Payne strikes gold once again with this offbeat movie that offers well-defined characters in an unusual setting (Hawaii? Really?). Two years ago, I called George Clooney “this generation’s answer to Cary Grant” after his performance in Up in the Air, and damn if the guy just doesn’t keep delivering. He is ably assisted by a wonderful supporting cast (Beau Bridges, Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard and Robert Forster), most notably Shailene Woodley, who plays Clooney’s deceptively wise young daughter who alerts her father to her mother’s betrayal of him, while she lies in a coma. While The Descendants doesn’t give us any cinematic fireworks, I expect its perceptive and witty script to pick up Best Adapted Screenplay.


4. Midnight in Paris —Woody Allen has his best box office in 45 years, and I suggest that he did so partly by borrowing from Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar. Midnight in Paris is about Gil, a struggling writer (played by Owen Wilson as an Allen stand-in), who discovers that when the clock strikes 12 on a Parisian side street, he is whisked back to the 1920s, the so-called “Jazz Age.” Not only does he escape his shrewish fiancé and her overbearing parents, he finds inspiration in the likes of Ernest Hemingway, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Picasso and others.  Like Almodóvar, Allen incorporates magic realism to achieve this bit of cinematic sleight-of-hand. Allen the director works thriftily, bringing the movie in at a tidy 90 minutes. Midnight in Paris shows that the Woodman still has a good film in him and he should receive a Best Original Screenplay Oscar for it.


3. Moneyball — Boy, did I not expect to like this movie. It seemed destined to be talky, describing the arcane mathematical principles that manager Billy Beane used to build a winning baseball team in Oakland, California. But Oscar winners Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian whittled the source material (a book by Michael Lewis) down to its essential elements. Then director Bennett Miller added much needed of economy, moving the film along at an entertaining pace, which made even a mundane winning streak exciting to watch. In the end, Moneyball is anchored by an intelligent and deceptively easy-going performance by Brad Pitt as Beane. By giving us less, we got more, especially compared to the bloat that is evident in the films that rank at the bottom of this list of nominees.

It was tough to pick my favorite film from these last two. As it turned out, it came down to movies that appeal to my love for movies themselves. But here goes…

2. The Artist — This movie begins with us as part of a theater audience. The films in The Artist appeal to our wonder by stripping away basic technical developments—color, visual effects and sound.  Director and writer Michel Hazanavicius helps us remember how, in a dark room and using persistence of vision, we get magic. Hazanavicius’s work, I truly believe that the film ultimately succeeds atop the broad, athletic shoulders of Jean Dujardin. He portrays the mature titular star, George Valentin, with a smile and a charm that belies his age. (Valentine resembles the crusty Warner Baxter of 42nd Street, but out of character, actor Dujardin is much younger.) It appears that the film and the director will walk away winners, but if there is any justice, Dujardin will also be crowned Best Actor.


1. Hugo — The Artist stripped movies down to their original silence, and that single conceit helped make it an excellent and memorable film.  But in the end, Hugo works better for me because master Martin Scorsese used so many more elements into it. First, the director used 3-D for the first time, and it was a storytelling tool for him, not just a cheesy gimmick. He also incorporated superior production design and animatronics. Second, Hugo is Scorsese’s first film for children, and who would have guessed that after Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and other such violent works. Finally, look at the message of this film: Scorsese states forcefully that films are magical, very largely because of the work of pioneers like Georges Méliès, who saw the possibilities in this novelty item. He also makes his case for film preservation, warning us in an entertaining way that this vanishing legacy needs to be preserved. For this expression of a personal vision by a master craftsman who is still at the top of his game after many years, I found Hugo to be the best of this year’s Oscar nominees.

I welcome your comments. In the meantime, this is our annual reminder to enjoy the movies, which remains one of our most accessible art forms. Enjoy the ceremony on Sunday night.

Get Started in Social Media through "The Social Media Strategist" by Christopher Barger

The social media are not even a decade old, as Christopher Barger points out in his book, The Social Media Strategist: Build a Successful Program from the Inside Out (McGraw-Hill). They are now part of any complete communication program and, simultaneously, a mythology has grown around them. Barger’s book serves as a worthy introduction to newcomers, covering a wide array of issues.

Barger lists several necessary steps to creating a winning social media program. Some examples: Find an executive champion in the organization to support your cause. Understand which part of the organization will own social media (marketing? IT? Human resources). Hire a strong social media evangelist who also has business savvy. Create well-defined metrics and use the right tools to measure them.

Barger is a realist who recognizes much of the hype around social media. Chief among them is the notion of transparency (defined here as ingenuousness in communication and accountability). Unlike so many others, he does not underestimate the inherent risks of such openness, writing, “As a PR rep for a major national brand has told me, ‘Our execs know that the critics are out there on the Web; they just don’t think we should provide them a platform to bash us.’”

Instead, Barger’s book is practical, advising the reader how to overcome many of the barriers a corporate program might face. He writes, “If you haven’t been inside a company or organization — if you don’t know corporate culture and bureaucracy, or have no experience navigating internal minefields — then you don’t know how to make social media work inside a company.” He suggests ways to gain effective internal converts to social media while also building the most strategic internal infrastructure. He also generously mentions many other social media consultants and thought leaders, which the reader may follow in the future to keep up with the most current philosophies.

Notably, Barger advises organizations that use social media to become content publishers, rather than just republishers of others’ information. He reminds social media practitioners to think about the content they publish in terms of its relevance to its audience.  “If you create great content, the social Web will do the work for you,”   he says. He also reminds the reader that the social media are two-way. Therefore, we should do our best to interact with the audience, letting them set the tone for a conversation. (Barger points out that social media have replaced the old “letters of compliant” from customers.)

