Blog Archives - Page 11 of 30 - Logos Consulting Group

Logos team blog posts

Logos President Keynotes Air Force Worldwide Public Affairs Conference

Logos Consulting Group is pleased to announce the Logos President Helio Fred Garcia was a keynote speaker at the U.S. Air Force Worldwide Public Affairs Conference in Washington, DC on December 6, 2016.

The conference, last held five years ago, is an opportunity for about 300 of the 5,500 U.S. Air Force public affairs officers to hear from commanders about priorities, learn and share best practices, and attend workshops on specific skills.

The four-day conference included presentations from a range of military and civilian speakers.

The first speaker was the commanding general of Air Force Public Affairs, Brigadier General Ed Thomas. General Thomas is a career public affairs officer and inspiring leader, who laid out for his group his and the Air Force’s priorities for shaping the image and reputation of the Air Force both in the U.S. and abroad.

The second speaker was the Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Deborah Lee James. She described some of the challenges the Air Force will face in the future, and the importance of public affairs in building public support for the service, for weapon systems, and for United States in general.

The final speaker of the morning was Logos president Helio Fred Garcia. He worked the 300 participants through a structured review of ways to maintain trust in a crisis, first by asking the right questions, and then by meeting stakeholders’ expectations.

Some excerpts from Garcia’s session:

“The word from which the English word Crisis derives is ΚΡΙΣΙΣ, which in Ancient Greek meant a choice at a moment when one’s destiny can be determined one way or another.

So it’s important to think of crisis management as the management of choices at a moment when an organization’s destiny can go one way or another.

And the decision criteria — the basis for choice — matter. Most communicators in a crisis use the wrong criteria because they ask the wrong question. The wrong question is “what should we do?” Even worse, “what should we say?” The reason both questions are wrong is that they put the questioner in a self-referential frame. As a result, many of the proposed solutions are actions that may make the person in crisis feel good, but are unlikely to maintain or build trust. Rather, they are likely to cause trust to fall.

Trust is the consequence of expectations fulfilled. Trust arises when there are no unrealized expectations. So the right question in a crisis is What would reasonable people appropriately expect a responsible organization to do?”

Garcia then applied that decision criteria to a range of civilian and military case studies, drawing the audience into a robust discussion.

And whatever the particular answer to the question of what reasonable people would appropriately expect a responsible organization to do, the common expectation is that the organization care. Care that there is something that requires attention; care that people have been affected and may be at risk; and care about the people affected.

So the strategy for effective crisis response is the following:

A timely demonstration that we care
And a persistent demonstration that we continue to care
For as long as that expectation is alive.

In grappling with the case studies the participants tested their own ability to consistently apply the decision criteria to a range of challenges they face in their own work.

After presenting for ninety minutes, Garcia’s presentation was followed by General Thomas’ affirmation of the principles for the work of Air Force public affairs, and encouraged all Air Force public affairs staff to embrace the approach to ask the right questions to maintain trust.

With Brigadier General Ed Thomas, Director of Public Affairs, U.S. Air Force

Garcia has been advising elements of the U.S. military for more than 25 years. His primary military client is the U.S. Marine Corps, but over the years he has also worked with all branches of the U.S. armed forces through various joint commands. He is also a contract teacher at the U.S. Defense Information School, in Fort Meade, Maryland, where, among other branches, he teaches Air Force Public Affairs officers.

December 14, 2016/by Helio Fred Garcia

New Resource: Teaching Business and Human Rights Handbook

Blog, Corporate Responsibility, Human Rights, Worth Reading

A common challenge for the growing community of individuals teaching business and human rights (BHR), at universities and within companies alike, is finding the most relevant teaching resources and sharing what works in the classroom.

More than 140 universities have added BHR courses or content to their curricula in the past decade. The multi-disciplinary subject is now being taught at schools of business, law and policy worldwide.

Logos Senior Fellow Anthony Ewing is helping fellow BHR teachers and trainers find resources for teaching the most common business and human rights topics through the recently launched online Teaching Business and Human Rights Handbook. (BHRHandbook.org)

More than 140 universities have added BHR courses or content to their curricula in the past decade.

Anthony contributed a teaching note and has edited the Handbook since its launch earlier this year.

In the Handbook introduction, Ewing notes that:

“Methods for teaching business and human topics are as diverse as the individuals teaching the subject, and the students studying it. Teaching a multidisciplinary subject allows for creative pedagogy. Many business and human rights instructors are experimenting with alternatives to traditional lectures and classroom discussion, such as simulations, role-playing exercises, debates, clinical work and online courses. Instructors are sharing comparative teaching strategies for different students in different geographies. Corporate training is producing even more customized approaches to covering the subject matter for executives, managers and employees.”

