FastCompany excerpted Chapter 9 of the book: Audiences: Attention, Retention, and How Hearts and Minds are Won:

Expert Perspective
Hijacking Emotion Is The Key To Engaging Your Audience
BY Helio Fred Garcia | 05-08-2012 | 9:45 AM
This article is written by a member of our expert contributor community.

The default to emotion is part of the human condition.

To better appreciate the role of emotion and what it allows an audience to do, we need to take a brief detour into evolutionary biology. The human brain can be understood as three separate brains working in tandem, if not completely integrated with each other.

To better appreciate the role of emotion and what it allows an audience to do, we need to take a brief detour into evolutionary biology. The human brain can be understood as three separate brains working in tandem, if not completely integrated with each other.

The primitive brain and the limbic brain collectively make up the limbic system, which governs emotion. Within the limbic system, there is a structure called the amygdala, which leaders need to understand.

When faced with a stimulus, the amygdala turns our emotions on. It does so instantaneously, without our having to think about it. We find ourselves responding to a threat even before we’re consciously aware of it. Think of jumping back when we see a sudden movement in front of us, or being startled by the sound of a loud bang. We also respond instantaneously to positive stimulus without thinking about it: Note how we tend to smile back when someone smiles at us; how we are immediately distracted when something we consider beautiful enters our line of sight.

The amygdala is the key to understanding an audience’s emotional response, and to connecting with an audience. It plays an important role in salience, what grabs and keeps our attention. In other words, attention is an emotion-driven phenomenon. If we want to get and hold an audience’s attention, we need to trigger the amygdala to our advantage. Only when we have an audience’s attention can we then move them to rational argument.

I have become somewhat notorious in the programs I teach at NYU for the way I start each class. I teach all-day sessions on Saturdays, and as the 9 a.m. start time approaches, most students are still milling about, getting settled, and chatting with each other. At precisely 9 a.m. I touch a button on my remote mouse and play a sudden blast of very loud music. Most of the time it’s the chorus of “Let’s Get It Started” by the Black Eyed Peas, but to keep the element of surprise I sometimes vary the selection. After a 10-second burst of very loud music, I have every student’s undivided attention. I then lock in the connection: I smile, welcome them, thank them for investing a full Saturday in developing their careers. Only then do I begin the class. I have hijacked their amygdalas. We need audiences to feel first, and then to think.

Five Strategies for Audience Engagement

When leaders are speaking to audiences that are under stress–even if the audience is merely tired or distracted–the leader can take the amygdala into account in determining how the content is structured and how the audience is engaged. Here are five ways to engage effectively:

1. Establish connection before saying anything substantive. And remember that the connection is physical. Techniques to connect include asking for the audience’s attention, if only with a powerful and warm greeting, followed by silence and eye contact. The key is to make sure the audience isn’t doing something else so that they pay attention.
2. Say the most important thing first once you have their attention. The most important thing should be a powerful framing statement that will control the meaning of all that follows. Remember that frames have to precede facts.
3. Close with a recapitulation of the powerful framing statement that opened the presentation.
4. Make it easy to remember. Keep in mind how hard it is for people to listen, hear, and remember. One way is to repeat key points. I often hear from clients, “But I’ve already said this. I don’t need to say it again.” Or, “I don’t want to say it again.” Or, “If I have to say this again, I’ll throw up. I’m tired of repeating myself.” But leaders need to constantly repeat the key themes, within any given presentation, and in general as a matter of organizational strategy. It doesn’t matter if they’re bored with saying it. The audience needs to hear it, again and again. And again. As a general principle, people need to hear things three times if they are to even pay attention to it. And because any given audience member at any time may be distracted or inattentive, he or she is unlikely to hear or attend to everything that is said. So leaders need to repeat key points far more than three times to be sure that everyone has heard it at least three times. One of the burdens of leadership is to have a very high tolerance for repetition.
5. Follow the rule of threes. Have three main points. But no more than three main points; no more than three topics; no more than three examples per topic. Group thoughts in threes; words in threes; actions in threes. (See how I just used the Rule of Threes in that sentence?) Think of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address: “We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.”