In the latter part of book, Barger veers into philosophies of overall communication, such as events and media relations. I found that, rather than diluting the social media message of his book, he placed placing social media into its proper context as but one part of an overall program. One part that resonated particularly strongly with me was his advice on how social media can support crisis communication, and he does so with several well-chosen examples of PR disasters.

In general, I found this book important as a primer for the large number of people who are getting into social media for the first time.  As an early adopter of social media, I wish I had this advice. Barger helps communication professionals tap into the wisdom of the people who have worked in these media for a while with a comprehensive and easy-to-read handbook.

The Day a Prophet Passed

December 31, 2011 marks 30 years since media guru Marshall McLuhan died, a victim of a final stroke after suffering from a series of them. How kind the intervening years have been to him. At the time of his death, he was viewed in his native Canada as somewhat of an embarrassment, but today he is an oracle, having essentially foreseen Facebook Amazon, Twitter, the iPhone and other modern media. In the words of a New York Times article published this past summer to mark McLuhan's centenary, "Instead of being viewed as an academic fraud, McLuhan is now widely celebrated as the man who prophesied both the Internet and its impact on society." Indeed, Professor B. W. Powe of Toronto's York University, and one of the organizers of a weeklong series of memorial events in that city, said this: “We read the 21st-century media through his eyes.”

Quite a turnaround for one man, though not unusual. As with most social visionaries, McLuhan challenged tightly held beliefs, and most people are afraid to let go of such ideas. His vocabulary was also new and alien. He introduced us to his definitions of "hot" and "cold" media: Hot media, such as print and the cinema, are sharp in definition, filled with data, exclusively visual and verbal. He also asserted that these media were psychologically damaging and low in audience participation. Other hot media, according to McLuhan, were photography, competitive spectator sports and radio. Moreover, he said that hot media make people think logically and independently rather than naturally and communally. McLuhan preferred "cool" media, noting that while they are low in information, they also challenge their users by forcing them to fill in the "missing" information. He saw the telephone, modern painting and, most significantly, television as cool media because they are oral-auditory, tactile and visceral. McLuhan believed that these media would be a unifying force, putting modern "back into the tribal or oral pattern with its seamless web of kinship and interdependence." These behaviors would, in turn, create his "global village," a term that he coined

As with many prophets, McLuhan's revolutionary ideas were not regarded kindly in his own time. A Time magazine review of his book Understanding Media  -- regarded today as the seminal work on the effect of media in the modern world and which contained many of the concepts described above -- called the book "pseudo science." Yet years later, when Time published their obituary of McLuhan, the magazine stated that "his writing was clumsy, his thoughts badly organized, and even he complained that he had trouble understanding his ideas. But...when he died last week in Toronto at the age of 69, Marshall McLuhan was recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of the '60s. Some of his insights into the nature of television and the electronic age became conventional wisdom." 

One of McLuhan's prime principles was that “we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.” Can we doubt that statement today, given how we interact through Web 2.0? We make "friends" through Facebook, we reveal our innermost thoughts through our blogs, we make spectacles of ourselves through YouTube, and we have learned to communicate succinctly in just 140 characters through our Twitter accounts.

Once again, we are currently reminded of the power of the media in our politics. And I do not mean our primary Presidential politics. No, the "global village" that McLuhan foresaw also has global politics. Time scoffed yet again when McLuhan stated in Understanding Media that "Had TV occurred on a large scale during Hitler's reign, he would have vanished quickly." No, the Old Professor was on target, as we have seen Twitter and Facebook cut through censorship and propaganda to produce an Arab Spring or rally for the rights of the disenfranchised. And here in this country, presidential front runners fall back almost immediately as they wilt under the glare of the media spotlight. That durability under scrutiny seems to determine winners more than any other obstacle. Some partisans may complain that Barrack Obama did not face any real scrutiny during his primary campaign, but come on; I was viewing fresh footage of his pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright, every morning, whether through the network news or the Internet. And will Mitt Romney, seemingly made of asbestos and impervious to the heat of battle, win his party's nomination because no medium will be able to lay a finger on him long enough to count him out as they have so many others? We'll see.

When McLuhan made his pronouncements more than 40 years ago, some listened while many others dismissed them as nonsense. He stated that media are "not neutral; instead they have an effect on people." Today, as we study the effects of television on what we buy, who we elect and how we learn, and as we study how video games and the Internet are affecting the linearity of our thinking, his theories are easily echoed. Yet because they are so commonsense and commonplace, we forget their origins. However, we learned similar lessons from Einstein, whose ideas were so advanced that they were also ineffable because no suitable language existed to express them. (How does one explain E=MC squared?)


The global village did not exist when Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase. But somehow he emerged from his intellectual rabbit hole to glimpse it, and then he wrote many books and essays to prepare us for it. Let's stay aware of the power we possess through our media, which have indeed become our extensions and have united us (and conformed us) in ways that only he seemed to imagine.

Three Signs That Your Organization May Be Too Insular (Lessons from Penn State)

While much of the nation is horrified by the recent scandals at Penn State University, they are not surprising in certain ways. Many of the characteristics that the university exhibited in the years leading up to these disclosures are not unique. We have seen them in other embarrassed  institutions, such as the Catholic Church, the military in the U.S. and around the world, many large urban police departments, and others. Do you recognize yourself, your company or your organization in the following practices? If not, you may be so far out of touch with reality that you are setting yourself up for a fall from grace similar to Penn State’s.

MISTAKING YOUR EXCELLENCE IN ONE SUBJECT AREA AS OMNIPOTENCE. Robert A. Mundell, who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in Economics, appeared on Late Night with David Letterman one night to read “Top Ten Ways My Life Has Changed Since Winning The Nobel Prize.” The first change (number 10) he cited was that he “can end almost any argument by asking, ‘And did you ever win a Nobel Prize?’” It’s funny, but also true. Once you are applauded as a subject expert, it is easy to think all your opinions and actions are beyond reproach. But
really, does being rich automatically make you an expert in all things economic? (Similar to Mundell, I have heard titans of industry give this retort to challenging questions:
“If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”) Similarly, Penn State’s success on the gridiron may have led the school’s officials to believe that either they were not accountable for their actions or that they could do no wrong.