The Handbook has published five topics to date. Each “teaching note,” authored by an expert who has taught the subject, provides a brief overview of the topic, describes approaches for teaching business, law and policy students, and identifies relevant teaching resources, such as readings, videos, cases and exercises.

Handbook teaching notes include:

Introducing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
by Anthony Ewing (Lecturer, Columbia Law School)

Mandatory Human Rights Reporting
by Erika George (Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, The University of Utah)

Human Rights Impact Assessment
by Mark Wielga (Director, Nomogaia)

OECD National Contact Point Complaints
by Elizabeth Umlas (Lecturer, University of Fribourg)

Shared Value and Human Rights
by Björn Fasterling (Professor of Law and Business Ethics, EDHEC Business School)

Handbook notes currently in the pipeline will cover topics including: Corporate Human Rights Policy Commitments, Human Rights Due Diligence, the “Business Case” for Human Rights, and “Big Data” and Human Rights.

The Teaching Business and Human Rights Handbook is a project of the Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum, a platform for collaboration among individuals teaching BHR, which Ewing co-founded in 2011.

For more about his work, please contact Anthony Ewing at: [email protected].

November 22, 2016/by Logos Consulting Group

Korean Edition of Reputation Management Published

Blog, Reputation, Worth Reading

Logos Consulting Group is pleased to announce that the Korean language edition of Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication has been published. The publisher is Alma Books, based in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The Korean language book title is 명성 경영 전략.

The book’s co-authors are John Doorley and Helio Fred Garcia (president of Logos Consulting Group). The co-authors’ work is supplemented by contributions by leading practitioners who wrote chapters or supplemental material on their areas of particular expertise. From Logos Consulting Group these include Anthony Ewing (Corporate Responsibility), Laurel Hart (Social Media), and Raleigh Mayer (sidebar on The Art of the Pitch). The investor relations chapter was jointly written by Helio Fred Garcia and Eugene L. Donati.

The First Edition of Reputation Management was published in 2007. The Second Edition, published in 2011, is the edition that has been translated into Korean. The Third Edition was published in 2015. A Chinese language edition is due later this year from Tsinghua University Press in Beijing.

The English language editions of Reputation Management have been adopted by both graduate and undergraduate programs in dozens of universities around the world. The book serves as the foundation of the curriculum in New York University’s MS in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

John Doorley is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at Elon University in North Carolina. He is formerly the founding Academic Director of the MS in Public Relations and Corporate Communication in New York University’s School of Professional Studies. He is also co-author (with Fraser Seitel) of Rethinking Reputation: How PR Trumps Marketing and Advertising in the New Media World.

Helio Fred Garcia is the author of Crisis Communications (AAAA Press, 1998) and The Power of Communication: Skills to Build Trust, Inspire Loyalty, and Lead Effectively (FT Press/Pearson, 2012). That book was translated into Chinese in 2014 by Publishing House of Electronic Industry in Beijing.

In 2015 Helio Fred Garcia was one of four international crisis experts to speak in Seoul, Korea to government, corporate, and public health officials in the wake of several major crises that rocked Koreans’ confidence in their leaders. Cosunilbo, Korea’s largest newspaper, hosted the Chosun Issue Forum, Crisis Management in Post-MERS Korea. He was also profiled in ChosunBiz, a weekly business newspaper, on recent crises in Korea and around the world.

Logos president Helio Fred Garcia at Chosun Issue Forum in Seoul in September, 2015

In early 2017 Garcia will visit Korea in support of the launch of the Korean edition of Reputation Management. The Korean edition can be purchased by clicking here.

October 18, 2016/by Helio Fred Garcia

Logos Institute and Communication University of China to Launch Joint Crisis Response Intensive

Blog

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership is pleased to announce the formation of a joint intensive crisis response seminar to be offered with Communication University of China in Beijing.

This will be the first educational initiative jointly offered by, and jointly credentialed by, Logos Institute and a leading university.

The three-day intensive seminar, Best Practices in Crisis Response, will be an opportunity for business, government, NGO, and other leaders in China to learn best practices from a global perspective, and to receive tools, techniques, and insights that can help them more effectively protect their institutions’ reputations and competitive position.

The seminar will be conducted in Beijing on February 22, 23, and 24, 2017.

All instruction and materials will be in both English and Chinese.

Communication University of China is one of the top public universities in China. It is ranked No.1 in media education and ranked No.1 among language universities in China.

