My friend Cecilia invited me to an exhibit of artist Norman Magnusson’s work. I don’t know a lot about art despite being engaged to a wonderful artist, Sine Hjort. But Cecilia would not steer me wrong, and she raves about Norm and his work. Plus, the theme for the exhibit is Communication – so I had to check it out.
The show opened two weeks ago, at Mount Saint Mary College, a beautiful campus overlooking the Hudson River in Newburgh, NY. I am glad we went, as I really enjoyed it and was extremely impressed. His art features playful riffs on how we communicate, or more often fail to, in a range of media.
Each work drew me in, and shed light on the foibles we call modern communication. They were compelling, easy to relate to, and made this PR guy grin.
For example, here’s a look at his piece: “I am Sorry…” Norm explains: “Individual words and phrases can be overused to the point of completely losing their sharp edge as carriers of thought and sentiment. Here, below is a drawing entitled ‘I’m sorry’, in which I’ve written ‘I’m sorry’ 1,000 times on a piece of nice thick watercolor paper.”
As he says, “Communication is a bitch.” Tell me about it!
Norm is a former ad agency copywriter and creative guy, so perhaps it is not surprising that he chose communication as a theme. I wanted to learn more about his work and asked if he’d agree to an email interview.
Norm said yes – so see the Q & A below.
Please tell me about your background; I understand you come from the advertising field?
I worked on staff as a creative director/copywriter at ad agencies in New York and london. one spring I had my first solo show (of allegorical animal paintings) lined up and I was sick of telling people “what I really wanna be is a painter” and I quit. I’ve been working primarily as an artist ever since. This exhibition, which has a lot of text-based work, feels, to some degree, like coming full circle.
Tell us about your work as an artist – when did you get into it, and why?
I started painting shortly after I moved to NYC in 1982. My mom had sent me a set of paints and some canvases just for kicks and they just sat there and then one night my roommate said: “Let’s paint a picture” and we did. He was amazing and I was mediocre but I got the bug and he didn’t.
I’ve been making art ever since. I still have the bug.
One of the things I’ve realized I really like about it is exploration and discovery and the CHANCE that things will work out as I’d dreamed they would. It’s kind of a gambler’s mentality: trying something new and hoping it turns out. In this show, there are a lot of pieces where the finished product made me really happy because it worked out. It’s like winning a little lottery. I’d never etched glass before but “Fake News” worked out exactly as I had hoped. I’d never written anything 1,000 times before but “I’m sorry, a thousand times I’m sorry” worked out even better than I’d dreamed. There are a few other pieces in this show that were brand new territory for me as well. I’ll tell you if you want.
Your work seems to have the same playful quality found in Dadaism – did the movement inform your art?
I remember the first time I saw Meret Oppenheim’s piece “Object”. The fur-lined cup, spoon and saucer at NY’s MoMA. It just killllllled me, it was sooooo beautiful. Not just on an aesthetic level, but on an intellectual level too. Same with “Cadeau”, the iron with sharp tacks welded to its smooth surface or the metronome with the eyeball, both by Man Ray or the urinal “Fountain” by Duchamp and many others, and these things really got under my skin in a big way. Some were considered “surrealism” and some “dada” I guess, but for me (I didn’t study art history and knew very little about any of it when I moved to NYC) they were all “absurd objects” and I loved them to bits. I even created and curated an exhibition a few years back on the subject. It was such fun. No one has ever asked me this question before. I guess it was the beginning of an understanding of conceptual art for me, a description that, increasingly, people attach to my creative output. I’m becoming less uncomfortable with it.
What inspired this exhibition?
I worked in advertising as a copywriter. A part of that craft is to say things JUST SO. So that they can be read only one way. The opposite of poetry, if you will. You would never want to write a line of copy that could be misinterpreted in an unflattering way or in any way at all!! I feel that I’m GOOD at that, both professionally and personally. And yet……miscommunications happen. ALL THE TIME!!!! I’m always wondering why? And how? And there are soooo many reasons….. It’s really fascinating to me. And I started to think about it and make art about it and started to think that it could make a really fun exhibition. I think maybe one of the first pieces I made happened when I was dictating through the voice recognition software, Siri, and it was just getting things wrong. Honestly, I think I could make art on this theme forever. There’s no end to how interesting it is to me. Communication is tough and it’s fun to figure out why.