A company that is highly successful making widgets may still have a poor accounting system, leaving their very existence in jeopardy. Similarly, making that one widget well does not mean that the manufacturer is guaranteed success in other areas. Witness the companies that ventured outside their core competencies and failed notably. There is a reason
that the King James Bible states that “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Just because you’re good, stay humble and put a check on yourself.

YOU ARE ORGANIZED TO SHIELD YOUR LEADERS FROM UNPLEASANT TRUTHS. Evidence of this shortcoming can be found in the way that Penn State’s top officials did not know of the true nature of the violations against children on the campus. (By the time that word-of-mouth about an assault in the locker room meandered to the president’s office through “Whisper Down the Lane,” it had devolved from a “rape” to “horseplay.”) Do your top leaders understand how, for example, poor expense reporting may affect the bottom line? If not, it
might be good to open up at least a bit.

YOU HAVE NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES OR OVERSIGHT. It appears that Penn State officials, including school president Graham Spanier, did not venture outside the university when they
uncovered wrongdoing. Rather than go to the police, they tried investigated the perpetrator themselves. And as we have been saying since Watergate, the cover-up was worse than
the crime. How do you govern? Do you or your organization ever ask for outside opinions, or have you become your own frame of reference? Going further, is your company hiring
from outside its inner circle? There are reasons we have Affirmative Action in this country, and one is to promote diversity of thought rather than  monolithic mindsets.

Mark Wilson and Mark Doorley of Villanova University’s ethics program write in an editorial, “As we try to understand what happened and what failed to happen at Penn State, we must ask broader questions about all our institutions. Do they cultivate a capacity to act on behalf of others, no matter what their role or status? Or do they reward inaction and loyalty to procedure, and so unwittingly lay the groundwork for complacency and complicity with evil?” Indeed, such introspective questions will help keep us and our organizations honest, in more ways than one.

Too Much Information for Hurricane Irene? I Don't Think So

Many Monday Morning Quarterbacks have weighed in and decided that the media gave too much attention to Hurricane Irene, even accusing them of hyping it.

Nonsense. That could not be more incorrect.

In this case, the news media did what all professional communicators are supposed to do: Give their stakeholders the information they needed to cope with a given situation. Certainly, much of the nation was gun-shy after Hurricane Katrina, when many people ignored the warnings and suffered for it. 

Some people complained that the media hyped the flu pandemic of 2010. The feedback afterward was that it was "no big deal." But it was no big deal precisely because of the information that year. People washed their hands, got their shots, made sure their kids got their shots, and followed all the recommended procedures. Good job!

Now take a look at your own communication responsibilities. Do employees in your organizations get sufficient information when it is time to sign up for annual benefits? Is your community fully aware of new traffic patterns when road work is going on? Are your shareholders fully aware of how pending legislation or regulatory decisions, such as from the FDA, will affect your products, and therefore your stock price? Short of panicking an audience, I am not a believer in "too much communication." And I can assure you that many people who were safe after Hurricane Irene hit them believe they got the information they needed.

I Tweet, Therefore I Am (Notes on Re-entry)

I have just returned from two weeks in Italy, and it is remarkable to see what two weeks away do to your public image. Because I did not have access to a computer, I had no blogs. No Tweets. No press-worthy events. It was as though I dropped off the earth, as measured by my Google Alerts.

However, I did use my BlackBerry to post milestones of my Italian journey on Facebook, and what a difference. Friends and family enjoyed hearing about the meals, the sights and the meetings with family. They were engaged, as measured by their "likes" and their comments.

This brings me back to a concept espoused by the great Seth Godin in his blog post, "The Truth About Shipping." Among other things, he stresses the importance of delivering something every day. "Ship often," he urges. "Ship lousy stuff, but ship. Ship constantly."

So I am back in the saddle, writing, Tweeting, blogging, prospecting, communicating. While I enjoyed the trip immensely, it was also a timely reminder about the value of output.

I hope to hear from YOU, too!

Giving our best, in the words of Joe DiMaggio

All I ever learned about maintaining a reputation for being the best came from the mouth of Yankee great Joe DiMaggio. When asked why he always hustled so hard, he responded, "There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time. I owe him my best."
Now compare this attitude to those of business owners, who risk their own reputations, as well as those of their companies and employees, to unethical practices. Or entertainers who don't perform at their best and create an everlasting impression -- fairly or not -- on the ticket-buyer who showed up for that day's performance. Our brands, our names and our reputations are sometimes all we have. Do you tend your image every day as you should? Will the people who encounter you today remember a superlative effort or a lackluster try?
I know this may seem harsh, and believe me, I have both benefited and suffered from this, but it is a reality to which we must all attend.

What's in a Name? For Google, it's Value

Google will soon be saying goodbye to several non-Google name brands, such as Blogger and Picasa. Most important, the products will remain, renamed as Google. Blogger and Picasa are two of Google’s most popular products, so it makes sense to give them names to reinforce the Google brand.

Currently, it is not so obvious that these blogging and photo sharing products are associated with the world's most popular search engine. But that will become more apparent once they are known as "Google Blogs" and "Google Photos." (I did not know that Picasa was a photo-sharing service. The name implied some kind of art creation software to me. The new name, colorless as it may seem, makes the function of this product immediately clear, at least to me.)

Of course, Microsoft has been successful with this practice for years, as every product in their office suite carries the name of the company. This is a good practice for any business enterprise, extending their brand way beyond the obvious. Note the number of home products that carry the "Mr. Clean" name or oral hygiene products named Crest or Colgate. On the other hand, note how the Coca-Cola company eliminated confusion by branding their bottled water as Dasani rather than another Coke name. (This is in stark contrast to how the company shot to the top of the diet soda ranks by simply naming their product "Diet Coke.")