The faculty of the intensive seminar will be:

Dr. Steven Guanpeng Dong, Chair and Dean, Academy of Media and Public Affairs, Communication University of China. He is also vice chair of the China Public Relations Association.
Dr. Helio Fred Garcia, Executive Director of the Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership. He is also an adjunct professor of management in the New York University Stern School of Business executive MBA program and an adjunct associate professor of management and communication in New York University’s MS in Public Relations and Corporate Communication program. He is also a Senior Fellow at Communication University of China.
Iris Wenting Xue, Research Fellow at Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership. Iris is a frequent guest speaker at New York University, where she also advises graduate students on their thesis projects. She is also an Overseas Fellow in Communication University of China.

The seminar content will be organized as follows:

Day 1: Foundational Principles of Effective Crisis Response:

Introduction to Crisis Response
The Management of Choices
The Nature of Trust
Decision Criteria: What to Do
Decision Criteria: When to Do It

Day 2: Readiness

Foreseeing the Foreseeable
Managing the Unforseen
Principles of Crisis Planning
The Crisis Planning Planning Template
Establishing Crisis Teams
Establishing Crisis Operation Centers

Day 3: Crisis Communication: Engaging in Ways that Maintain or Restore Trust

Starting With Why: Context and Framing
The Neuroscience of People Under Stress
Media and Social Media
Direct Communication with Stakeholders
Course Wrap-up

As part of the work of the course, students will develop a crisis readiness plan and submit it for analysis at the end of the course.

Students receive a Certificate of Completion jointly branded by Communication University of China and the Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership.

More information about the workshop can be found here.

September 23, 2016/by Helio Fred Garcia

Does Brand Loyalty Always Help in a Crisis?: Guest Blog by Nicky Honghao Ruan

Best Practices, Blog, Communication, Crises, Crisis Communication, Crisis Management, Power of Communication, Strategy, Trust, Uncategorized, Worth Reading

by Helio Fred Garcia

This is my sixth in a series of guest blogs featuring my recently-graduated capstone (thesis) advisees in New York University’s Master’s in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

See my earlier posts:

In this blog, Nicky Honghao Ruan looks at the issue of brand loyalty, and makes a counter-intuitive discovery: Sometimes, very strong brand loyalty can make companies’ crises worse than if they don’t have brand-loyal customers.

Nicky explores a range of crises affecting different kinds of organizations, and identifies the criteria of the organization, of the customers, and of the crisis that predict whether brand loyalty will help or hurt an organization in crisis.

Better yet, she provides a template that can help leaders and their advisors anticipate what will work and what will hurt, and to adapt accordingly. Worth reading.

You can download the entire capstone here.

Brand Loyalty in Crisis:

How does strong brand loyalty affect a company during crisis under different circumstances?

by Nicky Honghao Ruan

Nicky Honghao Ruan

Consumers are familiar with programs like “My Coke Rewards,” “Marriott Rewards” or “AAdvantage,” that help to contribute to a core marketing concept — brand loyalty.

Brand loyalty has long been endorsed by marketing experts as an intangible asset for a company or organization. Conventional wisdom suggests that strong brand loyalty can empower a company to overcome crises, but practitioners often overlook the potential risk of strong loyalty when the nature of the crisis changes. In some cases, strong brand loyalty does not shield a company from crisis, but can instead become a liability because the high expectations of loyal customers were not met.

Through case studies, in-depth interviews with crisis management experts, and public surveys, my capstone examines the interplay between crisis conditions and the role of strong brand loyalty, and identifies various causes for both helpful and harmful outcomes.

As a result, I developed a model for crisis management professionals to quickly evaluate whether to incorporate a brand’s loyalists as defense strategy, or instead to plan for ways to prevent the extra harm that could instead be created by loyalists.

Mapping the Template

Brand loyalty is more likely to help a brand under conditions in the left column (green), and more likely to harm one under conditions in the right column (red).

At the same time, those criteria in the top row (darker color) would have stronger impact than those in the bottom row (lighter color).

The one that falls in the middle column is especially situational and could go either way.

When a crisis happens, a company would be involved with more than one of these conditions. Depending on the situation at the time, crisis management professionals would take the template and check what criteria the brand fulfills and which side it tends to lean on more.

Examples

When Strong Brand Loyalty Helps:

Blue Bell’s Listeria Crisis

In early 2015, U.S. ice cream maker Blue Bell announced several rounds of complicated recalls of its ice cream after listeria in its products infected five consumers and led to three deaths.