The default to emotion is part of the human condition. The amygdala governs the fight-or-flight impulse, the triggering of powerful emotions, and the release of chemicals that put humans in a heightened state of arousal. Humans are not thinking machines. We’re feeling machines who also think. We feel first, and then we think. As a result, leaders need to meet emotion with emotion before they can move audiences with reason.

The following is an adapted excerpt from The Power of Communication: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively by Helio Fred Garcia, printed with permission from FT Press, a publishing imprint of Pearson.

[Image: Flickr user Howie Le]

Marrakech Mosque at Sunset

Over the past 8 months I have had the good fortune to spend time in Beijing, Paris, Zurich, and Marrakech, Morocco, speaking with leaders of governments, the military, religious institutions, humanitarian organizations, universities, and other social institutions.

And in my travels I detected something I hadn’t noticed before: a meaningful deterioration in the regard with which the United States is held. Not about particular events, but a general decline in respect and admiration. Not of Americans, but of the nation’s role in the world.

I’ll blog about this more later, but Sunday’s New York Times has a series of pieces that prompt me to revisit those observations and also to use them as a teachable moment to illustrate some key principles from my latest book.

At its core, The Power of Communication: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively is about how to win hearts and minds.

And winning hearts and minds is a necessary leadership skill at all levels: personal, interpersonal, group, large group, national, and multi-national.  It’s never easy.  And in the book I note that many leaders, much of the time, fail to understand what it takes to actually win hearts and minds.  Rather, they default to what makes them feel good, or what may play to their closest audiences but that misses their intended audiences.  In the book I note:

“This misunderstanding has consequences: corporations lose competitive advantage; not-for-profits find it harder to fulfill their mission; religious denominations lose the trust and confidence of their followers; nations diminish their ability to protect citizens and achieve national security goals.”

Sunday’s New York Times asked three prominent writers (two of whom are not American) to consider the question of America and its role in global political culture.  American E.L. Doctorow, Canadian Margaret Atwood, and Briton Martin Amis each writes elegantly and movingly about the current perception of America.  Each is worth reading, reflecting upon, and passing along.

I cover similar ground in the first chapter of The Power of Communication.

It’s All About The Reaction

I define effective communication as an act of will directed toward a living entity that reacts.  The only reason to engage an audience is to change something: the way that audience thinks or feels or what it knows or does.

But much of the United States’ engagement of the world over the last decade has had the unintended consequence of alienating the very people whose hearts and minds we claim to want on our side.  In the Times E.L. Doctorow provides a moving essay outlining how this works.

In the book I note how if we are to move people we need to meet them where they are.  The bigger the gulf between “us” and “them,” the less likely effective communication will take place. Also the bigger the gap between what we say and what we do, and between our stated values and our actual behavior.

An excerpt:

“Consider, for example, the U.S. government’s communication in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The Bush Administration concluded that it needed to win the hearts and minds of Muslim communities around the world. The Administration hoped that building support of Muslim communities would make extremist attacks on the U.S. less likely, and that the U.S. would have more flexibility projecting power to parts of the world whose population is predominantly Muslim.

In 2002 the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy developed an advertising campaign called the Shared Values Initiative to reach communities in predominantly Muslim countries. It bought more than $5 million of advertising on television networks during the Muslim holiday period of Ramadan. The campaign, hoping to dispel myths about the treatment of Muslims in the United States, showed Muslims living happily in America. Individual Muslims spoke into the camera or while the camera showed them at their jobs—a firefighter, a teacher, the owner of a bakery. They gave first-hand testimony about their positive experiences of living in America—of being Americans and also of being Muslim.

But the campaign misfired. It did not meet Muslim communities where they were. Rather it spoke past them.

A 2008 analysis of the Shared Values Initiative by Dr. Amy Zalman, published by the EastWest Institute, showed that the campaign was doomed from the start by a misunderstanding of the audiences to which it was directed. Dr. Zalman is a national security consultant based in Washington, D.C., whose practice focuses on strategic com- munication and public diplomacy.

Dr. Zalman’s EastWest Institute paper begins by noting that ‘good communicators reveal, in speech and action, that they under- stand the motivations and aspirations of their audiences—and it is via this understanding that they gain their sympathies.’

Dr. Zalman says, ‘A review of U.S. official rhetoric shows an all too persistent absence of this understanding, an oversight which in turn can fan rather than dampen extremist sentiment.’  She notes that in its communication with Muslim communities around the world, the U.S. government didn’t bridge a gulf, but made it wider.

