The Carnegie Deli, one of New York’s fabled artery clogging eateries recently added the “Jet Bow” to its menu, a 4 pound edible edifice named in honor of Gotham’s newest celebrity, the genuflecting back-up quarterback of the New York Jets, Tim Tebow.

The "Jet Bow" sandwich at New York's Carnegie Deli.

Whether it’s a sandwich emporium with a worldwide reputation or a neighborhood coffee shop, most of us expect to see a new item on the menu from time to time. In the case of the Carnegie Deli, it’s the continuation of a decades-long exercise in acknowledging accomplishment or, in the case of Tebow, (and to paraphrase a meritorious New Yorker, Woody Allen) merely showing up.

By the time the check is placed on the table by the waiter, we realize…it’s just another sandwich.

Granted, public relations firms aren’t populated with the sort of characters that push the pastrami at the Carnegie but they have seemingly taken a page from the deli’s playbook to gain attention from prospective diners…I mean…clients.

Take, for example, an item that appeared in the 4/17/2012 issue of PR Week. The headline read:

“Edelman launches executive positioning offering.”

My inner Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler rumbled: Really!

In the spirit of full disclosure I once was in the employ of that organization and consider Richard Edelman, its globe-trotting CEO, one the most driven, dynamic and inventive minds in the industry. I also believe its annual Trust Barometer to be useful research, not self-promotional sludge.

Steve Hoechster, New York PR executive.

That said, how is a “service to help clients position their top executives in a relevant and credible way” a truly new offering. Isn’t this a fundamental part of just about any executive positioning or visibility program? The Edelman wrinkle appears to be the use of subject matter experts and former members of the media brought together as a sort of communications SWAT team to produce the CEO equivalent of “The King’s Speech.”

In the digital realm, the folks at Hill+Knowlton Strategies just announced availability of “a new service called Influence Point” that “can serve online ads directly to individuals identified as influencers” using “a proprietary methodology” to spot the desired influencers who are then served various digital ads to computer and mobile platforms.

The firm’s claim is such targeting cuts “wasteful spending on large online ad buys.”

To restate Seth and Amy: Really! Since when is any media planning and/or buying effort not oriented toward the highest possible efficiency in terms of reaching a defined audience?

Honestly, is either of these so-called new service offerings clear indications of the firms’ awareness of marketplace needs or something they’ve always had but now make on rye instead of whole wheat?

Whether it’s at a deli or in a conference room, the next time you sit down with a PR firm…before asking what’s new…ask what’s good today. (Or, are they just recycling what they should be already offering?)

[Steve Hoechster's email is:  shoechster@aithent.com]
 

Apple learned that fundamental pillar of effective communications years ago, a style that’s help rocket sales. P&G is the latest shining example, using a stunningly beautiful and storytelling TV commercial now airing in Britain.
 

 

What’s particularly powerful about this TV commercial is the minimalistic music interwoven with natural sound so as not to be intrusive … a polar opposite of many videos produced today with bombastic music.

This is P&G’s elegantly simple message:

Being a mom is the hardest job in the world. But it’s also the best.

This Procter & Gamble commercial honors everything that all moms do to help their children succeed by showcasing the amazing moms behind Olympic athletes at the London 2012 Olympic Games. The hardest job in the world is truly the best job in the world.

Join P&G in saying “Thank you, Mom” by sending your Mom a message of thanks at: www.facebook.com/thankyoumom

P&G’s Facebook page has received more than a half million “Likes” in just a couple of days. They know … it’s not about their company, it’s all about finding an emotional, meaningful connection with audiences.

Let me just add that if this TV commercial were to air in the U.S., it might become a centerpiece of this year’s Presidential race.
 

1. Define objectives. No more than three objectives to achieve focus and clarity.
2. Develop strategies. One strategy to address each respective objective.
3. Appropriate tactics will naturally be revealed and fall into place.

Strategic planning – whether for the future of an organization or for a communications program – should not be a difficult or time-consuming process. Most of the time, however, it’s bypassed or ignored as panic driven organizations rush to embrace the latest trend or craze that everyone else is doing.

A not-for-profit, for example, may list “Strengthen our financial position” as its top objective. That’s not a objective but rather a wish. A real objective might be stated, “Create programs of greater value to attract new funders.”

Top leaders and management of an organization care about solid results that show favorably on their top or bottom lines as well as marketplace reputation. Results come from strategic plans, and therein is a disconnect with the field of communications or PR.

Communications people and PR agencies are often fools to the latest tactic fad, seemingly oblivious whether it might create the meaningful results their top bosses expect. If all you have is the latest shiny digital hammer, everything looks like a nail is commonly a PR agency approach.