Although its crisis response was strongly criticized, Blue Bell’s strong loyalists remained highly tied with the brand. The beloved Southern ice cream maker made it through the summer without having any product on shelves. During the time, fans continued to engage with the company on social media.

In fact, Blue Bell’s fiercely loyal consumers were waiting in long lines outside stores when the company finally came back to the market.

Apple iPhone 4’s “AntennaGate”

Very soon after Apple released iPhone 4 on June 24, 2010, complaints about signal attenuation began to flood the web.

When faced with growing negative reviews, widespread criticism and potential lawsuits, Apple’s initial solution was to tell users to not hold their phones in certain way.

Critics argued that Apple’s crisis response broke all the rules: the company didn’t apologize immediately or take full responsibility. Despite all the negative publicity and critics, demand for iPhone 4 continued to exceed supply.

In the case of Blue Bell and iPhone 4, the brand was in the green more than in the red. Therefore, their strong brand loyalty helped the companies overcome the crisis.

When Strong Brand Loyalty Hurts:

The “New Coke” Launch

Thirty years ago, Coca-Cola made its worst mistake when, without warning, it abandoned its original formula and replaced it with “New Coke.”

Long-standing customers felt betrayed.

Some deserted the brand for its biggest competitor Pepsi.

Ultimately, Coke’s strong brand loyalty led to one of the company’s largest PR crises, driven by a fierce reaction from fans who believed Coke was neglecting them.

After three months of justifying the unilateral withdrawal of its beloved Coke, and insisting that customers would prefer the new Coke, Coca-Cola brought the original back as Coke Classic.

Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood

On January 31, 2012, the Susan G Komen Foundation announced its decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

The halt would affect breast cancer screening and treatment services — mostly provided to poor or uninsured women — at 19 of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates.

Within hours after the news broke, Komen was flooded by public outcry. During the next three days, the foundation saw significant lost in donation and the negative response it received was overwhelming.

After 72 hours of the initial decision, Komen Foundation announced that it would reverse the funding decision. But the reversal didn’t stop the damage.

Long-standing Komen supporters who felt hurt and betrayed refuse to forgive the organization. Both event participation and revenue of the nation’s best known cancer foundation continued to drop.

Volkswagen’s Emissions Scandal

In 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that German automaker Volkswagen Group (Volkswagen) had installed software in a number of cars sold in the U.S. that would provide artificially positive results during emission tests.

Volkswagen later admitted that it had intentionally equipped its vehicles to cheat on emissions tests. For the first time in 13 years, Volkswagen’s sales in the U.S. declined 15% in November 2015.

Marketing and communication experts think that Volkswagen would be hard to forgive, especially by many of its loyal consumers.

The fact that the company voluntarily cheated on the public was worse than negligence or mistakes in testing procedure, which set itself apart from other auto recalls in the industry though some of them even linked to deaths.

Conclusion

The New Coke, Komen and Volkswagen crises saw far fewer conditions in the green compared to those in the red. Therefore strong brand loyalty in these cases created a backlash.

This model creates a shortcut for communication professionals to quickly evaluate their brand loyalty’s position and the likelihood that loyalty will help or hurt the organization navigate a crisis.

When a brand falls more into the green cells, instead of immediately pulling out everything, e.g. halting production or crafting the perfect apology, time and money could be better spent on gathering information and resources to fix the problem.

When a brand falls more into the red cells, the essence of response strategy should include gaining forgiveness from loyalists.

Perhaps more significant, the model can stimulate companies to take brand loyalty into serious consideration before making business decisions.

August 20, 2016/by Helio Fred Garcia

Logos’ Iris Wenting Xue selected by the CEIBS’ Summer Boot Camp

Blog

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Research Fellow Iris Wenting Xue was selected by the China Europe International Business School in their 2016 Pre-MBA Boot Camp.

China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), in Shanghai, was co-founded by the Chinese government and European Union (EU), and is a joint venture for management education. It is ranked 17^th in the world, according to the Financial Times (2015 edition) and 1^st in Asia, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

During the one-week intensive boot camp, Iris met participants from more than 20 countries and regions, including Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, The Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, U.A.E., U.S. and Uganda.

The Boot Camp included courses such as The Ten Commandments for Competing in Turbulent Times; Long-Term Economic Growth in Asia; China’s New Normal: Beyond the Headlines; and Disruptive Market Positioning.

The schedule for the week

Iris and her classmates shared their thoughts on hot topics like Brexit, Japan’s preparation for constitutional change, and the U.S. presidential election.

As one of the professors tweeted, it was a great opportunity to understand and connect with the world.

As Iris framed, it was far beyond firsthand knowledge and lifelong friendships.