So now, Google will be known for more than "search." In fact, there are many who believe this is the beginning of remaking Google into a social media company. It is a reminder of the value of all of our names. It makes us more acutely aware of how and where we attach our names. What image does your name conjure? Are you associated with a particular habit or ideology, either of which could pigeon-hole the world's perception of you? In the simple words of Al and Laura Ries in their book, The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding, "Marketing is brand building."

This strategy will become clearer once Google launches their new business initiative, Google+. An apt name if they actually become known for more than searching on the Internet. Let's check back in a few months.

Bachmann's Poise Debunks the "Gotcha" Myth

Michele Bachmann taught us all a couple of good lessons when Chris Wallace asked her, "Are you a flake?" First, there are no "gotcha" questions. There are only questions for which we have not adequately prepared. Second, one can also seize the situation.

First, let's take a look at her response. Many observers noted that she handled the question well and answered with Grace. Wallace opined (legitimately, I might add) that Bachmann is known for gaffes and misstating facts. After listing accurate examples, he signed and asked her if she were a flake.
She kept her eyes on him and said calmly, "Well, I think it would be insulting to say something like that." She then listed examples of why she should be taken seriously: that she is a lawyer, a businessperson, and other legitimate accomplishments. All good.
Moreover, she took control of the questioning. She never had to address the examples of mistakes that Wallace brought up because the conversation became about her credentials.
Compare this to another famous example. In September 2008, Katie Couric of CBS News asked vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin where she got her information and how her world views were shaped. If you watch the clip, it was not an antagonistic question; in fact, Couric did not have the dismissive and insulting tone that Wallace expressed to Bachmann. But when Palin could not answer such a puff ball question, she laid the blame on Couric. The fact of the matter is that no question could have been answered in such a cavalier manner and be deemed acceptable.
"Governor Palin, where did you live growing up?"
"Ah well you know, I lived in every city. I liked them all, I really cannot think of a specific one."
This answer sounds just as silly, doesn't it?

In all of our work lives, regardless of the nature of our jobs, we need to be able to answer such questions in order to have credibility. Consider the kinds of questions we get every day.

• Why should I buy your product? What makes it better that your competitors?
• Isn't there a danger that if I buy this stock, the value will go down?
• These layoffs will have a devastating effect on our community. Why are they necessary?
  
• Why do you recommend this course of treatment, Doctor?
• Why did her paper get an "A" while mine got a "C"?

In none of these instances would it be acceptable to waffle or sound defensive. A true leader has the answer at hand.
Bachmann showed such assurance in her handling of an awkward question. In the course of her answer, she communicated much more than her credentials. She exhibited a presence of mind that is essential to the position that she is seeking.

35 (no make that 36) Years of "Nashville"

As a self-styled film historian and film buff, I tend to know many trivial facts about films, so imagine my surprise and embarrassment when I completed writing this piece and discovered that the premise was all wrong. Let me first explain the raison d'etre of my post.

People often ask me my opinions on the best films ever. I cite many of the usual suspects, such as Citizen Kane (top of the list), It's a Wonderful Life, Chaplin's Modern Times and The Gold Rush, and not too many other surprises. However, when I was asked to name my Top Five, I raised many eyebrows when I included Robert Altman's Nashville.
Yes, that's right, Nashville! Want to make something of it? I think this is a groundbreaking film whose influences have spread far and wide, yet few people acknowledge them. Or, more significant, are not aware of them.
I wrote this thinking that I was honoring the 35th anniversary of the premiere of the film. However, I discovered that it opened on June 11, 1975. So I'm a year late. Still, I'd like to explain why I love this film so much and still consider it one of the best ever.
Let's begin with the setting. Altman was way ahead of the curve in picking the country music capital as the focal point of his film. You would be hard pressed to think of any significant films that were similarly centered. We see people in the recording studios, in clubs, at outdoor performances. It was as though he was clairvoyant in seeing what a cultural force country music would become, and he took us right to its epicenter.
This was no whitewash. An older woman I knew bristled at the portrayal, complaining "That's not what country music is about." Sorry, Ma'am, but these characters are Americans, capable of being as venal, petty, shallow and competitive as the rest of us. If the New York theater could have the vipers of All About Eve and early television could portray the Andy Griffith's ascendant evil in A Face in the Crowd, then country music was entitled to its Nashville.
Altman was also a master at pulling great performances out of a. huge casts and, b. previously unheralded actors. Look at the people in this film! Keith Carradine, Geraldine Chaplin, Barbara Harris, Ned Beatty, Scott Glenn, Jeff Goldblum, Keenan Wynn... I could go on. Altman took a popular TV-sketch comedienne named Lily Tomlin (heard of her?) and guided her to an Oscar nomination. Same for Ronee Blakely, who came out of nowhere to channel Loretta Lynn in her fictional character, Barbara Jean. Comic Henry Gibson was known mostly as a member of the cast of Laugh-In, the seminal NBC variety show, but he was brilliant as the duplicitous Haven Hamilton under Altman's direction. A native of Philadelphia, of all places, Gibson was entirely believable as the corn-pone crank and hypocrite. (Altman, et al, even knew to take a little-known bit that Gibson had performed years earlier on The Dick Van Dyke Show and turn it into Hamilton's so-called "signature" song, "Keep A-Goin'.")
Do you like parallel plots, kept straight by canny editing and the power of narrative? Altman pioneered this style in Nashville, and the technique was used brilliantly in much '80s television, notably Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere. It is amazing how these nearly 30 characters wander the landscape of this movies, seemingly disconnected in a head-scratching way, and yet they come together in the climactic scene set at Nashville's Parthenon. All the characters fulfill their destinies in this one dramatic moment, whether it was Barbara Jean's tragic end, Haven Hamilton's unmasking of sorts (best use of a toupee ever), but best exemplified by Barbara Harris seizing the occasion to make her long-awaited start turn.
I saw Bridesmaids recently (very funny, entertaining movie, by the way), and I howled at the use of overlapping dialogue in scenes, such as when Kristen Wiig's character stumbles through the plane under the influence of a sedative. But I also remembered that Altman pioneered the use of such speechifying with his multi-track sound on Nashville and his subsequent films.
It is bewildering to me that the film is so widely forgotten today, as it generated much discussion, disdain and appreciation in its day. It was nominated for five Oscars (picture, director, Tomlin and Blakely for supporting actress) but took home just one for Keith Caradine's song, "I'm Easy." It was the New Film Critics' Best Film of the year, as well as winning best director, and the National Board of Review and the National Society of Film Critics also honored it as the best. Yet I hear very few people mention Nashville today, and when I mention it as one of my all-time favorites, the usual responses range from mild surprise to recriminations from someone who tells me that their audience booed the film
If you get a chance, I suggest you revisit this gem. Tell me what you think, even if you don't like it. I won't agree with you, but that's okay; it don't worry me. :-)

