Anne Klein Honored Posthumously By PRSA NJ

Philadelphia Public Relations Association Hall of Fame inductee Anne Sceia Klein was recently honored posthumously with a special Pyramid Award recognizing her lifelong commitment to the profession by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) New Jersey chapter. 

A native of Hammonton NJ, Anne founded Anne Klein Communications Group (now AKCG) in 1982 and was inducted into the PPRA Hall of Fame in 2006. She passed away earlier this year. To so many of us who knew Anne and were inspired by her generosity, kindness and groundbreaking achievements, her memory remains a cherished blessing!

Rejection As A Prime Motivator -- Scars And All!

Oh, the rejections I endured!

When I first tried to break into the public relations business I was willing to accept any position -- anything in communication, journalism, advertising, marketing, PR or almost any related field. I just wanted to get a foot in the door.

I had no special contacts, no mentors, no influential somebodies to help me -- just my wits and the talent I knew I possessed. 

I replied to countless job announcements. In the days of snail mail and print-on-paper, I sent out pages and pages of cover letters and resumés. And trust me, I wrote a damned good cover letter. And I also usually included zippy examples of my writing. In the process, I actually garnered a fair share of in person interviews.

And, it was all for naught. 

One by one, I reaped more than 200 rejection letters -- some nicely written and some just this side of abrupt -- but all with one, big bottom line: NO! 

Interestingly enough, most of these letters arrived on a Friday. I suspect organizations timed them this way so you could not call and attempt to find out exactly why you were rejected or what you might have done differently to get the job. Whatever the reason, these letters spoiled many a weekend.

And I never got used to the rejections. Never! 

Because, whether we admit it or not, rejection hurts and there's no way to sugar coat it. And it hurts even more when you're young and first trying to make your way in the world. You can become dispirited. But I did not.

Here's how I handed it -- I kept every letter. And I remembered the organizations and even some of the very people who rejected me.  "These are the slings and arrows, the scars that will make you stronger." I told myself. "You'll show 'em!"

And I really was determined to show these organizations and these persons how wrong they were to brush me aside. This now became my motivator.

Many decades later, I still have all the letters. Looking through them I see the letterheads of once big and powerful corporations that are no more; newspaper entities and broadcasting outlets that went belly up, advertising agencies that shuttered; public interest groups and non profits that never reached their potential; educational institutions that disappeared. And even many of the letter writers are dead. They're all gone. 

But I'm still here. I had the good fortune to eventually land a "sweet spot" job with a rock solid entity that appreciated my talents and paid me well for nearly 30 years. Today, I'm still communicating, still writing, still plying my trade, but now on my own terms and in my own way. This is my craft. And I'm damned proud of it and what I've accomplished over the years.

Along the way, I've long since forgotten whether or not I "showed 'em" or whether they even bothered to notice. It mattered less and less as the years went by and I delighted in the opportunity I was given to apply my God given talents and advance my career. I loved my work, and still do!

And, yes -- I eventually was put in a position of responsibility where I had to tell job seekers "sorry, not this time." 

Here's how I did it: I always sent  my letter (I never used e-mails for this purpose) early in the week so as not to arrive on a Friday and I always ended my letter with this: "If you'd like to chat with me about this you can call me at any time. I wish you the best!" Some aspirants did call and I always tried to give them constructive criticism where appropriate and/or offer my assistance in their ongoing job quest.

A postscript: Today, I finally tossed all the rejection letters  -- after I rifled through them one last time and took the photo you see at the top which gives this instructive collection one last moment of dubious glory. Arrivederci! 

The Courtroom, The Public And The Razzle Dazzle

It's happened again. Just a few weeks ago, we saw it in the heart-wrenching trial of Lindsay Clancy. And now, the possibilities loom once more in the explosive rape allegations coming out of Cornell University, one of America's most prestigious institutes of higher education.

We're talking about the clash between the court of law and the court of public opinion.

In today's media saturated world knowing the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion is vital if you want to have any sense of what's actually happening.

The most important thing to remember about the court of law and the court of  public opinion is that they couldn't be more different. 

They are almost like the two sides of the brain. One's more rational and linear. The other's more intuitive and non-linear. Think of the court of law as the verbatim transcript of a murder trial. Then, think of the court of public opinion as the same trial reported by TMZ.  That's an exaggeration, to be sure. But now, you're starting to comprehend the difference. For a better understanding, consider the following: 

1) In the court of law, facts theoretically count for something and the facts of the case are collected carefully and methodically and presented in some kind of order. In the court of public opinion, the facts may not be facts at all, and what information is brought forward is collected in a haphazard and fragmented manner and presented in bits and pieces in an often sensationalized fashion.

