Planned Parenthood sent out an alert Tuesday, January 31, on Twitter:

“Susan G. Komen caves under anti-choice pressure, ends funding for breast cancer screenings at PP health centers.”

The vast world of online social media exploded in protest over what was clearly a political move by an outfit supposedly devoted to finding a cure for breast cancer.

But … Komen remained silent. No response for more than a full day.

Then, a wooden-looking Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker hid behind a prepared statement on YouTube to say, with determination, that her organization would not cave to such protest. Sort of … like, how dare you!

But, WAIT! There’s more!! In quick succession, Brinker said her organization had been “misunderstood,” apologized and reversed the decision. But, the damage had been done. Komen for the Cure has been revealed as more of a political fund-raising machine than devoted to a cure for cancer.

I don’t know about you but I believe we have been betrayed and victims of fraud.

It would be more honest for Brinker to rename her politics-driven money raising machine, Susan G. Komen for the Money.

Nancy Brinker. (photo: Salon.com/AP)

There are lessons here to be observed by other not-for-profits, associations and companies.

What we are talking about is incompetence and lack of strategic vision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Money in pulling funding to Planned Parenthood.

Brinker, apparently realizing her organization had stumbled into quicksand of its own making, reversed directions, demonstrating how quickly a crisis can explode from lack of expertise.

It looks like all three have come crashing in on the reputation of Susan G. Komen in the span of just three days.

The Susan G. Komen organization got caught joining forces with a conservative male-driven war against women.

Komen is not recognized for having in-house strategic communications depth. Yes, they might be good at fund-raising but not managing trust, image and reputation. In other words, not enough people assigned the title of “head of communications” actually have the credentials for the job.

Komen lacks a communications strategy. Managing image and reputation in today’s world requires smart and sophisticated strategic planning and swift action, especially to avoid such politically driven decisions that will cause lasting brand image damage. It requires keen experience with how social media functions.

Lastly … and most importantly … too few CEOs and executive directors have bothered to personally recognize the importance of strategic communications. Even fewer leaders can skillfully take the reins to manage their organization’s image and reputation, especially when a crisis happens.

Komen clearly has no savvy communications leadership (aside from promoting a fund-raising machine), is not driven by strategic planning and lacks smart leadership at the top. Reversing its funding decision, capitulating to massive public outcry, only underscores a serious lack of competence at the top and in the area of communications.

Let me say that I have a personal bone to pick with the Komen outfit because this latest crisis reveals to me that they were playing politics with the $93-million they disperse annually, obediently bowing to a conservative congressman who said he wanted to investigate Komen’s funding to Planned Parenthood.

Breast cancer claimed my mother nearly three decades ago, and there still is not cure despite massive funding, including the Komen fundraising machine. The fact there is no cure is shameful.

The Susan G. Komen organization now finds itself in a crisis of trust. Its reputation may very well spiral downward, out of control, at this point. Its brand is in tatters.

From my perspective, they will see no more checks from me. I want my contributions to actually find a cure, not to pay for a roomful of incompetents to play politics.

“Hey, ya know what?” our president often says at news conferences and speeches when he begins a thought or answer to a question.

President Obama

No, Mr. President, I don’t “know what”—that’s what I expect you to tell me. Furthermore, it’s not a very “presidential” or top executive style of speaking, no matter how hard you are trying to reach the common person out there. It’s a casualness more suited for talking with guys on the golf course.

Nonetheless, “Hey, ya know what …” and the shorter version, “Ya know …” are useless junk phrases that have crept into the American vernacular, on TV, on radio, and in everyday conversation. I catch myself using them. It’s contagious.

Heck, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has started saying, “Hey, ya know what …,” and, it sounds very out of character for a person of her stature.

While watching PBS “Newshour” one evening, I counted the number of times its correspondents or interviewees began a statement with, “Ya know.” I stopped counting at 100, and the hour-long program was not over. The phrase became tedious to hear.

Perhaps it is a conscious effort by some to sound more conversational, perhaps more “cool,” or just a bad habit, as in my case.