PS. For a fine retrospective of this film, I refer you to a piece by Ray Sawhill of Salon.com, titled A Movie Called Nashville.

Ranking the 2011 Oscar Contenders -- My Own Choices for "Best Film"

Wow, what a variety of films in the following list of Best Picture nominees. Consider the different story lines: A film that takes place largely in a dream. A classic western. A young man and woman conflicted about their biological heritage. A woman of privilege faces adversity. A beloved yet shy figure faces a personal struggle. Characters face the consequences of being separated from home. A snapshot of the issues of the time. Simple country folks fight the economic odds against them. A struggle to regain riches that were taken.

Yes, this year's nominees share many of the qualities of the 1939 nominees described above. Those movies were, respectively, The Wizard of Oz; Stagecoach; Wuthering Heights; Dark Victory; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Love Affair; Ninotchka; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Of Mice and Men; and Gone with the Wind.

Is this year’s crop of contenders for the top prize also classics? Only time will tell. However, while I felt that last year's list was a bit padded, I believe the 2010 nominees are of sufficient quality that the Academy needs not be embarrassed that they doubled the number of competitors for the awards that will be given this Sunday, February 27.

Here is how I rank the ten nominated films, in descending order. These are not my predictions, but my judgment as to their quality, innovation and uniquely cinematic quality. In other words, when I evaluate a film according to these three standards, I expect to see a work that contains a high level of competence in its craft, a film that is unlike others I have seen, and a work that I could not experience in another medium. As Roger Ebert has demanded, I think the best film of the year should make me look at film differently.

10. True Grit — Joel and Ethan Coen made a few improvements in this remake. The setting and lighting of their Old West looks more realistic. The stilted and more proper language of Charles Portis's eponymous novel (the source of the material) lends a new authenticity. The Coens restored Portis's sobering, original ending, and the casting of Matt Damon as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf was a winner (immeasurably better than the execrable Glen Campbell). They also discovered the remarkable Hailee Steinfeld to play Mattie Ross. In a just world, she would win best supporting actress over The Fighter’s Melissa Leo, she of the braying "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" accent. Though I like this film, it is last on my list simply because it is a remake, one that does not add much cinematically to its predecessor. I look for more in a "best film."

9. The Kids Are All Right — This is an entertaining, insightful portrayal of a family far from the nuclear stereotype we abandoned as “the norm.” Laser and Joni, the son and daughter of Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), find Paul (Mark Ruffalo), their biological father, and this discovery creates a series of events that raises many questions about identity. Jules learns a new trade with Paul and then a new way to love (an aberration that is never really explained well, which weakens the story). Meanwhile, the controlling yet fragile Nic sees her whole world crumbling. The performances and the story-telling are all well-drawn, natural and effortless. A nice film with a somewhat unorthodox story that somehow did not excite me. (Alert: If anyone can upset favorite Natalie Portman for Best Actress, it would be Bening. )

8. The Fighter — Dicky Eklund was a promising middleweight before his undisciplined ways led him to crack addiction. His half-brother, Micky Ward, wants to win the title Dicky never could. The Fighter’s major characters are all endearing in their own ways. Producer Mark Wahlberg plays Micky with the same earnestness it must have taken to green light this film. Amy Adams brings a previously unseen toughness to Charlene, Micky's barkeep girl. Melissa Leo, as the boys’ slatternly mother, keeps her seemingly endless brood of loser children on a tight leash. Christian Bale is likely to win an Oscar more for the volume of his over-the-top portrayal of Dicky than for its quality. While this film is entertaining and well-intentioned, I felt that I have seen this all before in films, whether boxers, runners or otherwise.

7. The Social Network — The Social Network successfully captures our zeitgeist by telling the story of the creation of Facebook. David Fincher, displaying his versatility as a director, tells this story with more zip than it deserves … which brings me to what really bothers me about this film. Aaron Sorkin's wordy script begins with a scene well-acted by Jesse Eisenberg, as Mark Zuckerberg, and Rooney Mara, as girlfriend Erica Albright. Sitting in a bar, Erica tells Zuckerberg that he is a self-centered jerk who will always be lonely. This scene establishes Zuckerberg's character, and it is totally false, a contrivance. I believe that artistic license is one thing, but character assassination is quite another. It has made me wonder how much more of this film I can believe, and that doubt pushes The Social Network down my list.