2) In the court of law, the rules are reasonably clear and they are presented to and known by all parties beforehand. In the court of public opinion, there really are few if any rules and besides, even if rules seem to exist, those rules can change at any moment.

3) In the court of law, the principals pretty much know who the main characters in the drama will be. In the court of public opinion, we never know who will pop up on which side and what role he or she may play.

4) Generally, the court of law is quiet and structured. People speak when spoken to. Only one person speaks at a time. Equal time is given for each side to present its case. A single presiding officer remains in charge. There is a clear sense of order and authority. The court of public opinion, on the other hand, is noisy and often downright chaotic. People do not wait to speak. Sometimes several voices are heard at once. While equal time guidelines may seem to exist, that does not mean they will be observed. No one seems to know who is in charge and the party who appears to have the "upper hand" may change many times during the course of the proceedings. There is virtually no sense of structure or order.

5) In the court of law, the proceedings have a beginning, a middle and an end. At some point, the matter is brought to a conclusion. A decision is made. In the court of public opinion, there often is no finality - no deciding moment. Just when you thought the story was over, a new chapter emerges. Today's victory can be tomorrow's debacle. The hero of 2025 is the villain of 2026. "Hot-button" issues now are "old hat" in a matter of weeks if not days.

If these contrasts seem to smack of hyperbole, think for a moment about some of the stories and characters that have inhabited the court of public opinion in recent years. The murder of George Floyd and the trial of Derek Chauvin. The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse and his subsequent law suit. The tales and travails of Jussie Smollett. Britney Spears' financial tussle with her dad. The legal journey of Bill Cosby. And, of course, who can ever forget the O.J. Simpson trial which became its own long-running daytime drama? 

And now the Clancy case and impending allegations of a gang rape.  One continues to play out in the court of public opinion following a hung jury while the other unfolds as a possible future trial. 

The court of public opinion hosts a variety of issues and personalities in a continuously chaotic, unpredictable setting. The whole show unravels in front of an often mesmerized audience that isn't always sure what it's seeing or what to think about it. 

Now, all along, of course, the audience is part of the show as the principals carry out a breakneck effort to sway the jury of public opinion. Glancing into this shrill well of public discourse, one can understand Ralph Waldo Emerson's frustration when he concluded: "The people are to be taken in very small doses."

Ideally, one would hope for a strong, sturdy wall between the two courts. But that simply is not the case -- if, indeed it ever was.

In the end, democracy demands that the people's voice be heard. That voice is what we call public opinion. And that collective opinion is monitored, scrutinized, analyzed, disseminated, amplified, manipulated and some might say magnified to the point where it is a force unto itself. 

And the court of public opinion is the collective environment in which this continuing process occurs. It is an environment inhabited by media moguls, TV cameras, cell phones, street reporters, satellite dishes, pollsters, newspaper scribes, podcasters, focus groups, social media influencers, bloggers, reality TV, marketing strategists, docudramas, packs of paparazzi, anchorpersons, commentators, talking heads, serious authors and ordinary Janes and Joes. Like it or not, it's a vital and integral part of what we call the popular culture. 

And, for better or worse, today's savvy lawyers are attuned to the court of public opinion and are adept at playing it like a fine instrument to advance their case in the court of law. They thrive within the periodic intersection of the two courts.

Or, as Billy Flynn sings in the iconic musical Chicago:

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance.

Hooray! Our Museum OF ART Is Back Again!

A very special message from the Philadelphia Museum of Art:

Art sparks conversation, and few cities care more deeply than Philadelphia.

We’ve been listening and considering. Many of you told us how much you missed our original name, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and how excited you are about the reimagined griffin logo.

So, as described in today’s press release (link in bio), we’re returning to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

 
Some changes you’ll notice soon, while others will take some time. And yes, we may have some discounted merch along the way.

 
We appreciate your feedback, your patience, and most importantly, your love for our museum.

 
Come visit soon, join us for Pay What You Wish Friday Night on February 6, and welcome back to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

The Anne Klein We Knew And Loved . . .