When I hear a newscaster, pundit, or interviewee begin by saying, “Ya know …,” I get the feeling they are either buying time while trying to think of something to say or tentative in their statements. It makes them sound uncertain, equivocating, and dodgy.

We have always been plagued by such irrelevant and useless phrases in Americanized English that often detract from clear and affirmative communication. A popular phrase a couple of decades ago was, “Sorry ’bout that.” I have no idea what that means.

Such junk words and phrases have no place in clear and effective communication, and they inhibit our ability to be more influential.

10 empty phrases to avoid:

• Hey, ya know?
• Value proposition
• Actionable
• Learning partners
• Ramp up
• Empowering
• Maximizing
• Critical path
• Envisioning
• Well, basically …

Plain language is the key, because it stands out amongst all the noise, hype, and clutter in today’s competitive world.

The late Lilyan Wilder.

For more than five decades, the late Lilyan Wilder was considered the foremost teacher and speech coach in America and guided the careers of countless celebrities, executives, broadcasters, and politicians—including Oprah, Larry King, Maria Shriver, Charlie Rose, Binyamin Netanyahu, George H. W. Bush, Tom Brokaw, and Charles Osgood.

When I was a young CBS News correspondent, the network had her coach me to correct my poor pronunciation from having grown up in the Washington, D.C., area. Her sternness scared me, but I learned.

She insisted on the use of plain language and dismissed as junk words those meaningless or ambiguous words that creep into everyday exchanges, causing confusion and derailing understanding. Ms. Wilder was emphatic that junk words must be avoided in order for any person to reach his or her full potential as an outstanding communicator.

In the practice of communication, we sometimes get lazy and use the jargon of an industry or current lexicon because it might seem more precise, clearer, and impressive than plain language. That’s too bad, because it is a trap; we forfeit any chance of gaining an edge and winning. We lose any chance at competitive differentiation and leadership.

Here’s an easy, three-step checklist to help you authentically communicate using plain language:

1. Think and talk outside of yourself. Consider how others may perceive your use of common clichés. Does it make you sound more credible, or just contrived? Train yourself to speak in positive statements that get straight the point. Do not equivocate.
2. Talk in crisp sound bites, not elevator speeches. A sound bite communicates your message or describes your endeavor, precisely, in one breath—about 16 seconds—while using words that are understandable, credible, engaging, exciting, and memorable. You don’t have time for junk words. An elevator speech, although popular, takes too long, particularly if you are headed up to the 44th floor.
3. Avoid junk words.  Jargon, acronyms, buzzwords, and trendy clichés. Few phrases lead to more communication confusion and misunderstandings than the prefabricated and empty clichés of business, management consultants, or just lazy users of our language.

And then, the video – complete with music score, of course – dances into a perfunctory and predictable interview with the head of Amtrak’s police force, John O’Connor (who really needed coaching to be on-camera), and a completely irrelevant segment on the care and feeding of police K-9 dogs.

Why? What’s the purpose? What’s is the basis for the scare video? And, yes, that’s what it is … a SCARE video.

Well, nothing more timely than Amtrak working hard to spend $1-billion in funding and an apparently groundless Homeland Security report that claims there is growing worry over Amtrak’s vulnerability to terrorism.

While there have been specific security concerns for the country’s transportation infrastructure, the geniuses at Homeland Security strung together a series of “what-ifs” after visiting four (out of 500) Amtrak stations and took several years to prepare a report that your Amtrak regional train may be a prime terror target.

Huh, what?! Amtrak did nothing about security for years after the 9-11 attacks … NOTHING … but now, it’s duck and cover everybody!

What does all this new emphasis on terror equal? Well, the obvious message is that government bureaucrats believe scare tactics are the best way to assure people who ride trains, and that Amtrak’s security people saw a chance to hire their own army. I know it may sound … well, dumb, counter-intuitive and a waste of money … but, hey, they’ve got 1-billion taxpayer dollars to spend.