6. Winter's Bone —Ree, at 17, bears the burden of the world. She is raising two younger siblings in loco parentis for their mentally ill mother, while her meth-making father is on the lam. We soon learn that he used the family home for collateral on his bail bond, on which he will soon default. As Ree's family stands to lose their only piece of paradise in a hardscrabble world, she decides to look for him. Her search sets off a series of setbacks and resistance that test her will and her resilience. Jennifer Lawrence (as Ree) and John Hawkes (as Teardrop, her father's brother) give star-making performances. Yet the main character in this small gem may be the unforgiving Missouri setting. Director Debra Granik gives Winter's Bone a gun-metal patina that embodies the monochromatic lives of its inhabitants. Like last year’s Precious, it is an unflinching glimpse into the lives of people we rarely see.

5. Black Swan — This was hands down the most daring film I saw this year. It is clear from the start that ballerina Nina Sayers is insane as she drives toward her goal to be cast in the lead of Swan Lake. Director Darren Aronofsky leads us into Nina's psyche, blurring the distinctions between delusions and reality with a cinematic slights of hand -- an errant reflection here, an ambiguous love scene there. Like a shadow boxer, Aronofsky feints, bobs and weaves enigmatically from start to finish. My one considerable reservation about Black Swan is its relentless pace, which becomes exhausting to the point of tedium. (Spielberg, for example, knew to lighten Jaws with occasional humor.) Still, I'll take this film over any safe rom-com or Blind Side that comes along. I’d rather be challenged than patronized.

4. The King's Speech — What a lovely film! Prince Albert of England needs a speech therapist because he is incapacitated by his stammer. Enter the uncertified, yet eminently qualified, Lionel Logue, who begins to succeed where others have failed Albert. The story takes an historic turn when Albert is thrust onto the throne after his ne'er-do-well brother, King Edward, abdicates for the sake of the harlot he loved. Albert wonders aloud how he could lead a nation when he cannot even speak to them. Tom Hooper’s direction is spare and subtle, evident in sly camera angles and tracking shots that symbolize Albert's personal journey. This film excels mainly in its performances: Helena Bonham Carter exuding loving concern as the Queen Mum; Geoffrey Rush as Logue, so devoted to Albert's well-being that he would never capitalize on his patient's royal stature; and Colin Firth as Prince Albert cum King George, in the performance of his career. The King's Speech covers a wide variety of themes (personal validation, integrity, courage, self- actualization), but ultimately I believe it is about the value of loyalty and friendship. I expect that the very accessibility of this film will lead it to the Oscar.

3. 127 Hours — Here is a surefire formula for box office poison: Lead a hiker to a ravine, trap him, and then wait for him to escape by cutting off his arm. Oh, by the way, the audience knows the story already. But under the inestimable Danny Boyle, this film, like its main character, emerges triumphant. Boyle takes us from an adventurer’s world of pools and landscapes to a view of the visceral. While Boyle captures the vast beauty of the expanses of Utah, he also narrows his focus to the small space occupied by Aron Ralston (played gloriously by James Franco). From there, both men go even more deeply into the soul of a troubled man who finds his way out of more than one confinement. The unfilmable becomes gloriously cinematic because of Boyle's guidance and Franco’s contribution. It is a breath-taking cinematic achievement that I am confident will stand the test of time.

2. Toy Story 3 — While I believed this franchise had nowhere to go, the brilliantly creative minds of Pixar resuscitated these characters, which were nearly abandoned by both their onscreen owners and their audience. Woody (Tom Hanks) and his cohort seem to have reached the end of the line as their now grown up owner, Andy, goes off to college. In a Keystone Kops-like turn of events, the toys mistakenly end up in a day care center instead of the attic, as was intended. At first, their new home looks heavenly. They even find a new leader at the day care, the seemingly avuncular bear toy, Lotso, brilliantly voiced by Ned Beatty. But all is not as it seems, and Woody leads the other toys to escape, a new adventure that is, at turns, exciting, frightening, funny, tense, creepy and more. Critic James Agee once wrote in a famous essay that the most remarkable thing about Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not that it had moving images, but that it had images that moved people. The same could be said about Toy Story 3, as it leads us to its well-earned heart-warming and touching conclusion. I don't care that it is a cartoon.

1. Inception — To paraphrase the old radio show, The Shadow, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Inception does. Director/screenwriter Christopher Nolan created a unique concept for his film: A process called "Inception' gives a person the ability to invade another's dreams in order to learn what is contained in that person's deepest thoughts. Furthermore, Inception also allows its users to implant thoughts that will influence the mind of the encroached.
Fantasy is difficult to pull off in film, as evidenced by the sheer number of expendable movies of this type that hit our multiplexes and quickly disappear with nary a trace of impact. It requires a great director to make them work, such as William Friedkin (The Exorcist), Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange), and Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings trilogy). In Inception, Christopher Nolan has produced a stunning piece of work that once again displays his mastery of film, and that is why I pick it as the best film of the Oscar nominees.
Nolan's visual imagery seems sprung from the mind of M.C. Escher. Staircases tilt into circular, never-ending designs. Cityscapes bend improbably toward the screen, and reflections give way to new realities, all without the slightest hint of artifice. Nolan is also solidly in command of the various crafts that go into film-making, using them not merely to dazzle, but also to inform his story. The sound design matches what we would expect to hear when a street tilts perpendicularly, with all the asphalt and infrastructure giving way to this freak of nature. The art direction created environs that confuse us, because they seem so real yet bear a touch of the incredible. There is particular attention to the cinematography as we enter a variety of dreams, each distinguishable from the others because of their unique color palette, whether it is the stark white of a hidden snow resort of the beige of concrete. (As my daughter pointed out to me, Nolan deserves an Oscar for the hallway fight scene alone.) The fabulous editing makes all of these elements blend together (or perhaps more accurately, helps them coexist distinctly so that the viewer is not confused). Not the least of Nolan’s talents is his ability to draw outstanding performances from his cast (Leonard DiCaprio, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and the much-missed Pete Postlethwaite). As the actors bounce from scene to scene, they all seem to stay in the same film because Nolan can coordinate their performances — an overlooked skill in a medium that nowadays often depends too heavily on the technical. Inception also stays cohesive with the help of Hans Zimmer's evocative and insistent score, which creates a wall-to-wall bed that unifies the film.
Nolan also serves as the anti-James Cameron, as he has the ability to create a literate and labyrinthine screenplay that intertwines with a love story. (For further evidence of his skills, I highly recommend his masterpiece, Memento.) Inception has a Nashville-like ability to tell several stories at once, and Nolan knows how to write images to accomplish this. He doesn't talk his audience to death as Aaron Sorkin does in The Social Network.
For all the artsy-fartsy references to directors as the "sole creative force" behind a film, Nolan's omission from the Best Director nominees is evidence that many film snobs wouldn't know an auteur if one fell on them. This oversight shows how inadequate the Academy (and other award bodies) can be in evaluating the ability to helm a film. It is no wonder that Inception was the highest-grossing live-action film of the year, as its visual artistry was able to cross both cultural and language barriers not only in America but around the world. Not only do I consider Inception the best of this lot, but I also believe it is a singular achievement in creating a uniquely cinematic film.