Chris Lukach, CEO of AKCG Public Relations Counselors has recounted his vivid memories of the redoubtable Anne Sceia Klein, the founder of his firm and one of the legends of our profession who recently passed away:

Since her passing, I’ve been thinking a lot about Anne Sceia Klein, my boss, turned business partner, turned predecessor. The little moments, mostly.

I remember Anne’s office arrival routine. In those days, AKCG’s headquarters was one long hallway, and Anne would arrive carrying in each hand a canvas bag of work papers she took home with the intention of going through the night before. She’d stop at every employee’s office, chatting about the previous night’s event, what was happening with clients, or the latest episode of 24. It was a marathon, and by the time she made it to her office – strategically placed furthest from the front door – it was time to turn back around to head to her lunch.

She was a connector in its most extreme form, and her connection-making knew no geographic or familial bounds. If you worked for her for a week, you could name three of her cousins.

At an event, Anne knew everybody, but she always re-introduced herself just in case they couldn’t place her at that particular moment.

She stayed at networking events and banquets so long that the caterers would offer her the centerpieces to take home.

She taught dining-etiquette workshops but stuck her finger in every birthday cake that passed in front of her gaze.

In 2008, she came to Melissa’s and my wedding (pictured) and somehow ended up trading email addresses with the winery-appointed officiant. And no one who knew her was surprised.

She had a wicked memory. She laughed a lot. She didn’t take shit.

Professionally, she achieved quite a bit, but, more importantly, she did what she wanted to do the way she wanted to do it, and that’s admirable.

We had bumps, as you’d expect with two strong personalities navigating a transition, but I’ll always be grateful to her and Jerry Klein for seeing in me and Mike Gross what we might not otherwise have seen in ourselves.

A Giving Woman Who Touched So Many Lives . . .

Our dear friend, Anne Sceia Klein was laid to rest today following a beautiful mass and memorial service in her home town of Hammonton, NJ. We've already written extensively about Anne but here are some heartfelt memories (as posted on LinkedIn) from Kim Nissen, a young woman who was mentored by Anne:

It’s times like this when words escape me. How do I begin to pay adequate tribute to such an influential person? I’ll try my best.

“ASK” was my first boss out of college. We met during my early years at Rowan University. Mentoring students was one of her many passions and our paths crossed often as I was actively involved in the Rowan PRSSA chapter she co-founded as the professional advisor.

I received a gold medallion for professionalism in Anne's name my senior year and she wasted no time recruiting me to work for her crisis and issues comms agency. While I thought I had wanted to take the city by storm doing consumer PR, anyone who knows ASK knows persuasion was among her top talents.

She didn't have to do much convincing though because Anne was a well-known trailblazer in the industry and to work for her was an honor.

Anne was a feminist in the best kind of way, always looking out for the women below her and cheering on others as they broke glass ceilings around her. She saw more in me than I saw in myself at times.

She was tough, but fair. Her standards for quality work and professionalism were incredibly high and she wasn’t afraid to let you know when you fell short of meeting them. But it was always constructive feedback for improvement and those standards stuck with me long after I left the firm to pursue my career in-house.

Anne was a fan of "work hard, play hard." She was incredibly charitable and generous with her time, and particularly fond of the American Heart Association's Go Red for Women efforts.

But most of all, I'll always remember Anne's love of family (given or chosen) and the life lesson she bestowed on me as a young professional to know when it's time to set aside work to focus on what matters most in life.

During the time I worked for Anne, my grandmother was fighting a losing battle with colon cancer. This was before remote work was really a thing, but she allowed it to be so that I could spend more time with my grandmother during her final days.

It also is quite a coincidence that Anne shares my grandmother's birthday and this date randomly came up in a conversation with my mom just before I learned the news of Anne's death. A wink from heaven? I like to think so.

Thanks for all of the life lessons, ASK. You will be missed.💖

With Old School Values, She Charted New Paths!

A beloved friend and colleague passed away this week. Anne Sceia Klein, a trailblazing entrepreneur and legendary public relations executive founded her own form and made her mark both in the Philadelphia region and throughout the world. Indeed, Anne was not only a world traveler but also one of the first to recognize the global power of marketing and PR, building connections and attracting clients worldwide. 

It was all part of the breathtaking journey of a woman who was born in Philadelphia, raised in the small rural community of Hammonton, NJ ("The Blueberry Capital of the World") and went on to become one of the earliest women graduates of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. 