Yet … and, this is what really bothers me … for Amtrak to play the “Fear-Terror-Scare” card on the public is downright sleazy and dishonest, in my opinion. And, that’s what they’ve done. There is nothing wrong with Amtrak takinig an about-face from its lethargic norm and start an effective security program in the background, where it belongs. But, what they are doing sure seems more like “security theater” to justify a fat cop budget. Don’t know about you but I’ve seen that cheap show before.

What Amtrak needed, I believe, were professional communicators to work with them to develop a clearer and more ethically grounded purpose for their campaign, other than producing what no doubt was an expensive video that sends the wrong messages. But, heck, in the Amtrak stations I visited – New York, Philadelphia and Washington – no one seemed to pay attention to the multiplex of TV screens … except me, wondering, why?

It is a reality in our fast-moving, digital-driven world that words matter. And, certainly in the field of communications where new uses and more precise usage of words and phrases play a key role in determining such essential factors as competitive differentiation, authenticity and value. Take, for example, online “newsroom” versus “news site.” There is a big difference.

A few months ago during a meeting with Gary Shapiro, CEO of the giant Consumer Electronics Association and someone I greatly respect, he observed that many CEOs and business leaders see little asset value in most online newsrooms.

Everyone has one, Gary said, and they all look and feel pretty much the same … resting places (or “graveyards,” as I have previously labeled them) for press releases. That’s true.

The common perception of online “newsrooms” is one of an archival place for news releases … and, while some news releases may contain some information that could be ferreted out as news, most tend to be more self-promotional and one-sided.

As a long-time journalist and author, I’ve heard the complaint for years from those in the news business about the use of obtuse news releases for marketing purposes. As a result, most reporters and editors ignore a great many press releases.

Fortunately, that traditional approach to handling news online is changing through brand journalism and “news sites” which are far more open, transparent, interactive and balanced in presenting legitimate and real-time news. Online news sites work make your organization or business a trusted news resource. They are an authentic and valuable asset.

News sites are embraced by corporations and organizations that recognize that the best approach to managing news in today’s online world is to become the center of all news about your industry sector or area of focus. And, all news might not be all good. But, having the confidence to lay it all out there and be the center of news, a company or organization earns respect and trust.

News sites, however, require a lot more work and need people with accomplished journalistic skills. It’s not promotion or marketing but rather news that captures attention in today’s world.

Think of it this way …

• Online “newsrooms” are more one-sided, self-promotional, static and dull.
• Online “news sites” are balanced, trusted, engaging interactive and result in far more visitors and control over how your brand is trusted and respected … and, talked about. Real news in real-time.

Online “newsroom” or “news site” … there is a big difference.

Here are some examples of what I consider to be good online news sites:

University of Rochester’s Futurity

Imperial Sugar Company’s news site

Louisiana Seafood News

Cisco

Boeing (actually, this borders on being a personal commentary blog but newsy)

Radio Free Europe

Stratfor's holding page.

Stratfor’s website was hacked and taken down on Christmas Eve. In unconfirmed online postings, the alleged hackers claim to have stolen not only the company’s website and backup but all of the company’s email records and unencrypted files that include customer names and all of their credit card data.

Today, ten days later, Stratfor.com is still offline with nothing more than a static holding page.

During those ten days, Stratfor has not been consistent, timely, respectful or transparent in its communications to subscribers who pay a pricey fee – starting at a base of $400 a year – for various levels of the intelligence reports. Quite the contrary, the company’s communications – mostly on their Facebook page – have been sparse, at best.

On December 28, Stratfor posted on Facebook:

“As part of our ongoing investigation, we have also decided to delay the launching of our website until a thorough review and adjustment by outside experts can be completed.

We expect this to take approximately a week, but it might take longer – please bear with us as we recover from this unfortunate event.

In the meantime, we will not be deterred from doing what we do best: providing our customers with top-notch geopolitical analysis.

Therefore, while our website is being tested we will be sending geopolitical analysis to our members via email.”

While that update was posted on Facebook, it was not emailed to Stratfor’s subscribers, many of whom no doubt never follow Facebook. The company is in the business of emailing reports to subscribers but failed to provide this important update.