What’s next for your work?
I’m working on a series about internet pornography. It’s been percolating for years and finally, it’s ready to be created. I’m fascinated with how there is, as they say, something for everyone out there. It’s ubiquitous, 12% of existing websites are porn, 35% of all internet downloads are porn-related. Every second, 29,000 internet users are viewing porn and 1 in 3 of them are women. It’s an amazing force in our contemporary lives and I’ve planned a bunch of obsessive pieces on this topic and made one small example of one of them. I’m thrilled to get going on it.
If you are in the NY northern suburbs I strongly recommended visiting the exhibit, which will be on display through November 13. You can see all the work in this series (some in the show, some not) here.
Looking to launch or grow a blockchain venture? What are the secrets to success?
It’s a noisy world and a never-ending battle for the consumer’s attention. If the average user is slammed with info and updates, just think about journalists! They’re an especially tough crowd to reach and impress. Sure, you can try to take your message to the crowds directly, via social media. But it is not easy to rise above the noise in crowded newsfeeds and social streams.
is especially true in the realm of blockchain. People are trying their
best to understand what it all means – and if the tech really will be
the game-changer that lives up the hype. There’s some baggage associated with ups and downs of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Plus, the jargon and technical details can be hard to decipher.
There are loyal and dedicated communities that follow updates in the crypto and blockchain worlds. They can be echo chambers that cater to speculators and recycle the same old buzz that links crypto to the blockchain.
To be successful and breakthrough to a mainstream audience, you need to think outside these communities – outside the block, that is. At a high level that means going beyond technology to talk more about utility and benefits. It means using the latest tactics and tools to unleash the marketing and PR that can help your venture get the attention it deserves.
Please join me, and Chris Nicholas in a No CMO webinar, on Oct 2, 2019 02:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada). Click here to register.
Fusion PR works extensively in the cyber security space. We are often asked about how to handle the PR fallout from breaches. What are the similarities and differences with other kinds of crisis management?
I decided to answer these questions in this post, with input
from our team.
Like other PR Crises?
A cyber-attack is a special kind of crisis. It has some things in common with other types (e.g. product liability, malfeasance) in that the company’s reputation can also be at stake.
But by their nature problems related to cyber-security and
data leakage can be more challenging to understand and contain. It is not always easy to know the cause, the
damage or even where and when the problem begins or ends. They can be insidious, confounding and always
seem to find new ways to bedevil.
As such, these incidents add wrinkles to the traditional
crisis management playbook.
The Role of PR in Cybersecurity
PR can and should play a vital role. Unfortunately, most companies take an overly cautious and defensive approach when it comes to communications. They are reluctant to go public in a positive and proactive way about the measures they are taking to protect their networks and data (see my post We’ve been Hacked! Call the Press). And they may say the wrong thing or not enough after an attack.
When an organization is attacked, assuming it is significant
(not the everyday attempt but real damage has happened or is underway), the PR
team should advise the client (or employer, if in-house PR) to respond
according to the tenets of crisis management.
That means moving quickly to gather the facts and implement
a crisis management plan.
The Crisis Plan
One of the best ways to limit the fallout is to be proactive
and vocal, sooner, rather than later.
If it is a major breach, word will get out and the
potential damage to brand and reputation will be compounded (and possibly open
the door to legal penalties). You need
to be transparent and address concerns of all stakeholders (customers, shareholders,
employees) early on.
There can be a life cycle to these things that requires different statements at different times. E.g. if it is a major attack, do you say anything if it still is happening and/or before damage has been contained?
An example that comes to mind is the recent wave of
ransomware attacks – if a company or government is being extorted, should there
be public statements before it has been resolved? Again, the rules of crisis
management and even hostage negotiations can come into play.
In general, you need to act quickly and transparently
(guided by the crisis plan and with input from the CISO, PR team, legal
advisors and C-level execs).