August 2, 2016/by Iris Wenting Xue

Jefferson Lives! Fourth of July Teachable Moment

Best Practices, Blog, Communication, Crisis Communication, Crisis Management, Framing, Human Rights, Language, Leadership, Politics, Power of Communication, Reputation, Strategy, Uncategorized, Worth Reading

by Helio Fred Garcia

To my Students: A Fourth of July teachable moment on framing — starting with why — and career management, on the 240th birthday of the United States of America.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, voted to separate from England; our own Brexit.

It passed a resolution put forward by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, declaring, in part: “These colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”

The Declaration of Independence, by John Turnbull

Who Writes The First Draft?

On June 11 Congress named a committee, known as the Committee of Five, to write the announcement. That committee included John Adams of Massachusetts, Ben Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

The committee initially asked Adams to write the first draft. But Adams, 41, considered himself a statesman and thought the work beneath him. So he suggested that Jefferson, 33 and a rising star, take the first draft.

Writing the Declaration by JLG Ferris

According to the biography John Adams: A Life by John Ferling, Jefferson was confused by Adams’ suggestion:

“Jefferson asked, “Why will you not? You ought to do it.”
To which Adams responded, “I will not – reasons enough.”

That didn’t satisfy Jefferson, who insisted,

“What can be your reasons?”
And Adams responded, “Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.”

Adams may or may not have been sincere.

Jefferson yielded.

“Well,” said Jefferson, “if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.”
Adams concluded, “Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.””

There is no evidence that such a meeting took place. There is evidence that Franklin, then in his 70s, edited Jefferson’s draft carefully.

Start With WHY

So Jefferson took on the task. But instead of simply listing the grievances against the King, Jefferson, who knew a lot about persuasion, decided to start with WHY — First, with a meta-WHY, why a Declaration of Independence, as opposed to simply an account of the vote? And second, the WHY of separation.

First, WHY the Declaration: Jefferson wrote that in such circumstances,

“a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

A Decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind

Think about that for a moment: A DECENT RESPECT for the opinions of mankind. That’s the foundation of public relations — and of all civil government. This usually-overlooked opening to the Declaration is in many ways as important as what follows. It creates accountability and sets a standard — what reasonable people would appropriately expect a responsible provisional government to do when it decides to leave.

Second, WHY the separation: First principle: All are equal. Second principle: Fundamental rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Third principle: Government exists to secure these rights.

Move to HOW

And then the HOW: When government fails to do so, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government.

Heady stuff.

Of course, it was more aspirational than normative, as Lincoln pointed out 87 years later. We’re still trying to get it right.

Finishing the Draft

Draft of the Declaration, with Franklin’s and others’ edits

Jefferson’s draft was powerful but wordy. Franklin edited it; the Committee of Five submitted it; the Congress tweaked it more.

The Declaration was ratified on July 2, and published on July 4.

The Broadside Edition of the Declaration of Independence, published on July 5, 1776.

Note that of the 1,338 words of the Declaration, the first 1,180 are all about the WHY and the HOW.

The WHAT, the text of the actual resolution of the Congress, appears only in the last paragraph and consists of only 127 words:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

And the Declaration closes with the final 31 words:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Rivals and Friends

John Adams as the second President of the United States

Adams never quite got over missing the chance to get credit for the Declaration. He went on to become the first Vice President and second President; Jefferson to be the first Secretary of State and third President.

Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States

History continues to view Jefferson — with all his flaws and contradictions — more favorably than Adams.

The two were fierce political rivals until both left office; then they became fast friends, frequently corresponding with each other (as only former presidents can do).

But Adams continued to envy Jefferson.

And both died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the Declaration was published, on July 4, 1826, exactly 190 years ago today.

According to legend, Adams, on his deathbed and unaware that Jefferson had died several hours earlier, lamented that Jefferson would outlive him.

He uttered this deathbed regret:

“Jefferson Lives!”

Of course, he was right.

Below, for reference, the final version of the Declaration of Independence.

……………………………………..

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

July 4, 2016/by Helio Fred Garcia

Cross-Cultural Study of Corporate Apologies – GUEST BLOG BY Stella Danqing Zhao

Apology, Best Practices, Blog, China, Communication, Crisis Communication, Language, Uncategorized

Introduction by Iris Wenting Xue：

This is my second in a series of guest blogs featuring my recently-graduated capstone (thesis) advisees in New York University’s Master’s in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

I myself was a guest-blogger when I graduated two years ago from the program. (See A 10-C Model for Apologies here.) And it is my great honor to become a Capstone advisor and contribute to the program.