Effective public diplomacy, according to Dr. Zalman, ‘begins with deep attention to how others think about themselves and their communities. Recent U.S. discourse is characterized by a lack of attention to precisely these issues. It has produced faulty assumptions that have alienated global audiences and clouded debate on violent extremism.’

The Shared Values Initiative was based on an assumption, given voice by President George W. Bush, that the terrorists hate America because of our freedoms. The entire campaign was built around this assumption.

Says Dr. Zalman:

‘This first official U.S. communication campaign emerged from the view that al-Qaeda hated, above all, Americans’ freedom of religious practice. The advertising campaign…sought to differentiate the United States from autocratic states such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, and to reveal the virtues of a U.S. war against terrorism, and for religious freedom of practice. Most countries perceived the advertisements as propaganda and refused to air them, but even if they had, Shared Values would have been irrelevant diversion. As poll after poll of Muslim populations has revealed, no mainstream populations contest either the value of civil liberties in the United States or the value of freedom of worship and they do not need convincing of their virtues.’

While it didn’t do affirmative harm, the Shared Values Initiative consumed significant resources, attention, and time. Worse, it gave policymakers and the U.S. public the false impression that the U.S. was making inroads in perceptions among Muslim communities around the world. Greater than the financial and other cost, though, was the opportunity cost. While Shared Values was underway, we were not effectively winning hearts and minds. And then we invaded Iraq.

Connecting with Audiences

Communication isn’t about telling our story. That’s undisciplined, self-indulgent, and often illusory. The power of communication is getting audiences to listen—and to care.

Dr. Zalman conducted a detailed review of U.S. rhetoric that showed a persistent failure to demonstrate understanding of the audiences to whom the U.S. was purportedly communicating.

For example, for years the U.S. government, at the highest levels, used the word “jihadist” to describe our enemies. But in March of 2008 the State Department advised: ‘In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.’  Our government’s use of language transformed murderers into martyrs. And by the time we stopped, the U.S. government had been using that vocabulary for six years.

In 2009 Admiral Michael G. Mullen, then the newly appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the failure of recent efforts to win hearts and minds in Muslim communities. He embraced the Warfighting principle of treating the audience as a living entity with its own ideas and plans. Admiral Mullen at the time was the nation’s senior-most military officer and by law the principal military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. He wrote an article in the National Defense University’s journal Joint Force Quarterly, titled “Strategic Communications: Getting Back to Basics.” In it, he acknowledged that previous attempts were more focused on how we feel and less about the needs, interests, or concerns of the audience.

Admiral Mullen writes:

‘There has been a certain arrogance to our “strat comm” efforts. We’ve come to believe that messages are something we can launch downrange like a rocket, something we can fire for effect. They are not. Good communication runs both ways. It’s not about telling our story. We must also be better listeners’.

Admiral Mullen implicitly affirms Dr. Zalman’s insights about the U.S.’s failure to understand the Muslim audience for much of our public diplomacy efforts. He writes:

‘The Muslim community is a subtle world we don’t fully—and don’t always attempt to—understand. Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs, and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative. We cannot capture hearts and minds. We must engage them; we must listen to them, one heart and one mind at a time—over time.’

Walk the Talk

Dr. Zalman notes that part of our credibility gap with the Muslim world arose from inconsistency between our words and our actions:

‘Speakers will be judged by their deeds and policies as well as by their rhetoric. Communications must be crafted in which actions, policies, and rhetoric are mutually reinforcing activities…. Speakers who appear to say one thing while doing another will not be viewed as credible. Speakers whose actions, policies, and words embody a coherent intention have a greater chance of being viewed as credible.’

Admiral Mullen goes even further:

‘We hurt ourselves more when our words don’t align with our actions. Our enemies regularly monitor the news to discern coalition and American intent as weighed against the efforts of our forces. When they find a ‘say-do’ gap—such as Abu Ghraib—they drive a truck right through it. So should we, quite frankly. We must be vigilant about holding ourselves accountable to higher standards of conduct and closing any gaps, real or perceived, between what we say about ourselves and what we do to back it up.’