Anne started her career in marketing at a predecessor of SEPTA, the Southeast Pensylvania Transportation Authority. In January 1982, she founded  Anne Klein & Associates. Three years later, her husband, attorney Gerhart "Jerry" Klein joined the firm as Executive Vice President, general counsel and chief technology officer. Together, Anne and Jerry built a renowned agency (later rebranded as AKCG) focused on expert strategic planning, crisis and issues communications and community outreach.

Anne was part of a relatively small but fiercely determined generation of women executives who succeeded against all odds, sometimes, it seemed, through sheer force of will. She was a keen business competitor but also a generous mentor who shared her time, treasure and talent with countless others, particularly other women who sought her help and guidance.

Anne was savvy, funny, shrewd, worldly, perceptive and a quick study. She did not suffer fools gladly, nor did she mince words. But if she detected a spark of creativity or talent in you, along with the willingness to plow ahead, she was on your side and would help you. And, make no mistake about it, she was the kind of person you definately wanted on your side. 

Over the years, Anne collected many accolades including induction into the Philadelphia Public Relations Hall of Fame and Philadelphia Business Journal's Woman of Distinction honor as well as being named one of New Jersey's 50 Best Women in Business. She also served on the board of numerous charitable organizations and other groups. But none of this made Anne the least bit presumptuous or vain. She remained accessible to all -- curious, welcoming, engaging and always ready to enjoy life with family, friends and colleagues. And we fondly remember so many fun outings with Anne and Jerry to area attractions, restaurants, musical performances, theater, etc. 

One of Anne's proudest and most recent accomplishments was the publication of her book "On the Cusp: The Women of Penn '64", which contains the stories of 19 women who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1964. As was characteristic of Anne, she chose to shine the light not on herself, but on others who made the journey along with her.

Doubtless, what shined through with Anne were the values instilled in her by her parents -- part of her Italian American heritage and the close knit community that nurtured her. Anne Klein did it all -- and she did it con brio!

Relatives and friends are invited to attended Anne’s visitation, Saturday, January 31, 2026 from 9:30-10:45am at St. Mary of Mt. Carmel Parish-St. Joseph Church, corner of French & Third Street Hammonton, NJ 08037. A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 11:00am. Burial will be held privately.

In kind remembrance of Anne, donations may be made in her memory to CurePSP at https://www.psp.org/.

To leave a condolence, please visit marinellafuneralhome.com

From The Philadelphia Public Relations Association

 

No, AI Can't Replace Real, Live Human Connection

From our friend, Human Connection Keynote Speaker Rob Lawless of Rob's 10K Friends, via LinkedIn:

Here are 5 reasons your investment in human connection should match your investment in AI:

1. Human connection is what gives AI its direction and meaning.
AI can answer questions, optimize workflows, and even replicate human behaviors, but it can't generate purpose the way humans can. If we’re not deeply connected to one another, we risk building tools optimized for efficiency over empathy and profit over people.

2. Isolation increases when automation rises.
As more work becomes remote and automated, there’s a real danger of loneliness and disconnection becoming the norm. Human connection buffers against mental health crises, employee disengagement, and a loss of belonging. (Think of food delivery vs. running into people in the grocery store)

3. Ethics and empathy come from connection, not code.
AI won’t stop to ask, “Is this good for society?” That’s our job. If we become too enamored with what AI can do and forget to ask what it should do, we may build systems that perpetuate bias, reinforce inequality, or dehumanize relationships. Connection keeps us anchored in our shared humanity.

4. The best innovations come from diverse, connected humans.
Breakthrough ideas come from the cross-pollination of different people sharing stories, perspectives, and experiences. AI can help us find patterns, but it’s in human connection that creativity thrives. Without it, we lose the serendipity that fuels innovation. (My whole journey is about fueling more of this serendipity)

5. Without connection, we forget why any of this matters.
What’s the point of faster machines, smarter algorithms, and infinite scalability if we’re more disconnected than ever? The danger is we build a world optimized for machines to thrive, not for humans to flourish.

At some point we're going to have to reflect on what it means to be human and why and how we should lean into that - better to figure it out sooner rather than later!

Kamala Harris And The Three Magic Words

The English language gives us a rich abundance of words to choose from. In fact, look up the word "language" itself and you will easily find more than 35 synonyms for it -- there are that many ways of expressing the same idea.