In her capstone, Stella Zhao analyzed corporate apologies in terms of wording, tone and body language. She compared different apology styles in the U.S., China, and Japan and came up with customized recommendations. As she notes, apology is not only about communication but also about anthropology. You can read the entire capstone here.

…………………..

Stella Danqing Zhao

Through the Looking Glass:

A Cross-cultural Study on Proper Usages of Verbal and Nonverbal Elements in Corporate Apology Speeches – Guest Blog By Stella Danqing Zhao

My thesis is a study on different apology styles regarding wording, tone, and body language in the U.S., China, and Japan. The wording part mainly focused on IFIDs of each country, which means “Illocutionary Force Indicating Device”, also known in this case as the key apologetic words. The body language part focused on the eye contact, facial expression, gesture, posture, and also a particular way of apologizing – bowing.

The study contains two parts – study and survey. In the case study part, nine cases, three from each country, are analyzed to find the common apologetic words, tone, and body languages:

U.S.

Domino’s Pizza:

General Motors:

Blackberry:

China

2015 Shenzhen Landslide:

Mindy Quah:

Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant:

Japan

Rikuentai Bus Company:

Tokyo Electric Power Company:

In the survey part, a survey was distributed and assembled using the survey software Qualtrics. Participants were first asked to answer a few questions on corporate apologies to see their general perceptions regarding wording, tone, and body language. After this part, they were shown two corporate public apology speech videos – one from Volkswagen, the other from Toshiba. To exclude the influence of participant’s knowledge of certain language, they were asked to focus only on the nonverbal part and answered a few questions regarding on the tone and the body langue of the two speakers.

Volkswagen:

Toshiba:

Conclusion

Based on the case studies and the survey, several similarities and differences were found between the perspectives of the audiences from those three countries. Therefore, we can have some recommendations on different apology styles in each country.

U.S.

In the U.S., the most common IFIDs are “sorry” and “apologize”. According to the survey, people believe that the word “apologize” is more effective than the word “sorry”, but both of them can be used based on different situation. When using apologetic words, adverbs such as “sincerely” can be used to strengthen the tone. Honorific words are not extremely necessary and the speech can be informal to some degree, but it should still be written clearly and express regrets.

A consensus between the three countries is that the tone of an apology speech should be regretful, humble, and empathetic. However, in the U.S., people can accept a more firm, positive, and confident apology. It’s important to show your audience that you have the determination to fix the problem.

As to the body language, it’s important to make direct eye contact in the U.S. Avoiding direct eye contact can be seen as hiding and dishonest. The facial expression should be serious, and proper gestures can be applied. The posture should be formal but with natural movements instead of standing stiffly. Bowing is not recommended in the U.S. because it may be seen as an overreaction.

China.

In China the common IFID is the derivatives of the word “qian (歉)” [In English: apology] such as “bao qian (抱歉)” [In English: apologize] and “dao qian (道歉)” [In English: apology/apologize] . “dui bu qi (对不起)” [In English: I am sorry] is also a common apologetic word but it’s less used in a formal corporate apology. Adverbs such as “cheng ken (诚恳)” [In English: sincerely] and “fei chang (非常)” [In English: very] can be used to show sincerity. One should also address the audiences with “nin (您)” [In English: you, but in a very respectful way, like “Your Majesty” rather than “Hey, you”], which is the honorific form of “you” in Chinese. The speech should be written in a formal style.

Besides being regretful, humble and empathetic, the tone of the apology speech should let people feel that you are somehow ashamed for the wrongdoing, which shows that you realized what you did was improper. It should also be firm without hesitation.

In China, direct eye contact is also welcomed. People can accept having a modest smile on their face, which means the facial expression doesn’t need to be blank or stiff. Proper gestures can be applied, and the posture should be as formal as possible. Although bowing is not required in apology speeches in China, it is recommended to show more sincerity.

Japan.

In Japan, there are strict requirements for the choice of apologetic words. Using informal IFIDs such as “sumimasen(すみません)” [In English: Excuse me] and “gomen nasai(ごめんなさい)” [In English: apologize in daily setting] can be seen as a mistake. IFIDs such as “moushiwage gozaimasen (申し訳ございません)” [In English: apologize in professional setting] and “owabi shimasu (お詫びします)” [In English: apologize in professional setting] are recommended. One can use multiple apologetic words in one apology to make it stronger. Using adverbs such as “fukaku (深く)” [In English: deeply] and “hontoni (本当に)” [In English: truly] are also a good way to show sincerity. Honorific form of the words is required in a formal apology.