Furthermore, as any Stratfor subscriber knows, the “top-notch geopolitical analysis” emails have stopped. The lack of any updates or timely and substantive updates from the company could be interpreted as an outfit in serious trouble, true or not.

In today’s lightning-fast online digital era – a time in our lives when corporate brands can be damaged in a nanosecond by information, accurate or not – crisis communications mandates:

• Openness to the point of vulnerability … which enhances credibility and customer support.
• Timeliness and responsiveness in communications even if a company doesn’t have all the facts.
• Consistency without wavering … and, fulfilling what is promised.

In the case of high profile Stratfor, the company has failed in all areas to date, and has made itself a case history of how not to manage corporate brand and reputation in a crisis situation.

The company says it “cannot discuss any details because several law enforcement agencies are investigating the incident,” which is simply not a genuine statement. Meantime, many mainstream news media are running the story. It’s being called, “The hack of the year.”

The media coverage snowball rolls on while Stratfor is silent.

Copyright 2010 Mark Alan Stamaty. Republished with permission of the artist.

The hackers reportedly struck Stratfor’s three servers located at a small web hosting firm in Austin, Texas, Stratfor’s homebase. According to what has been pieced together, they were seeking access to the company’s confidential emails.

Not only did they find about 3.3 million emails, they also captured the credit card information – including pin numbers – of thousands of Stratfor subscribers, including Homeland Security, police departments, foreign governments, government officials, private individuals, and … well, you get the idea. The credit card information had been stored on the servers in unsecured, open and unencrypted in plain text files, possibly in violation of law by Stratfor.

Click here for a detailed analysis of personal information stolen.

What the hackers did then was to completely erase the company’s servers, possibly including any backup of the website. At this writing, Stratfor is dead in the online water – no website, no email, faltering subscriber trust and shattered reputation among many high profile subscribers.

What’s now hurting the most for Stratfor – an expensive, premium online news and analysis aggregating service – is not necessarily the hacking but rather their own lack of crisis management and prompt, transparent communications. The fact that as we head into “Day 4″ since the attack they cannot get their website back online exacerbates the situation.

The company’s last communication with subscribers was on Christmas day (see below). Since then, nothing except for a couple of rambling posts with poor grammar on Facebook. In none of the spattering of statements has there been any accountability or acceptance of responsibility by the company, probably the result of bad advice from an attorney. Let us not forget that Stratfor’s careless security practices have compromised the credit cards of thousands of clients.

Stratfor's last alert to subscribers on Sunday, December 25, 2011.

The incident is causing many Stratfor subscribers to take a second look at whether the company’s daily email service of news summaries is still worth the hefty fees, especially when much of the same news and information is already online for free through Google and the plethora of online news resources.

Stratfor was created by Austin-based entrepreneur and salesman George Friedman. In his analysis of Friedman and Stratfor, David P. Goldman wrote in The Tablet in early 2010:

Friedman’s thriving business targets a key market niche: corporate types with geopolitical exposure who are too busy or too ill-informed to use Google.

“Controlling costs but without skimping on quality” is the secret to the McDonald’s-like commercial success of Stratfor, Friedman explained during a break from his New York book tour. “The secret is the division of labor: we have people who collect intelligence, people who analyze intelligence, and people who write,” he says. “It’s designed to give the subscriber a consistent product.”

“Friedman is not selling sophistication,” Goldman writes. “Subscribers to his premium service get more items in their inbox than the most avid geopolitics junkie could digest.”

Friedman today needs to sell believable crisis communications. It would have been easy and quick right after disaster hit:

1. News blog to deliver a steady flow of updates and assurance to subscribers, the media and public.
2. Engaging in the online social media discussion of the hacking and fallout. Stratfor’s voice is absent there.
3. Genuine acceptance of responsibility and empathy for subscribers whose credit cards have been compromised.
4. Clear and sincere messages, free of typos and grammatical mistakes.

Special thanks to Mark Stamaty for use of his illustration. Click here for his website.

Stratfor's website ... offline for hours.