So much for choices. But ideas, feelings and powerful emotions are more often conveyed in the simplest terms possible. In fact, advertising teaches us that the three most powerful words in the English language are new, you, and free. And these are words that Kamala Harris and the Democrats have quickly mastered. Let's take a look at them;

New. Though she's spent her whole life at the public trough and has been Vice President for three-and-a-half disastrous years, Kamala Harris is presenting herself as a new face and she's getting away with it. Such it the power of the new. People are immediately attracted to anything or anybody that seems new. Even a familiar product that sports a "new" label can turn this trick because people want to find out what's new about it. 

This presents a disadvantage for Donald Trump because this is his third time running for the presidency, he's been a celebrity forever and he's such a character and so authentic that, at this point, trying to present him as new strains credulity. He simply is who he is. Presenting him as new would be like trying to market New Coke, and we all know how that turned out. The challenge here is for Trump to incorporate the new by presenting us with new ideas and new approaches to things -- and that's a reasonable goal that can be achieved.

You. Kamala's campaign says it is directed at you -- your life, your aspirations, your choices, your future. And this is the relentless vibe she's conveying. Forget that she's actually committed to building a massive, oppressive bureaucracy that prizes collectivism over rugged individualism and submission over free will. She would have you believe she's here for you -- to spread joy and happiness. And sadly, millions of low information voters are buying it.

Though he's unquestionably leading an astounding mass movement, can anyone doubt that Donald Trump is essentially a me-directed person? For example, the riffs in his speeches are spontaneous, vivid, funny and often delightful but they are invariably about him and his world. The challenge here is for Trump to pivot to a more other-directed campaign by showcasing the testimonials of ordinary people and the real-life impact of his policies and programs on everyday lives. This shouldn't be a reach for the Trump campaign.

Free. The power of free has long been the Democrats' domain. It is the potent catnip they offer to the masses: free student loans; free health care; free child care; even the preverbal free lunch.  They are the party of free stuff, so much so that Kamala's campaign rallies are actually free concerts. That's how she attracts a crowd. And the natural attraction of free cannot be underestimated.

Still, it would be folly for Trump and the Republicans to try to compete with the free-for-one-and-all that is the modern Democrat (aka Socialist) party. Better to expose this as the sham that it is and instead offer the original free, which is freedom itself -- the freedom to live your own life unencumbered by ever-growing, gluttonous big government whose tentacles threaten every aspect of your existence. And let's remind folks of Reagan's admonition that "the size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern."

New, you and free? Trump and the GOP can use these to their advantage, if they have their wits about them!

The Big Question Now: Is Kamala Harris Even Real?

Donald Trump has a habit of raising important issues but doing so in a cumbersome manner, and that's putting it mildly. 

Yesterday was a good example.

To cut to the chase, the actual issue at hand is not so much when Kamala Harris identified as an African-American as it is how real this woman actually is. Because in what Rush Limbaugh used to call Realville, realness is the coin of the realm. And Harris' realness is more than in doubt, it's hanging by a thread.

A lifetime in the public relations business has taught me that no quality is more greatly valued than authenticity and no brand, no product, no public figure can survive very long without it. 

Of course, Harris doesn't have to survive very long. Without a single vote being cast (and having won not a single primary) she's managed to become the standard bearer on a national ticket that hopes to sweep to power in a one-hundred-day charade.

In his own clumsy way, Donald Trump is trying to get through the smoke and mirrors and expose Harris as a chameleon. When it is in her interest to embrace one person, heritage, race or group, she will gladly do that. And it seems that when it is in her interest to drift from that embrace, well -- so be it. Put another way, in her own words Harris will be "what can be, unburdened by what has been." 

So, she ardently believed Jussie Smollett, took up his cause and publicly embraced him as a victim, until, conveniently she scampered away when her own bad judgement was exposed. She cuddled up to California political power broker Willie Brown until she no longer needed him, and then acted like they barely knew one another. She insisted that Joe Biden was at the top of his game right up until the moment when it was time to dump him and suddenly, he was no longer helpful or cogent or capable. BuhhhhBye, Joe! It was nice known' ya!

This is Kamala Harris. She's an amoeba. She was the border czar but she wasn't the border czar. She wants to outlaw fracking but she doesn't want to outlaw fracking. She raised bail for violent rioters and looters in 2020 but she didn't raise bail for them. She's African-American and Asian-Amertican and Indian-American and a Jewish "Mamala" and a "friend" of Israel and your Very Best Pal but . . . watch your back! 