Piecemealing information is a way to prolong the PR pain –
it can be like death by 1000 paper cuts. Boilerplate responses should be
How to Prepare
Organizations should have a crisis plan in place that
includes specific measures for breaches and other cyber-attacks.
Plans should spell out things like crisis team, process,
stakeholders, communications channels and include specifics (e.g. contact
details, links) – so that you don’t have to hunt the details down when an
actual crisis such as a cyber-attack occurs.
The plan should be deployed at the first sign that trouble
is brewing – even if it is a false alarm, it is better to be ready. On that note, good crisis plans include steps
to pre-empt real crises. That means
anticipating vulnerabilities, taking steps to limit exposure and practicing via
simulated scenarios to ensure readiness for when one occurs.
A good plan will help mitigate backlash, but it may be
impossible to completely avoid this if there were egregious errors and
Several members of our team chimed in with additional thoughts, see below. And what do you think? Please chime in!
As is true for any other crisis – tell the truth, tell it fast, tell it all. Also, some things must be done simultaneously – monitor all social media channels to address customer concerns, identify rumors and counter them, offer updates in regular intervals…
I think there’s an argument on saying too much too soon vs. saying too little too late. And as far as putting a plan in place so it doesn’t happen again, don’t make promises you can’t keep, that’ll make things even worse.
The main concern of cyber crisis management is ensuring that the customers know what to do and feel safe. Tell them to change their passwords or give them a place to go to see if their data was affected. Let them know what you’re doing to make changes and how the breach happened in the first place. It’s important to show compassion and customer care for the victims rather than blaming the breach on somebody else.
It used to be a much simpler world for brand development. The tough questions related to name, design, and color. If you were launching a new tech company circa the early 2000s, you might wonder whether to include a swoosh with your logo.
The messages – i.e. the copy surrounding the graphical components – might have been hypey but seldom were too controversial.
Today it’s more complicated, as I wrote in my post: United we Brand. We live in turbulent, divided times. It’s tempting to play it safe, but companies and their leaders are either being dragged into politics or proactively taking stands and speaking out.
What does this mean for the arts of messaging and brand development? I saw an article in the Wall Street Journalyesterday which made me wonder where all this is going. It reported that major advertisers are taking brand safety to a new level – by blacklisting news stories based on political keywords mentioned in the content.
PR messages are workshopped too, although it’s typically a less abstract exercise.
It seems certain that the questions will change based on today’s realities. Maybe companies will start hiring political messaging gurus like Frank Luntz (whom I blogged about) on the right and George Lakoff on the left (see this post) to better tell their brand stories.
You can envision a session involving a startup with no obvious political leanings, e.g. not a gun company. Say a soft drink company.
This post is by David H. Lasker, Founder and CEO of News Exposure
Your company’s hard-won reputation is an immeasurable asset. Start with the fact that your bottom line is built on customer trust. Add the likelihood that employees who steered your brand toward its good standing feel more invested. They may be increasingly productive as a result, further perpetuating the cycle of success.
Intangibles such as these
matter. That makes it all the more disturbing to realize how tenuous all of
this can be. A PR crisis could ravage your reputation, and any number of
potential developments can trigger one. Thanks to technology, news will spread
fast and far about a criminal act, a faulty product, a data breach, an
offensive remark, an incident involving insensitive treatment of a customer …
the list continues.
Between news reports and
social media — and do not underestimate the latter — people around
the globe can learn about your company’s unfortunate situation almost
instantaneously. How will your company respond? Disaster may seem inevitable,
but there’s no reason to panic. There are ways to reduce the impact of a PR
crisis, the best of which is to prepare for one. This can be achieved even though
the specific circumstances that touch off a crisis cannot always be foreseen.
Don’t leave your company in a
position where it must resort to scrambling amid the chaos of a PR crisis.
Learn these key do’s and don’ts in advance, so the response is polished and
smooth if and when a crisis hits.
What to Do During a PR Crisis
Act quickly and transparently. If delivering an informative response
immediately is not possible, at least communicate that your company is looking
into the issue and explain why there will be a delay. Transparency is critical,
as the media may have more information than you suspect and attempts to be
deceitful might backfire.