Admiral Mullen also notes that many failures attributed to communication actually reflect deeper problems:

‘I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all. They are policy and execution problems.  Each time we fail to live up to our values  or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are.’

That Say-Do Gap is part of what E.L Doctorow covers in the Times.  Also a Values-Action Gap.

As a society we need to do a much better job at listening; at seeing ourselves through the eyes of those we are trying to influence.  I fear that in the current climate of electoral bloodsport in Washington this is unlikely to happen.  But the the power of communication is not about launching missiles — message missiles or otherwise.  As Admiral Mullen said, it’s about listening, one heart and one mind at a time.

I’ll keep musing about these issues as I continue to speak about the book and about the power of communication.  Your thoughts welcomed…

Fred

Marrakech Mosque from Rooftop

Now in Circulation

Friends,

I am pleased to announce that The Power of Communication: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively is now in circulation!

I have received word from several separate clients that their bulk orders arrived late last week.  E-book editions from Amazon Kindle, B&N NOOK, and iTunes have been available since last Thursday.  And Amazon just announced that pre-ordered copes should start arriving in mailboxes as early as Tuesday, May 1.

I am deeply gratified by the early feedback from those who have read the e-book editions.  Please let me know what you think when you’ve read the book.

A few useful research reports have been published in the last two weeks, in addition to the usual interesting commentary that caught our eye.

• Pew Internet on “Digital Differences”: The Pew Research Center summarizes the findings by saying, “One-in-five [American] adults do not use the internet. The difference between that group and the majority of Americans who do go online remains strongly correlated with age, education, and household income, which are the strongest positive predictors of internet use.” The full report is here. This is helpful research to remember when thinking about communicating with audiences, and one question to ask in communication planning: who might your organization be missing and how can they be reached if not through online means?
• Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report: NTEN, Common Knowledge and Blackbaud released the “2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report,” its 4th annual report on how nonprofits are using social networks. Additional analysis and data highlights in a guest post on Beth’s Blog.
• Pulitzers and Online Reporting: The Nieman Journalism Lab blog has a good analysis of the impact and effects of online journalism in this year’s winners.
• Why Is Trust in Media Falling?: Jay Rosen breaks down the question of why Americans have such low trust in media today, asking “What Explains Falling Confidence in the Press?“
• Local News: Despite lower trust in media overall, most Americans still turn to local news sources. Pew’s recently released study on local news found that “72% of Americans follow local news closely,” and the report details additional media consumption habits of this group.
• USC Annenberg Gap Study: USC Annenberg published its “Communication and Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices (GAP VII)” study, on the “current state of the PR industry.” A helpful breakdown of key findings and what they mean for corporate communicators and agencies is also on PR Squared.
• On Reputation: A thought-provoking article from the Economist on corporate reputation is worth reading, “What’s in a name? Why companies should worry less about their reputations.” Not surprisingly, many disagree, and Dr. Leslie Gaines-Ross has a thoughtful response on her blog.
• Corrections and Broadcast TV: David Carr of the New York Times commented on the curious disparity in how broadcast news handles corrections versus print news, in light of how NBC handled the correction to its use of an audio clip on the Today show that was “misleading, incendiary and dead-bang wrong.”
• The Navy and Twitter: The US Navy was a recent victim of self-inflicted harm, when someone mistakenly sent a personal tweet from the Navy’s official Twitter account. However, the damage was contained early and was minimal, and they shared some lessons learned from the incident.

Friends, I’m very pleased to announce the pending publication of my new book, The Power of Communication: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively.  It is being published by FT Press/Pearson.

The formal publication date is May 6, but pre-orders are available now for both print and e-books, individual or bulk orders. E-book versions will be available April 26 directly from FT Press.   Amazon says that pre-ordered books should be received by customers in New York by May 9.  Bulk orders at a discount can be made at CEO Read.

This is my third book (fourth, if you count the two editions of Reputation Management as separate), but it’s the one I’m most excited about.  It most closely tracks the work we do in the Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership.  And it more closely aligns with the work we do with our clients: help them exercise leadership and maintain or restore trust in high-stakes situations.  And it is more likely to resonate with clients, students, and professional colleagues.

About The Power of Communication:

Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively,

Communication has power, but like any powerful tool, it needs to be used effectively or it can cause self-inflicted harm. Harnessing the power of communication is a fundamental leadership discipline.