In Japan, the tone of the apology speech should be more “negative”, meaning it should be more sad, regretted other than positive and confident. It’s better to show you remorse for bringing other people trouble.

Direct eye contact is not recommended when apologizing to Japanese people. Lowering the head can show your regrets and humble. A smile is strongly prohibited. Although in the survey the respondents didn’t disagree with using gestures, they are seldom found in previous apology speeches. Usually, Japanese people stand in a very formal posture with their hands beside their body. Bowing is required and can be applied multiple times according to different situations.

		U.S.	China	Japan
Wording	IFID	“Apologize”/”Sorry”	Derivatives of “qian” (歉)	“moushiwage gozaimasen” (申し訳ございません) “owabi shimasu” (お詫びします)
	Adverb	Sincerely	“fei chang” (非常) “cheng ken” (诚恳)	“hukaku” (深く) “hontoni” (本当に)
	Honorific Form	✖	✔	✔✔

Tone

Regret

Humble

Empathetic

Positive

Confident

Firm

Ashamed

Sad

Ashamed

Body Language	Eye contact	✔✔	✔	✖
	Smile	✖	✔	✖
	Gesture	Apply properly
	Posture	Somewhat natural	Formal	Formal
	Bow	✖	✔	✔✔

The table above briefly summarizes how wording, tone, and body language shape public perceptions of corporate apologies, and how apology style differs in U.S., China and Japan. Reflecting on a better understanding of how stakeholders think and feel can help a leader, and those who advise the leader, to more likely craft an apology that will work.

June 8, 2016/by Logos Consulting Group

Communication in E – Commerce: Guest Blog by Erna Li

Best Practices, Blog, China, Communication, Social Media, Strategy, Uncategorized

Introduction by Iris Wenting Xue：

This is my first in a series of guest blogs featuring my recently-graduated capstone (thesis) advisees in New York University’s Master’s in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

In her capstone, Erna Li conducted analysis on the China-born e-commerce company Alibaba and compared it to American e-commerce company Amazon in terms of social media and business model aspects to learn best practices. She focused on the challenge of building messages that resonate as the companies expand from just domestic online shopping platforms to global online retailers. You can read the entire capstone here.

Communication in E – Commerce: Guest Blog by Erna Li

Online shopping in a cash-based country could be a dream to a teenager. I still remember the excitement of winning the first bid for a backpack on eBay at my senior high school in China. After shopping online for over ten years and learning public relations/communication for six years, I realized how important it will be if e-commerce companies could strategically convey messages to their target audiences. They need to send out the right messages at the right time via an appropriate channel.

We assumed that communication would be easy for of e-commerce companies compared to other industries, because e-commerce is online, global, and almost everywhere. However, successful e-commerce companies face unexpected challenges when they try to expand to other territories. They need strategic communication to overcome challenges that occur in international environments.

Alibaba Case Study: Born in China, Created for the World

Alibaba is an enormous China-founded e-commerce company. This company powers 80% of online commerce in China. From flight ticket reservation to fresh fruit delivery, consumers are able to find most kinds of services they need. At the end of December 2014, Alibaba had almost 334 million active buyers on its website. Such success would not have been possible without a social media and public relations campaign.

Alibaba Corporate Communication Strategy: Domestic Shopping Day to Global Shipping Festival

Each November 11^th since 2009, Alibaba has launched a domestic online shopping celebration campaign. The date is well known in China as Single’s Day — the date’s number eleven represents people who are single. Initially, the idea was for singles to celebrate their freedom and independence. Now, it is also an excuse to shop. People are more than welcomed to shop online whether or not they are single.

The above image is a screenshot of the Alibaba website. It says that all merchandise is available for at least a 50% discount on November 11^th. Every year the discount theme is similar. Before 2014, Alibaba’s corporate message was about the discount and coupons. After Alibaba went through 2014 IPO, Alibaba changed its message and emphasized its global shipping services. The target audience is mostly the Chinese who live overseas. That is to say, Alibaba upgraded its shipping from purely domestic to global. However, Alibaba’s website is not available in English, which could limit participation of the international buyers in the Global Shipping Festival.

Best Practice

(http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/alibaba-singlesday-record-2015/)

With their successful public relations and social media campaign, Singles Day in 2015 reached e-commerce sales to $9.8 billion. The chart above shows how Single Day’s revenue in China was more than all sales volume during the U.S. shopping holidays in 2014.

Challenge: Stock Decline

(http://www.barrons.com/articles/alibaba-why-it-could-fall-50-further-1442036618)

Barron’s, an American weekly stock market-focused newspaper, posted an analysis “A Hot Stock Turns Cold.” As the first chart shows, Alibaba’s stock has kept dropping since December 2015. The price reached its peak in November, which also suggests that Global Shipping Day campaign remains an important date for the company.