Stop fixating on tactics!

The current focus on hiring people to handle Twitter or a Facebook page is tactic stuff and meaningless without a strategy. Hiring a search engine optimization (SEO) charlatan is wasteful. New SEO technology is automated.

Using one of those costly press release distribution services is not only a tactic but counterproductive in today’s media environment. Any in-house communications person worth their pay should personally know the thought-leaders in the news media who cover the company or organization and learn that the telephone is still one of the best tools for communications.

Think!

It’s time for the practice of communications to become more intellectually driven. Think. Learn. Analyze. Be curious. Explore. PLAN.

Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs took another bruising to its image this week via an unusual open letter from one of its executives, Greg Smith, that was printed in the New York Times, causing turmoil in financial markets and among investors. It’s a must-read. Smith’s perspective of Goldman paints a company blinded by greed and has led distinguished management consultant Larry Miller to write the following piece, shared here with permission from his blog, Management Meditations:

By Lawrence Miller

A young executive at Goldman Sachs, Greg Smith, resigned in a very public way. He wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs.” In essence he accused the leadership of Goldman Sachs of destroying the internal moral fiber of the firm, putting profit before meeting the needs of customers, and he cited the open contempt that Goldman personnel feel toward their clients. It is a sad commentary.

The readers of this blog who are most concerned with “lean” and continuous improvement may ask, “So what does this have to do with continuous improvement?” Trust me, it does!

Step back a moment to frame this issue. The material progress of a company, country or civilization is directly related to its moral character, its culture. But, not in an instantaneous and direct way. Rather, one is the antecedent to the other.

The historian H. G. Wells made the following observation about the decline of Rome: “After the fall of Carthage the Roman imagination went wild with the hitherto unknown possibilities of finance. Money, like most other inventions, had ‘happened’ to mankind, and men had still to develop – today they have still to perfect – the science and morality of money. What happened to Rome? Various answers are made – a decline in religion, a decline from the virtues of their forefathers, and the like. We, who can look at the problem with a larger perspective, can see what had happened to Rome was ‘money.’ Money had floated the Romans off the firm ground.”

Lawrence Miller, management consultant.

Some years ago I was speaking at a conference and this was a time when I was involved at Honda American Manufacturing. I mentioned to the audience that every morning every Honda associate meets with his or her team for fifteen minutes to discuss how they could correct any problems discovered the day before, how they could improve their work.

Immediately after I said this a hand shot up from the audience. I saw his name tag said “General Motors.” I called on him and he said “Cost justify those meetings. I can tell you that at General Motors we know the costs of stopping that line for even one second. If you can’t cost justify it, it won’t happen at General Motors.” I could only reply by telling him that he had me, I couldn’t cost justify it, I only knew that they did it.

Of course, he was right. General Motors cost justified everything. GM was run by financial managers, with the Chairman drawn from the financial group and with a financial background. He knew money, not how to make cars.

A month later I was at Honda and asked Scott Whitlock then Executive VP of Manufacturing the same question. How do you cost justify those meetings? Of course, at this time Honda America Manufacturing was led by Iri Irimajir, an engineer and Formula One engine designer, who designed an engine being produced at the very time. Scott looked at me and said “Why would anyone ask such a question?” Which of course made me feel stupid! He then said, “We just have faith, that if every day, every associate thinks about how to improve his work, we will make better cars.”

At that same time the work hours required for auto assembly at Honda was about 12 hours per car. At GM it was in the range of 22-24. Yet, at GM it was about money.

Money had “happened” to GM and the dominance of money, versus serving customers with great cars, and it drove GM to bankruptcy while Honda’s market share continually rose.

In 53 BC Marcus Licinius Crassus, considered the wealthiest man in Rome, and who had gained his wealth through the lending of money, who knew money better than anyone, led the Roman army against the presumed to be inferior Scythians at Carrhae where they were led into hot sand and the immobile Romans repeatedly charged on foot the Scythian cavalry that circled and fired arrows into the legions. Twenty thousand Romans were killed and ten thousand more carried into slavery, among them the wealthiest of all.

When those who lead the operations of a company are more expert in money than they are in the operations that serve customers, you are likely in decline and will not recover until your leaders care more about customer service, are expert in the operations that serve those customers, than about money. Then, money will follow.

Greg Smith said of Goldman Sachs “To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.”

“It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.”

I have no direct knowledge of the culture of Goldman Sachs. But the fact that an executive is sufficiently motivated, negatively motivated, to publish a piece like this in the New York Times is a red flag that should trigger intense self-reflection by that firm’s leaders. It should also be a cause for all corporate leaders to reflect on their own culture, the values they imprint on their associates, particularly their young recruits.