This book is about how leaders can inspire, persuade, and earn the confidence of stakeholders through verbal engagement.  About how they can build trust, inspire loyalty, and lead effectively.

The book does three things:

1. It translates core leadership and strategy doctrine of the United States Marine Corps, as embodied in its Warfighting manual, into guidelines for effective leadership communication. These provide an important conceptual framework, and the individual Marine Corps warfighting concepts serve as guideposts along the journey we take.  But they’re merely the starting point.
2. It applies best practices in leadership communication drawn from my 33 years of advising and coaching leaders, and from my 24 years of teaching management and communication in graduate programs at NYU and other universities around the world. This is the meat of the book—the big takeaway.
3. It makes extensive use of case studies and examples, of both effective and ineffective communication by leaders in high-stakes situations.

The book could easily exist without the Warfighting principles, but I have found that the combination is more powerful than either standing alone. In fact, the conceptual framework of the book is the same as what I have used for years in my communication strategy and crisis communication courses at NYU and with corporate, military, and NGO clients, in the US and abroad.

The book’s foreword is by LtCol Rob Riggle, who straddles military and civilian life.  He is simultaneously a Marine Reserve public affairs officer, after many years of active duty, and an entertainer.  You may remember him from his time as a correspondent on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Rob Riggle on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Nine Principles of

Effective Leadership Communication

The book closes with the Nine Principles of Effective Leadership Communication, drawn from the earlier chapters of the book, that can serve as reference points for a leader’s own communication ability.

I’ll expand upon those principles in future blogs, but for now, here’s the list:

1. See communication as the continuation of business by other means:
   • It is intentional
   • It is interactive
   • It is intended to provoke a reaction.
2. To move people, meet them where they are.
3. Walk the talk.
4. Control the communication agenda.
5. Remember that even small events, changes, or blunders can have big consequences.
6. Plan ahead and align tactics with strategy.
7. Invest in continuous improvement in communication skills.
8. Harness the power of language and of framing.
9. Understand how the human brain works.

Advance Praise for the Book

The early reviews for the book have been very gratifying, and a number of people have very generously consented to include their endorsements on the book’s back cover and in promotional materials.  Some highlights:

“Helio Fred Garcia coached me a decade ago on the fundamentals of effective communication. I probably wasn’t his best student, but I count what I learned from him as one of the most important contributions to my personal growth as an executive. The Power of Communication should be on the must-read list of any person who aspires to lead by capturing the hearts and minds of his or her stakeholders.”
–Jeffrey Bleustein, Retired Chairman and CEO, Harley-Davidson, Inc.

“The Power of Communication is an absolutely terrific book on how to communicate and lead in complex and shifting situations. Helio Fred Garcia has compiled a wealth of compelling examples to illustrate and support a cogent and immensely practical set of principles for leadership communication. The result is a compelling guide for leaders in business and government settings alike.”
–Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management, Harvard Business School, and author of Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy

“Helio Fred Garcia is known as one of the most engaging and effective professors at NYU. Readers of this book will learn why. Only Fred could weave together tales about Abbott and Costello, the Marine Corps, and Cicero into a must-read for anyone who hopes to connect with the American public.”
–Louis Capozzi, Chairman, MSL Group (retired), and Adjunct Professor, New York University

“Professor Garcia’s book is great news for decision-makers, leaders, and professionals in the U.S. and any country in the world. The Power of Communication contains some very important global wisdom to save you in crisis in an omni-media age. The pity is that he can visit China only once a year, but that gives us all the more reason to celebrate the publication of this book, a very clear, concise, interesting, and powerful masterpiece.”
–Professor Steven Guanpeng Dong, Ph.D., Chair and Director, Institute of Public Relations and Strategic Communications, Tsinghua University, Beijing; Vice President, China Public Relations Association; former Shorenstein Fellow on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

“The Power of Communication is story after story, insight after insight, lesson after lesson, inspiration after inspiration. Just when you think it’s impossible to find another important illustration of a crucial communication or leadership principle, Fred gives you another chapter of powerful, sensible, often surprising and charming stories and lessons. Believe me, he is a persuasive orator in person and, as you’ll read, on paper.