It’s the latest cyber-attack attributed to members of the hacktivist group Anonymous, and one of the worst. The names, credit card details and other revealing information of an alleged 4,000 Stratfor clients were stolen and reposted on other websites to be shared around the world. And, that has occurred.

What has happened to Stratfor underscores how any high profile company, such as Stratfor, should respond to its clients in the face of such a crisis, regardless of whether or not it’s a holiday weekend. Stratfor has communicated poorly, especially for a company that provides a continuous stream of global intelligence to clients.

The New York Times reported, “Stratfor executives did not return calls for comment on Sunday.” There is no excuse for that, in my view.

There are lessons already to be learned for professional communicators about the Stratfor incident because communicators need to have a level of tech awareness about today’s digital era where the brands, images and reputations of companies can be shattered in nanoseconds.

Stratfor, which purports to be like a “shadow CIA” intelligence resource for thousands of companies and individuals, appears to have been a poster-child of poor Internet security itself:

1. Stratfor’s IT people never hid the company’s website IP numbers or the fact that its servers were located at a relatively small Internet hosting company in Austin, TX, which probably would have been understaffed on Christmas Eve. This may be a small point but it suggests a careless approach to website security. Anyone can quickly see that information via Godaddy.com or any domain name registrar. Simply enter a search for ownership (called “WhoIs”) of Stratfor.com and it reveals the IP numbers and that the servers are located at a place called Corenap.com in Austin. This is akin to intentionally leaving your house keys in the driveway only to be surprised when you return home that the place has been ransacked. Lesson to be learned: It costs $20 a year to hide such critical information.
2. Stratfor’s IT people not only hosted the company’s website on the server but also used it for company email, 200GB of which allegedly was stolen by the hackers. Lesson to be learned: Use an online server for website hosting only. Don’t pinch pennies. Use Google Pro Apps for powerful email service that is highly secure and runs separately.
3. Stratfor may have lacked a website backup due to the length that the site has been offline. Their site was built on a Microsoft website platform which is one reason companies, like Lockheed Martin, have switched to using WordPress for greater online security. Lesson to be learned: Not all IT people are as smart as they think they are.
4. Most troubling of all … Stratfor apparently stored highly sensitive documents on the same server … unencrypted. Clients lists, credit card data, credit card pin numbers and other information seemingly had been kept on the same server used to host the website.  That was incomprehensibly reckless and naive, in my opinion.* It possibly is in violation of law. Lesson to be learned: When client and customer information is entrusted to a company, act responsibly. Security of client/customer information is paramount. Keep it offline and secured with encryption.
5. When a hacking occurs, get out ahead of the social media buzz with openness, swiftness and transparency. Stratfor waited about 18 hours before posting a poorly written, repetitive and vaguely worded statement publicly on Facebook which seemed to be more about the company than its clients. The company has yet to enter the firestorm of negative details and sharing of company information happening on Twitter and other social media. Lesson to be learned: When a crisis hits, respond instantly. You will be judged on how quickly you communicate. Show empathy, especially about stolen client information. Enter the online conversation even if you don’t have all the facts that the attorneys want you to have. The trust and reputation of a company may be at stake, like Stratfor.

At this stage, about 24 hours after the Stratfor hacking, I would imagine the company has many very, very angry customers because Stratfor has not behaved like a responsible and professional “global intelligence” leader. It will be interesting the see if the company survives itself.

* As an aside, the website hosting company, Media Temple, stored client information in an unencrypted Word file online a couple of years ago. Their corporate site was hacked and the data stolen. Media Temple then blamed its customers for poor security, alienating many customers and generating a negative image of the company.

Photo: Zazzle.com

“All we want,” he said, “is to be convinced of their level of commitment to help with their talent and resources. We could care less about boasting over what they’ve done for someone else.”

My friend had just gone through an exhaustive and complex process to issue a request for proposals (RFP) and make initial selections. Now, it was all over, and he believed the wrong agency had been selected by default. He was sharing highlights and trying to figure out what went wrong.

His team favored one particular agency going into the selection agency. Let’s call it “agency X.” And, yes, companies and organizations nearly always have favorites in any agency selection process.