Social capital, internal trust among members of the firm, and external trust, or what may be called brand equity, are the leading indicators that precede a decline in innovation and service; and that in turn precedes the decline in financial success. You don’t get money by focusing on money. You get money by following the path of dedicating yourself to service, service to your customers and service to your associates, and then money will follow. Those who lead the firm must be expert in what precedes money, not in the counting of fruits after the harvest created by others.

“It would be great to just hear someone say that things need to change,” one said.

The10Company offers some advice to CEOs for how to do a better job of being authentic—shun corporate-speak, tell stories, be blunt—but how easy is that to do? There’s more to it than simply typing the honest truth about everything into a Twitter feed, communicators say.

The good points

The bloggers who were interviewed make good points, says Katrina Olson, a lecturer at the University of Illinois and principal at Katrina Olson Strategic Communications. Avoiding jargon is imperative for anyone who wants to seem authentic, she says.

Top 5 phrases that signal inauthenticity:

Survey respondents identified the following phrases as red flags:

1. This deal is a win/win.

2. Thinking/working/planning outside the box.

3. We’re not here to talk about the past.

4. We are an innovative company.

5. Executive X is stepping down to spend more time with his family.

“Not only bloggers, but today’s savvy consumers see right through this kind of wording and assume the CEO who uses them is trying to hide the truth or not disclose all the facts,” Olson says. It would be quite refreshing to hear a top executive simply state that someone was fired for embezzlement and that the company is working on new safeguards, for example, rather than hearing that someone is leaving “to spend more time with his family.”

Jonathan Bernstein, author of “Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management” and president of Bernstein Crisis Management, says he encourages CEO clients to speak to stakeholders as though they’re sitting in their living room. Lots of CEOs say they have trouble sounding anything but “CEO-like,” which Bernstein says means “stuffy.”

“Very, very few CEOs are naturally capable of this level of effective communication,” Bernstein says. “Some inherently have more skill than others. But to be really good at it, they need to practice until they’re so good it doesn’t look like they’ve rehearsed at all.”

Read the full story at Ragan.com.

During lectures, I am fond of saying that companies and organizations today have the freedom and potential to achieve unprecedented leadership and success … the choice between standing in the spotlight of awareness or the choice of being relegated to the shadows of blandness. And, given the choice, it’s astonishing how many outfits prefer the cold familiarity of the shadows.

Some organizations … in fact, too many …  still try to control and sanitize what they say to such extremes that little remains about the true character of their organization but self-serving drivel, devoid of appeal, relevance and purpose.

Here are some practical examples we see each and every day:

• The formula for local, cable and network news programs has not changed much in as long as I can remember, about 40 years. People, technology and events change but the formula remains chiseled in granite, appealing to fewer and fewer people who are choosing to do more contemporary and appealing things, like get the news and information they need online. Those old, unchanging ways of mainstream news are way past their “sell-by” date. But, yet, most in broadcast news are not changing, not taking a chance.
• Public radio and TV stations – the NPR and PBS affiliates around the country – are wringing their hands because donations have dropped precipitously, forcing cutbacks in staff and programs. But, when fundraising time swings around, PBS TV stations air the same tired, old (and free) self-help programs as if intentionally trying to drive off viewers. And, NPR radio stations are tone-deaf on how to reach changing audiences by doing the same old thing – interrupt quality, top-ranked NPR programs to drone on about our responsibility to give them money. They are so disconnected with viewers and listeners … it is as if they are living on a different planet. Maybe they are … or just laboring under a self-imposed insular attitude of being above having to confront the realities of the world.
• Companies and organizations are scrambling today to hire junior staffers to handle online social media for the wrong reasons. Aside from the fact that many of the new recruits have no accomplishments in social media, they lack the clever and engaging skills to connect with audiences. They lack experience in communications. Quite the contrary, companies send out promotions and sales messages, never stopping to wonder why they only have 370 followers on Twitter. It reminds me of the hysteria in the 1980s when companies would hire people to stand over fax machines, waiting for a piece of paper to belch out.
• Far too many companies and organizations still desperately rely on press releases under some illusion that it will lead to media coverage. In fact, news releases are the opposite of what today’s news media desires. Reporters and editors are under pressure to find fresh, new and original stories, not recycle some outfit’s dull self-promotion under the heading, “news release.” Lazy PR people, out of touch with media needs and lacking media contacts, use press release outfits like Vocus and Cision that generate their own kind of spam through mass email blasts of releases. It’s largely ignored by the media. On the other hand, those few people who learn how to create media coverage through a journalistic storytelling and make the effort to develop media contacts are the few who capture headlines.

Are we really moving forward competitively in America or just kidding ourselves that two steps backward is really one step forward?

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