Understand the scope of coverage. The depth and content of
your company’s response to a PR crisis may depend on who is saying what, as
well as where it’s being said. A company experienced in media monitoring
services can be a great help at keeping you informed.
Make sure your response team is engaged. Individuals designated ahead
of time to respond to a PR crisis should be briefed and given assignments
related to the specific crisis. If you have not already formed a response team
and a protocol for internal crisis communications, now is the time. Don’t be
afraid to add outside media experts to this team. When a crisis erupts, they
can present perspectives your internal team may not consider.
Coach your spokespersons. Those who will directly address the media or
the public must understand the specific response strategy and be presented with
enough information to answer questions. If time allows, set up a practice
session. Emphasize that the message must be consistent across multiple channels,
regardless of how many individuals are responsible for delivering it.
Seek feedback. If you work with a professional PR company, heed its advice.
Also gauge reaction to your response. If it’s repeatedly being deemed
inadequate from multiple channels, switch gears or risk making the situation
What Not to Do During a PR Crisis
Fall silent. Shutting down communication can lead to speculation by others
— and what they say may be worse than the truth. Make it known that you
are at least working on a response and why you cannot immediately provide more
Express anger. Lashing out in public or aggressively challenging the media
creates a negative impression and will not solve any problem.
Blame others. If your company is innocent of whatever it is accused of, let
the facts sort themselves over time. Immediately implicating another party as
responsible will be perceived as dismissive — even if it’s a customer who
misused a product, for example.
How you manage a PR crisis
can determine the depth of the impact on your brand’s reputation and/or the
length of time it takes to recover. A strategic, well-conceived response may
even increase the trust level of your customers/clients. For more insight
that’s easy to share with your team, see the accompanying guide.
Author bio: David H Lasker is
founder and CEO of News Exposure,
a digital content solutions company specializing in media research and monitoring.
Lasker has over 25 years of experience in the industry and focuses on TV and
radio broadcast monitoring, media intelligence, and PR analysis.
Should CEOs speak out on social, civil and political
issues? Should brands take a stand?
Back in the day (meaning just a few years ago) the answers were easier. It was a more innocent time and easier for businesses to step up to the plate when government was not doing its job. The Edelman Trust Barometer (an annual gauge of trust in institutions) has long ranked CEOs higher than others.
Today it’s more complicated.
There’s a hot mess of issues that divide and we all seem ready to have
chips knocked off our shoulders. Political correctness dominates, and it is
easy to get in trouble by saying the wrong thing.
So, what’s a brand (and their top execs) to do? Should they play it safe or take a stand?
Fence-sitters might alienate those who want to know the brand’s political and
social colors. But taking sides can also
fail spectacularly, as I pointed out in my post Just
There are many sides to these questions. Below, I dig deeper and shed light by
excerpting from the many excellent articles on the topic.
Lead with Values
In a PR Daily story
about Starbucks, Ted Kitterman recommended leading with values; he cites
some great examples:
The biggest takeaway for anyone following the news cycle these days must be that you can’t please everybody. So, what should you speak out on? Brand managers and PR pros should be actively searching for ways to express their brand values to consumers…
What all these companies have in common is a cadre of leaders ready to stick to their principles and take the heat. They are also ready to lose some customers for what they believe in.
From Hero to Zero
Can businesses do well by doing good? What happens when bottom line realities
collide with CSR goals?
NY Times article shows the blowback that can result. It reported how agricultural giant Cargill
fell out of favor with environmentalists:
For years, the American agricultural giant Cargill has been on relatively good terms with environmental advocates, praised for agreeing to a landmark moratorium on buying soybeans grown on deforested land in the Amazon rain forest.
In recent weeks, though, that
relationship has soured over the company’s refusal to agree to a similar
moratorium in another environmentally sensitive region of Brazil and… its
failure to meet its anti-deforestation targets. This month, the environmental
advocacy group Mighty Earth released a report titled “Cargill: The Worst
Company in the World.”
A study by Edelman found… “64 percent of consumers around the world now buy on belief, a remarkable increase of 13 points since 2017.” The ensuing narrative has been that “taking a stand is no longer an option for brands.”