This is the way I saw them. I have no illusions that my number one will be the winner come the Oscars telecast. But I also doubt that I will be disappointed by the outcome, as most of the films on the list of nominees would deserve to be called “the best.” While the 2011 nominees are likely not destined to contain the number of classics that 1939 list did, I'll take it. A few more years like this one, and the Academy will look awfully smart for having double their number of contenders.

Oprah's Announcement is a Great Lesson in PR

January 24, 2011 -- Oprah Winfrey dropped a bombshell on her audience today when she announced that she had a half-sister of whom she had no previous knowledge. Depending on your viewpoint (or the level of your cynicism), this was either a classic TV moment or a classic Oprah moment: a dramatic reveal, lots of tears, getting to know the sister named Pat, and much time spent on the background of this event.
However, I come at it a different way. I propose that this event is a perfect example of good public relations, such as Oprah and her team have practiced so expertly in the past. Mainly, it supports the notion that a person or organization often should disclose developments or news proactively in order to maintain control of it. Winfrey said as much at the top of the program. She said that she was revealing the news proactively because she and her family wanted to do it on their terms. Based on my own experience, I believe that this was an extremely wise decision.
"I'm telling you today because once the blogs and all the media get hold of this news, there is no telling what they will do with it," Winfrey said. Her strategy aligns with my own, based on my own duties as a media or communications leader. I have often advised my customers and employers that, just as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in nature, neither is there one in news. When a story breaks and there is a shortage of information, people will fill it however they can, whether with innuendo, unsubstantiated sources or even misinformation. At that point, you have lost control of your message, and you are now playing catch up. This problem is exacerbated with the social media, where anyone with a Twitter account can send an erroneous message around the world.
Unlike Winfrey, Jay Cutler, quarterback of the Chicago Bears, has allowed such a lack of control to victimize him. He left yesterday's NFC championship game complaining of a knee injury. But many observed that he seemed to be walking with no apparent pain. It was also observed that he was disengaged from the game, not even advising or interacting with his back-up quarterbacks.
Sports talk radio is now abuzz with conjecture about his "heart," his ability to play big in a big game. Some time soon, an examination of his knee will be made public, and if he does not have a major injury, he will be pilloried both in the Chicago media and across the nation.
Oh, I'm sorry, too late, Jay -- That has already happened. Now you are points behind in your PR game and little time left to fill the gap. Is that a familiar feeling?
When many public officials and other figures were caught doing something they should not have, we have often used this term afterward: "The cover-up is worse than the crime." It is an oft-told tale, yet the large majority of people do not learn from it. Maybe this time, the lesson from Oprah will take.

SWIFT JUSTICE -- This Entertainer has Earned her Leading Status Through Careful, Consistent Image Management

Several years ago, a good friend who lives in the Reading, Pa., area had a visitor to his home. He and his son are both musicians, and a young female friend of the son came to their home. "Would you like to listen to my music?," she asked. "I wrote some songs, and I'd like to play them for you."
He listened, and yes, they were pretty good songs. He also liked the young lady, thinking she was sweet and polite.
A few years later, her parents took a huge leap of faith and moved from Pennsylvania to Nashville to support her dream of being a songwriter. It paid off big, for their daughter, for themselves and for all of us.
The title of this post and the accompanying photo tip my hand, I'm sure. Yes, the young lady in question is Taylor Swift, who has just been named by Entertainment Weekly magazine as the Entertainer of the Year.
I cannot imagine anyone more deserving. Think of her accomplishments in the past year alone: A Grammy for Best Album of the Year, and three more in a variety of categories. A new album, Speak Now, which sold more than a million copies in its first week (PLATINUM IN ONE WEEK!) and for which she wrote all the songs. An appearance in a hit movie, Valentine's Day. Hosting Saturday Night Live, and showing herself to be a pretty capable sketch comedian. A successful tour. Surviving and even deftly handling a zeitgeist moment when rapper Kanye West publicly dissed her at the MTV Video Awards, calling Swift unworthy of her trophy when compared to Beyonce.
Most people view the world through their own prism, and mine tends to communication and marketing. What amazes me most about this artist is the consistency of her vision and her subtle self-confidence. This is most evident in her careful stewardship of her own image and messaging, staying calm in every situation.
Would you argue that she owes that to her handlers? I don't. She stood on that stage alone at the MTV Awards when West dishonored her, and she handled the situation with more grace and restraint than we have the right to expect from a 20-year-old. Also, I was impressed by her calm control during her in the course of her interview with EW. Her expressions were articulate, her words as well-chosen as you would hope from a successful songwriter. She diminished the interviewer's suggestion from others that she saved the music business: "I write music about my life and love and relationships, and...(t)hat's where I have to draw the line as far as what I am and what I am not."
The interviewer also asked how she felt about being linked to Kanye West. She replied, "The one choice that I do have, that I continue to make, is to not talk about it."
The interviewer next asked if she had heard his new record. Underlining her point, she simply replied, "I don't want to talk about him."
End of story. Point well made, Ms. Swift.
I don't own one of her albums, although I listen to her and catch her on the tube when I can. (Let's get real; I'm not part of her target demographic.) But I look forward to watching her grow as an artist and a cultural force. I dare say she is off to an astounding start.