Situation analysis – Map impact and likelihood

I have learned the following chart from the crisis management perspective during the crisis communication course in 2015. Since then I tried to apply it in other business communication settings.

The above chart says that the most likely/ already happened is the stock price decline. The major impact of dropping stock is investment lost and negative influence on financial performance. The possible critical impact is that Alibaba might lose some investors. The major possible impact is that Alibaba’s credibility is criticized and questioned. Wall Street Journal, BBC, Fortune, Reuters and other media outlets might state the controversy from different angles. The critical remote impact on Alibaba is that the declining stock could cause public concerns and shareholders’ disappointment.

In Alibaba’s case, there are two main reasons behind the scene that led to the stock slide.

Alibaba has strong domestic and overseas competitors. JD.com is a Chinese e-commerce company based in Beijing. It is one of the largest B2C online retailers. Another strong oversea competitor is Amazon. As Amazon has been in the e-commerce industry for decades, it has stable customer resources and deep understanding of the market. Even some of the Alibaba’s business models are learned from Amazon.
A controversy regarding potentially counterfeit products sold through Alibaba has led to negative visibility and stock market declines.

May 25, 2016/by Logos Consulting Group

Logos Institute Celebrates 2016 NYU Graduates

Blog

The Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership celebrated New York University graduates last week. The firm opened its doors on Thursday, May 19, for an Open House to celebrate 2016 graduates, families, faculty, administrators, and friends of New York University’s School of Professional Studies (SPS) master’s degree program in public relations and corporate communication (PRCC).

More than 130 guests attended the Logos Open House, which served as an opportunity to keep the graduation festivities going between Wednesday’s All NYU Commencement at Yankee Stadium and Friday’s SPS Convocation at Radio City Music Hall.

Logos Institute was proud to host the event, as Logos fellows are especially involved in supporting the PRCC program. Helio Fred Garcia, Laurel Hart, Kristin Johnson, Raleigh Mayer and Oxana Trush, all serve as past and present professors and capstone advisers in the program. Adam Tiouririne and Iris Wenting Xue also served as capstone advisers.

Logos Institute Team Members at the Open House

For the 2015-2016 academic year, Logos advised 18 PRCC graduates, which comprises 10 percent of the graduating Class of 2016.

Additionally, Garcia and Johnson represented the NYU PRCC faculty and administrator “platform party” on stage at Friday’s SPS convocation ceremony at Radio City Music Hall.

Professors Garcia and Johnson at Radio City

Logos team members will continue to teach and advise NYU SPS PRCC students into the summer and 2016-2017 academic year. Students will periodically be invited to contribute guest blog posts on www.logosconsulting.net as well, such as the most recent, “Surviving Online Shaming,” by 2016 graduate Maura Yates.

About NYU SPS

Celebrating its 81st anniversary, the NYU School of Professional Studies (sps.nyu.edu) is one of NYU’s several degree-granting schools and colleges, each with a unique academic profile. The reputation of the School of Professional Studies arises from its place as the NYU home for study and applied research related to key knowledge-based industries where the New York region leads globally. This is manifest in the School’s diverse graduate, undergraduate, and noncredit programs in fields such as Accounting, Finance, and Law; Applied Politics; Creative Cities and Economic Development; English-Language Learning; Foreign Languages, Translation, and Interpreting; Fundraising and Grantmaking; Global Affairs; Health Information Management; Hospitality and Tourism; Human Resource Management and Development; Liberal Studies and Allied Arts; Management and Systems; Marketing and Marketing Analytics; Professional Writing; Project Management; Public Relations and Corporate Communication; Publishing; Real Estate, Real Estate Development, and Construction Management; Social Entrepreneurship; and Sports Management, Media, and Business.

More than 100 distinguished full-time faculty members collaborate with an exceptional cadre of practitioner/adjunct faculty and lecturers to create vibrant professional and academic networks that annually attract nearly 5,000 degree-seeking students from around the globe. In addition, the School fulfills the recurrent continuing higher education needs of local and professional communities, as evidenced by close to 48,000 annual noncredit enrollments in individual courses, specialized certificate programs, workshops, and seminars. The School’s community is enriched by more than 28,000 degree-holding alumni worldwide, many of whom serve as mentors, guest speakers, and advisory board members. For more information about the NYU School of Professional Studies, visit sps.nyu.edu.

May 23, 2016/by Logos Consulting Group