Who is the real Kamala? Is she even real at all? Well, perhaps -- if a fraud can be real.

Why The Debate Was A PR Triumph For Trump

My notes from the presidential debate tell quite a story.

Right at the start, as the candidates arrived on the stage I wrote: "Biden not easy on his feet." Then, just a few minutes into the proceedings I wrote: "Biden looks frail and pale; voice is not strong; talks fast but then halting; occasionally seems out of breath; he's very gray." 

So, I suppose the die was cast quite early. But there was still time for Biden to redeem himself, or so it seemed. Yet, as each minute went by and there was no improvement, the situation compounded itself and Biden's plight became grimmer.

Of course, Trump heightened the contrast by appearing robust, quick on his feet and ever ready with the retort. And yes, the muted mics played to Trump's advantage as this feature allowed Biden to stumble along, meandering uninterrupted. 

Those who feared that Biden would egg Trump on and get him to lose his way found that the opposite was true: Trump successfully goaded Biden, irritating Biden and magnifying his bungled performance.

Here's what public relations teaches us: Image drives content. In other words, if the image isn't appealing or enticing or at least presentable and credible, it hardly matters what the message is. If you don't look good saying what you're saying then, what you're saying often winds up having little or no worth because the viewer/listener is distracted. There's a disconnect between the sender of the message and the receiver.

That's a big part of what happened last night.

Back to Trump -- he followed three critical public relations rules:

1) If your opponent/competitor is faltering, don't get in the way. Stand aside and let it happen. Don't mock, don't gloat, don't celebrate it. Just let it happen. Trump restrained himself last night and it worked to his advantage.

2) No matter what question you're asked, use your answer to repeat the two or three points of your core message. For Trump these points were: we've gotta close the border; everyone was better off when I was president and Joe Biden isn't up to the job, he's destroying our country. Trump, who is a consummate salesman, pounded these points home as only he can.

3) Pivot, pivot, pivot. You can take the most dire question or situation and turn it to your advantage if you know how to effectively pivot and that's exactly what Trump did. When he was asked about January 6, Trump used the moment to remind people that on January 6, 2021 inflation was virtually non existent, interest rates were low, there was no war in Israel or Ukraine, we were moving beyond Covid and we were disengaging ourselves from Afghanistan in a planned, methodical manner. Trump not only avoided a trap but he once again painted a vivid contrast that everyone can understand: "you were better off when I was president."

One more note on pivoting: Biden tried to pivot when he was asked about his age and ability to serve but he failed miserably when he pointed out that he was once the youngest serving public servant as US Senator in 1972. Biden simply reminded everyone that he's been at the public trough for 52 long years. And last night the wear and tear of all those years was vividly (and sadly) on display! 

Philly To Welcome New PR Hall Of Fame Member!

 

KABOOM: Barstool Sports' Portnoy Brings It Home!

BOOOM!!! RIGHT ON TARGET!!! pic.twitter.com/aj2ei79C74

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) September 2, 2022

A TEACHERS Association Abandons Parents, Kids

Here is my response to this ad in the form or an e-mail that I sent to the NJEA's Director of Communication, Steven Baker:

Mr. Baker:

I write as a public relations professional, a former NJEA member and a former inner-city elementary school teacher. 

I've seen the new NJEA "We don't agree on everything in New Jersey" ad and all I can do is scratch my head and wonder how much lower the NJEA can stoop.

This is one of the most condescending, contemptuous and divisive campaigns I've ever seen. To think that a teachers' organization would tell parents who are concerned about their children's education that they "should take that somewhere else" just defies all human sensibility. The parents are the taxpayers; they pay the bills; the schools belong to them.

Your ad also proclaims "that's not who we are."  Yes, I would like to believe this defamatory ad is not who you are, Mr. Baker. But sadly, it appears the NJEA has become so misguided, so baldly political, so dogmatic and so adrift from the everyday concerns of actual parents and taxpayers that this really is who you are. What a shame!

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Cirucci

Note: If you wish to write to Steven Baker about this ad, his e-mail address is sbaker@njea.org. 

Marking The Passing Of A Remarkable Pro . . .

Crisis Communication: How Biden, Trump Faltered

There's no secret to crisis communication.