Looking to build your powers of communication, to inspire trust and confidence, and to lead effectively?  You hold in your hand the key ingredient to a happier, more successful, and influential professional life. Start reading.”
–James E. Lukaszewski, ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA, President, The Lukaszewski Group Division, Risdall Public Relations

Staying in Touch

In the coming months I’ll blog as frequently as travel, client, and teaching commitments allow, on topics related to the book: some will be thematic; some will be commenting on breaking news.  I’ll also tweet at twitter.com/garciahf, using the hashtag #PowerofComm.  And you can Like the book on Facebook.

In the meantime, you can get a preview at the books’s website.  There you’ll have a chance to read the first chapter in pdf form; read a few of the Marine Corps warfighting concepts as applied to leadership communication, and see that it really does work.  And you’ll be able to link directly to Amazon or B&N for individual pre-orders, or CEO Read for bulk pre-orders.

If you like the book, please let me know.  Please also consider:

• Blogging, tweeting, or FBing about it.
• Following me on Twitter and RTing my tweets.
• Writing a review on Amazon.
• Telling your friends.

Thank you for your support…

Fred

• Women and Leadership: Since 2007, McKinsey has produced an annual report on the state of women and leadership, and the latest report came out last week. This year’s “Women Matter” found, “Today, women remain underrepresented on corporate boards and executive committees.” The report details the business case for gender diversity in senior executive positions, how top companies are achieving greater gender diversity, and how others can implement programs to continue to advance the role of women in senior management.
• Viral Videos: Interesting research on what makes “ads go viral” and more likely for people to watch, from Harvard Business Review. (Full article via registration or subscription, but the embedded video in the article is equally worth watching.)
• Invisible Children/Kony 2012 Sequel: Speaking of viral, Invisible Children last week released a follow-up video to the original Kony 2012 video, which since its release became the most viral video to date. The sequel addresses many of the criticisms leveled at the organization and the campaign.
• Remembering Mike Wallace: Many reflections about legendary reporter Mike Wallace, who died this weekend at the age of 93, including from CBS News & Morley Safer, and the New York Times.
• Facebook: When we last left off, there was significant discussion of employers asking for access to employees’ Facebook pages. The House rejected proposed legislation there that would have taken up the matter, but other measures are still underway.
• McDonald’s and Social Media: The director of social media at McDonald’s, Rick Wion, did an interview recently and talked about how they’ve responded to critics hijacking their hashtags on Twitter, and their broader strategy for various kinds of engagement on the network.

• Employers, Facebook and Privacy: There’s been a swirl of activity after an AP article last week discussed the growing trend of employers asking potential employees for their Facebook passwords or to log in during job interviews. An individual quoted in the article, who discontinued a job application process with one firm after being asked for his password, said, “I think asking for account login credentials is regressive,” he said. “If you need to put food on the table for your three kids, you can’t afford to stand up for your belief.” Other entities with clout agree. Facebook came out with a statement at the end of last week siding with job applicants and warning employers that they are in violation of Facebook’s Statement on Rights and Responsibilities (and potentially open themselves up to “unanticipated legal liability”) if asking applicants for this private information. “As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job,” Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer, Policy at Facebook said in the statement. Over the weekend, two U.S. senators asked Attorney General Eric Holder to look into the matter as well. On his blog, Jeremiah Owyang offers an alternate solution for companies: educate and train employees on social media use and issues instead.
• Altimeter Digital Influence Report: The Altimeter Group published its latest research report last week, this one on “The Rise of Digital Influence: A ‘how-to’ guide for businesses to spark desirable effects and outcomes through social media influence,” by lead author Brian Solis. An interesting report on defining, measuring and applying influence in social media.
• Twitter, Hashtags and Elections: Speaking of influence, a piece on Talking Points Memo discusses why hashtags on Twitter are a poor predictor of election results. As the Nieman Journalism Lab put it in republishing the piece, “prominence on Twitter doesn’t necessarily turn into prominence at the ballot box.”
• Red Cross Social Media Center for Disaster Response: This news is now a couple weeks old, but the American Red Cross opened a “digital operations center and digital volunteer program” earlier in March, with help and support from Dell. The program aims to “to coordinate response efforts during disasters.” It’s an evolving approach to using technology and volunteers together to improve disaster response capabilities.