Yet asking people if they buy on belief is not the same thing as … if they’d buy from a company with a public position on a political issue with which they disagree. There’s a level of granularity that needs to be explored…
If the quality, convenience or price of a product or service is better than the competition, respondents said they would still buy from a brand even if they took a political position with which they disagree… employees matter too. If the workplace is divided over an issue, any stand could be disruptive.
PR tech firm
Meltwater posted an article that explores the different sides of brands
taking stands, and also shares some great examples. The story, by NewsCred, says:
The prevailing advice seems to be that if a brand chooses to go down this path, it should proceed with caution. It should select an issue that’s a fit and be prepared to back up its promotional efforts with REAL actions to support the message it puts forward.
“The last decade has seen a loss of faith in traditional authority figures and institutions,” said Richard Edelman, president and CEO of Edelman. “More recently, people have lost confidence in the social platforms that fostered peer-to-peer trust. These forces have led people to shift their trust to the relationships within their control, most notably their employers.”
Workers also like to take their employers to task, according
to the many stories I’ve seen about employee activism. This Medium
article is a first-person account of #GoogleWalkout, a trend so prevalent
that it apparently deserves its own hash tag.
The author, a 13-year Google veteran, railed against the company’s
unchecked power on the way out the door.
NY Times story reports that an employee revolt led a PR agency to
drop a contract they’d just won for a private company that runs border
Regarding activist workplaces, right leaning, anti-PC Mises
Institute wrote about the dangers of The Rise of
Woke Capitalism for Education News. The post likens these companies to
totalitarian governments or even religions pushing their beliefs.
I’m a cynic and question the motives behind most corporate
activism. Do companies push CSR and philanthropic agendas without regard for
the PR dividends? In the Jewish religion, true charity should be given
anonymously. Who really believes that Nike chose Colin Kaepernick without some
consideration for their bottom-line business interests? And if they didn’t, shouldn’t they have?
In a NY
Times DealBook piece, Andrew Ross Sorkin writes about Jame Gamble, a
former corporate lawyer for the largest companies:
[He’s] concluded that corporate executives — the people who hired him and that his firm sought to protect — “are legally obligated to act like sociopaths.”
It’s because they have a fiduciary responsibility to guard
the bottom line and protect shareholder interests.
“The corporate entity is obligated to care only about itself and to define what is good as what makes it more money,” he writes in the essay. “Pretty close to a textbook case of antisocial personality disorder. And corporate persons are the most powerful people in our world.”
Sorkin describes Gamble’s modest proposal:
Companies, he suggests, should “adopt a binding set of ethical rules, approved by stockholders and addressing the key ethical dimensions of corporate life” including relationships with employees, communities, customers, and [companies’] effects on the environment and on future generations.
This movement, if successful would compel them to balance profits
and ethics. Sounds great, but Andrew
Ross Sorkin points out the obstacles and unintended consequences of such a
A Few Final Thoughts
Can companies do well by doing good? I think they can by taking a long-term view, insofar as stronger local economies, clean environments and happy employees can all be good for the company. Yes, they should be strong businesses; but not the kind built on the backs of exploited workers and plundered ecosystems.
I love the proposal above, that boardrooms and C-suites
should also be guided by ethical rules.
I agree with PR Daily’s advice: that top execs should lead with
principles and damn the torpedoes.
E.g. we can just look at the latest news cycle, which
included two mass shootings. Matthew
Prince, CEO of cloud tech firm Cloudflare showed guts in taking extremist
messaging board 8chan offline, as reported
in NY Times. Legally, he did
not have to – and other big tech companies have dragged their feet when it
comes to policing extremist content. The
ran an open letter to Walmart’s CEO, urging Doug McMillon to take a stand
against guns. Will he?
Above and beyond that, getting involved in culture wars, and picking gratuitous political fights seems to be a perilous idea for these tense and divided times.
E.g. some thought that Nike was very shrewd in hiring Colin Kaepernick as a brand ambassador. He’s polarizing, but the bold move seemed to sync with their brand. For the uninitiated, Kaepernick is the football player who got lots of kudos and crap for sitting during the national anthem at games and inspiring others to do the same. By picking Kaepernick, Nike was standing up for rights and championing athletic prowess – or cynically playing to their base. Either way, they placed their bet.