In fact, so much has been learned through experience over the years that the rules are quite simple. And yet, it's amazing how frequently the rules are bent or simply not followed at all. It shouldn't surprise anyone that public officials are the major violators of the rules. That's because they're impatient, often insecure and frequently so obsessed with their own public image that they let their ego take the lead -- a sure way to fail at crisis communication.

Also, while many organizations, including the government, have detailed crisis communication plans, such plans often don't incorporate the most basic rules. Plus,  bureaucrats have often been known to so stringently follow a pre-proscribed plan that they render their response to a crisis meaningless because they're simply unable to adapt.

The three most important rules are these: designate one single spokesperson, tell the truth and stay on message. And each of these three rules have been repeatedly violated by both presidential administrations since the Covid 19 pandemic began. Let's look at each rule and what went wrong:

1) One single spokesperson.

This is undoubtedly one of the hardest rules to follow, but it's essential. Right from the start of the crisis you've got to put forth a strong, credible, knowledgeable spokesperson -- someone who can build trust with the media and the broad audience you wish to reach. 

What we've discovered during the Covid pandemic is that the spokesperson does not have to be the President of the United States. But it shouldn't necessarily be a technocrat either because technocrats can't always make themselves clear. They're bogged down with too much jargon. They don't speak in simple terms that people can understand.

We've also discovered that when you bring too many people forward they invariably begin to contradict one another. Such contradictions not only confuse people but they erode credibility. And there's this -- people (especially people who consider themselves experts) love the sound of their own voice. They love being in front of the microphone. They love the spotlight; the attention (think Fauci). So, they wind up talking too much. And that's where the trouble begins. 

Remember, we've said the spokesperson doesn't have to be the President. But that doesn't mean that the President should never be addressing the crisis -- that he or she should delegate all the time. The President is always free to step forward and address the public. But he or she shouldn't be on the podium day after day, hour after hour. Even in moments of crisis, Ronald Reagan didn't have to be in front of us relentlessly for us to know he was in charge. In fact, staying out of the spotlight made his Big Moments in front of the camera all the more powerful.

2) Tell the truth.

Good rule, right? Because if you tell the truth you won't have to remember what you said so that you can cover for not telling the truth. And obviously, one lie needs to another. We're sure you're thinking "But during a crisis the truth may not be known or it may change from one moment to the next". Correct. Obviously, people are smart enough to understand this.

So, sometimes a truthful answer is: "we don't know" or "we're not sure" or "we're trying to find out". That's an OK answer as long as it doesn't become an all-the-time answer or the only answer. Also, if what you know or what you find out or what appears to be the case is difficult, then the best way to deliver such news is to just lay it out there. People can take it if you level with them. For example, "fifteen days to slow the spread" was less than candid and obviously simplistic. It would have been better to tell people the truth: "We've never encountered anything like this before. We're not sure how this is going to play out. We're bringing every arsenal forward to fight it. We're not sure yet how long we're going to be dealing with this but it very well may  be protracted and  we want to prepare you for that."  

Thomas Sowell said it, and most people know it: "When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."

3) Stay on message.

Both Trump and Biden have violated this rule repeatedly. Trump is accustomed to leading his own business empire where he is the voice and face and literally the brand that is being sold. Crisis or no crisis, the product he's pitching is Donald Trump. Accordingly, he is supremely confident in himself and instinctive by nature. So, prepared remarks or not, he's monitoring his audience all the time and making a pitch. He won't necessarily follow the script. He'll change his mannerisms, his voice inflections, his gestures, his facial expressions, whatever he feels needs to be done at the moment and in the moment. It's all very spontaneous and often very unpredictable -- such as seeming to endorse hydroxychloroquine  or sounding like he's extolling the medicinal values of bleach. It's all too precarious -- and that's the last thing you need during a crisis when the appearance of a steady hand must be conveyed

As for Biden, do we have to say that he comes across as clueless and doddering? It was stupid and simplistic to say "I'm gonna shut down the virus". And we've received so many mixed messages from Biden & Co. (do wear a mask; don't wear a mask; wear two masks; get an n95 mask) that nobody's quite sure what to do. On top of all that, he told us that there was no federal solution to the pandemic after promising just such a solution. 

Staying on message means delivering a clear, credible, daily (if necessary) message and not veering off track or being distracted. Such an approach builds trust and lends reassurance at a time when people need it most. Indeed, you can never make yourself too clear!

Because, if there's one thing we know about public relations it's that this final rule always holds true: Tell them that you're gonna to tell them. Then, tell them. Then, tell them that you told them.