• Pew State of the News Media: The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released the newest, 9th edition of its “State of the News Media” yearly report. Beyond the overview, Key Findings and Trends, there’s lots more detailed information in breakdown reports by platform/venue.
• Dharun Ravi Trial: The former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi was convicted of 15 charges related to the webcam spying of his roommate Tyler Clementi, who committed suicide in 2010. danah boyd has a thoughtful piece, “Reflecting on Dharun Ravi’s conviction,” looking at some of the implications of social media, privacy and bullying the case presented.
• Mike Daisey and This American Life: We mentioned in an earlier blog post a recommendation to listen to Mike Daisey’s show excerpt about Apple’s manufacturing that aired earlier this year on This American Life. This weekend, This American Life retracted the show after discovering the show contained “numerous fabrications” and aired an hour-long piece about the retraction. On his blog, Mike Daisey said in a statement that he stands behind his work, and “What I do is not journalism.”
• CEOs and Social Media: This survey from BRANDfog looked at the use of social media by CEOs and the impact that use had on trust and reputation: “2012 CEO, Social Media and Leadership Survey.” The results: “The survey results demonstrate that executive engagement in social media raises the brand profile and instills confidence in a company’s leadership team. It builds greater trust, brand loyalty and purchase intent. Respondents overwhelmingly confirmed their belief that C-Suite executives who engage in social media are better equipped to lead a company, communicate values and shape a company’s reputation in today’s changing world. “
• Twitter and Credibility: Academic research from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon in the report “Tweeting is Believing? Understanding Microblog Credibility Perceptions” looked at credibility factors on Twitter. In short, good grammar matters. (But other factors do too, such as the image you use, your following/follower ratio and more.)

• Kony 2012: The release of a new film and campaign from a nonprofit called Invisible Children to “Stop Joseph Kony in 2012″ generated widespread interaction and discussion online this past week. While there were significant levels of engagement around the campaign, there were also many pointed critiques of the organization and its methods. Good critical analysis from Michael Wilkerson at Foreign Policy and Ethan Zuckerman on his blog, a Storify summary of a range of responses last week, as well as official responses from Invisible Children here and here (video).
• On Story: We talk often with clients about storytelling in various settings, so this new TED talk on storytelling from the writer/filmmaker behind Toy Story and WALL-E caught our eye. (And as in some great storytelling traditions, some of the language in the video may not be safe for work.)
• SXSW Interactive: Thousands of people are currently in Austin, TX for one of the biggest tech and social media conferences of the year – SXSW Interactive. While the conference is still ongoing and next week’s review here should include some of the inevitable reviews/summaries/critiques of this year’s event, one controversial story to come out so far is the use of the homeless as mobile hotspots.
• Employees and Social Media: Shel Holtz uses a persuasive recent example to illustrate the power of internal employee social media engagement in his post, “Training employees on social media improves engagement, boosts company reputation.”

At least so far, March is acting more lamb than lion here in New York City, but we’ll see what the rest of the month brings.

• WikiLeaks: The first of a new set of emails obtained by WikiLeaks was released last week, with additional analysis from news organizations expected in the coming weeks.
• Boycotts, Reputation and Bottom Line: With boycotts a recurring topic, this research from last fall caught our eye this past week: professor Brayden King at the Kellogg School at Northwestern University showed that “the stock price of a targeted company dropped nearly 1 percent for each day of national print media coverage.”  In addition, he found that “even if consumer behavior was unchanged by a boycott, a company’s stock price and reputation were not.” In addition, “25 percent [of boycotts generated] a concession from the target company.”
• Limbaugh and Apology: There were ample examples of apologies and corporate statements surrounding the Limbaugh controversy this past week, including from Limbaugh himself, and former advertisers Carbonite, ProFlowers, Citrix, and others.
• Facebook Assessment Tool: We’re fans of the US Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment, a helpful tool in evaluating online content, and were pleased to see this new Facebook assessment worksheet and checklist from the US Navy on evaluating strategy, administration, content, measurement and more, on David Rosen’s blog.
• Newspapers and New Business Models: Newly released research from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found “for every $1 gained in digital, $7 are lost in print revenue,” highlighting the challenges many newspapers face in implementing new business models today.