A Voice for All Seasons

The clippings from 26 years ago -- a long-ago September 27 -- are yellowed, but the memories remain vivid. The headline announced:

"John Facenda dies; eminent anchorman."

There are people, though they age, are of a unique class and so we can't imagine life without them. For lifelong Philadelphians like me, John Facenda was such a man. If you are reading this in Philadelphia, you must remember that John Facenda was the very model of a newsman. Honest. Reliable. Most of all, believable, as in "trustworthy" rather than merely "persuasive," as you might be fooled into thinking a disingenuous person is credible. Put another way, Mr. Facenda was to Philadelphia what Walter Cronkite was to the entire nation. As local writer Clark DeLeon wrote in his tribute to Mr. Facenda 26 years ago, "He brought a dignity to the (broadcasting) industry in its infancy, a dignity we can appreciate better now (at the time of his passing) that we can hardly remember their names six months later."
Has so little really changed in those ensuing 26 years? It seems so. It seems we still have many more Keith Obermanns and Bill O'Reillys and fewer Ed Murrows; more Contessa Brewers and fewer Katherine Grahams.
If you are reading this across the nation, you probably know Mr. Facenda as the first narrator of NFL Films. It is a cliche to say that he was known as "the voice of God." Yet the sobriquet sticks, because no one has come along to supplant him. Indeed, he has proved to be irreplaceable. Legend has it that one night in 1965, Mr. Facenda was watching the slow-motion game sequences on the TV, where happened to be produced by NFL Films, a local firm near Philadelphia. Mr. Facenda was rhapsodizing just how beautiful the visuals were, and he started to improvise narration to go with it.
Ed Sabol, founder of NFL Films, happened to be at the bar. Mr. Facenda recalled that Sabol came up to him and said, "If I give you a script, could you repeat what you just did?"
Mr. Facenda said he would try. And so began his association with NFL Films, which would end 19 years later with his death. (Witness this example in is this clip in which he pays homage to "The Quarterback.")
I was privileged to know John Facenda and work with him. As a communications student at Temple University, I interned at WCAU-TV, Mr. Facenda's station. I worked with him on "Sunday Edition," a local public affairs program. He was unfailingly courtly and always professional. Just hearing him say hello was like listening to a symphony of the voice. He was magnificent. But I must admit that I related to him as a fellow Italian American. In those days, our people did not always have positive role models, especially in the media. Most portrayals of Italians consisted of thick-tongued thugs in gangster movies. But Mr. Facenda represented the best of us who appreciate language, especially the English language that his father drilled into him and his siblings with flash cards around the kitchen table. It was there he learned his elocution that served him so well.
This begged an inevitable question from me. "John," I was once asked him, "you came into the business when everyone's name was homogenized. But you kept your ethnic name. Were you ever asked to change it?"
His eyes flared and his demeanor changed to one I had never seen. "Yes, Pat, they DID want me to change my name." His usually controlled voice began to rise in indignation over a long-ago insult that was suddenly remembered. "They want me to change my name to John Foster. John Foster! Can you imagine that, Pat? And that's when I told them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves!"
My jaw dropped. I had never heard John say "damn" or "hell," so the F-bomb was unimaginable. But that was indicative of his pride in his Italian heritage. My own first name is Pasquale, and though I use "Pat" for the ease of pronunciation, I never shrink from acknowledging my real name. So Mr. Facenda's own pride struck a chord that resonates with me today.
In the 26 years since he departed us, I think of him often. I remember him as a nobly professional co-worker who gave magic to whatever feeble words this callow young man gave him to say. I remember him as the authoritative voice who ruled, first, the local airwaves and, later, the cinematic gridiron. But most of all, I remember his avuncular warmth, which came through the image orthicon tubes that sat in countless Philadelphia homes. He ended every broadcast with his signature sign-off: "Have a nice night tonight and a good day tomorrow. Goodnight, all."
Think of him whenever you see local and national anchors missing cues and inserting themselves into the news they are covering. Then think about just how much we have lost over the last 26 years, and probably for ever more.

The Power of Images: Nine out of 10 Doctors Know for Sure!

Are you old enough to remember this iconic shot of Richard Chamberlain as Dr. Kildare on the old NBC TV series? Perhaps the average member of the American Medical Association (AMA) doesn't remember either, but surely they understand the power of the image of a white lab coat. Facing a 21 percent Medicare physician pay cut that was to take affect on June 1, AMA members signed white lab coats and delivered them to Congress as part of an effort to convince the legislators that they should reverse the cut. The so-called "Write Coat Rally" was part of the organization's annual conference, held this year in Chicago.
Kudos to the docs. They understood that the symbol of a white lab coat would cut through the cerebral clutter of the average Senator's mind in a unique way. It is similar to the symbol of the anti-abortion movement: a badge of the soles of tiny feet, illustrating the size of an aborted fetus. It is a striking and sobering image.

Oh, by the way, did the letter-writing... I mean lab coat-writing campaign work? Not really. Instead, the physicians got a mess through Congressional ineptitude. Although the U.S. Senate passed a bill rescinding the cut in the Medicare payment rate on June 18, the House has yet to act on the measure, allowing the cut to remain in effect and creating a complicated payment situation for physicians. But I guess that's a story unto itself.