My friend shared that the huge, multi-million dollar contract was “for ‘agency X’ to lose.” All they had to do was talk about meeting objectives and finding solutions. They needed to demonstrate desire to help. But, rather, all agency X did was brag about its past accomplishments and awards. Agency X wasn’t alone, my friend said. Nearly all other agencies talked too much about themselves.

“Another agency convinced us of their desire to help, and we chose them,” he said. Agency X lost out.

What my friend shared is nothing new. PR agencies, for example, brag about winning this or that award from professional agencies and outfits like The Holmes Report or O’Dwyer. That doesn’t mean a hill of beans to clients or potential clients who just want and expect assurance of commitment and best efforts for results on their behalf.

It’s interesting that in recent weeks, I have had calls from friends who do communications and PR at various companies and organizations to seek my counsel on what seems to be increased emphasis on attempting to generate results from communications tactics after the fact, with little or no advance strategic planning. That’s a sure sign of program failure and waste of resources, in my view.

In all cases, the root problem has been an attorney dictating outcomes rather than advance planning … most likely because they have no idea about the process of advance strategic planning. Well, here’s a headline for those attorneys:

Meaningful and tangible results – whether in a communications program or building a bridge over a river – require advance strategic planning.

Objectives … clear strategies to achieve each objectives … and tactics to support each strategy. Such strategic planning is generally not taught in law schools.

The focus of communications work must be concentrated strategically on objectives, strategic thinking and actual work rather than getting lost in the weeds of trying to make excuses afterward. But, what my friends are saying is that the opposite is happening … primary emphasis on generating reports and justifications after the fact.

I am hearing the words, “task dictated,” with respect to communications programs. It’s jargon that no one is quite sure what it means.

One friend said that it was suggested that her department get a newspaper clipping service. I hadn’t heard anything like that in about ten or 15 years! She said one of the lawyers thought it would be a good idea. Guess the attorneys were not aware that approximately 30 percent of America’s newspapers have disappeared in the last 8 years or that an online digital revolution has profoundly changed how we interact and communicate, rendering clipping services obsolete.

Here is some contract language for you, taken from an actual “communications contract” drafted by a lawyer:

“Project Narratives
For all projects completed under this Agreement, Contractor must provide a narrative detailing the scope of the project, specific details of the project and the outcome of the project. Any documentation produced for such a project must be attached to the narrative. By way of illustrative example, if Contractor creates a news story or commissions an editorial or blog, Contractor must attach a copy of the article, a copy of reports showing the article’s distribution any other document(s) relevant to the project.”

Such language in my opinion does not demonstrate vision or an intelligent approach for using communications in a positive and meaningful way to enact profound change. Quite the contrary – it is a recipe for program failure, negative impact on brand image and waste of valuable resources.

Penn State’s hapless communications staff has behaved inconsistently and amateurishly throughout this growing storm of scandal, suggesting lack of strategic communications planning and expertise. They continue to bury the issue on the university’s website. Clearly, there is a lack the senior level of expertise to handle the situation.

This storm has been growing since 2002 when Jerry Sandusky, Paterno’s former defensive coach, allegedly sexually assaulted a young boy – about 10 years old – in a shower in the football building. He performed anal sex on a child. The act was witnessed by a graduate student who reported what happened to Paterno, who did nothing. Sandusky, apparently a serial pedophile, continued his behavior. And, Paterno did nothing.

Penn State president Spanier knew of the sexual attacks and did nothing.

It was a coverup by university leaders who put the fortunes of the football program ahead of ethics. They were as much as silent accomplices to a serial pedophile.

Paterno has announced he will retire at the end of the season. He had not originally planned to retire until news broke that he was apparently complicit about Sandusky’s rapes by knowing about them and doing nothing.

Crisis management with one option

In a crisis of this magnitude, Penn State’s board of trustees has one course of action – fire Paterno and Spanier now, immediately and without delay. If they wait and do nothing until the end of the football season, it sends the signal they are more concerned with the millions in revenue from football games rather than what is ethically and morally right. And, they, too become complicit by more delay.