Some say that brands should express human, relatable qualities. But people are often careful about sharing provocative views in public or at family gatherings or at work.
This was lost on Nike. Sure enough, their Kaepernick gambit exploded like July 4th fireworks when Nike pulled new sneakers that had the Betsy Ross flag from production. They did this at Colin’s urging, according to this NY Times piece, because the flag can be a symbol of oppression and racism. Now, everyone is mad at Nike, and clearly, they are taking a business hit and PR lumps (it remains to be seen, what if any long term impact there will be on the brand and sales).
I know, it is easy to play armchair quarterback. Hindsight is 2020. Etc. And there were lots of moving parts to the mess. Should Nike have hired Kaepernick in the first place? Having done that, should they have heeded his advice on marketing strategy (if that actually happened)?
The alternative is for brands to get bland – so neutral and inoffensive that they don’t appeal to anyone.
We live in polarized times. We have become numb to provocation. But in a sick way, we love to have our buttons pushed. So it is tempting for a Nike or any company to take their culture war shots.
But the latest episode shows the risks. Nike and other companies should think twice before doing this – that is my opinion.
What do you think? I asked some friends and co-workers – see their answers below, and feel free to chime in with your comments. And happy July 4th, Flack’s Revenge readers!
Emily said: “I think it is fair for brands to take sides in culture wars, especially if a brand ambassador is being called out by the public as a bad role model. If a brand isn’t being properly represented or the brand ambassador does not uphold the company’s values, I think it is the company’s right to pull lines and end sponsorships as needed.”
George said: “They missed the elephant in the room – the controversy over the past few years about the Confederate flag and statues should have put Nike on the alert about flag symbolism.”
Mark said: “It depends on the company’s preferred image and appetite for controversy. It can always be interpreted as ‘jumping on a bandwagon’ and can definitely backfire in terms of sales, but it’s always an attention-getter! I’m all for companies getting involved in culture wars. It helps me know which brands to avoid! I think pulling the shoes was a mistake though. Their stock has taken a hit, and that’s a case where they should have let the marketplace decide whether or not they wanted flags on their feet.”
Jordan said: “Brands are being forced to participate in cultural wars usually erring on the conservative side. If anything becomes offensive to anyone these days, brands are so wary of negative repercussions that they almost don’t have a choice but to pull a product, or an ad, or an individual. Is that taking a side? In a sense it is. Making a choice is taking a side. Even doing nothing could be, although that would passive. However, nowadays doing nothing can be ground for an attack. A deeper question could be whether brands are acting out of what they believe to be a correct choice ethically. Clearly most brands these days believe that it’s in their business interests to take what is generally reverse-action (pulling back on something or someone) but at some point, there will be a backlash against that as well. The flag and Nike might be a good example, we’ll see. “
Brian said: ” I think it’s the most socially unaware/tone deaf branding decision ever – you can go with Kaepernick, but then you need to stay from the flag – especially one from an era that obviously had slavery. Don’t hedge your bets.”
Adam said: “Who the fxxk wants sneakers with a Betsy Ross flag anyway.”
Insurtechs demonstrated their wares, and it was a great forum for networking. The Brella app made it easy to arrange 15-minute “speed dating” meetings at tables set up for this purpose. The crowd took full advantage, the meeting area hummed with activity, and a great upbeat vibe pervaded the busy and well-attended event.
If you’re an insurtech (as are Fusion PR’s clients) it was a great place for meeting potential customers, comparing notes on tech and best practices and picking up tips for boosting business success. I list a few notes below from some of the sessions I attended.
Timor Kalimov, SVP of Business for Hyperscience, discussed buzzwords (like AI, machine learning) and other ones (e.g. document processing).
Despite the march to digital transformation, old school documents of all kinds still dominate insurance. “Human ingenuity knows no bounds in messing things up,” he said. Whilst some industries are still completing tasks manually, a lot of businesses are looking to digitally transform their companies to increase productivity and ensure operations are completed to higher standards. By using a platform, such as the one offered by Vantiq (continue to their website here), business developers are able to build event-driven applications to quickly solve the needs of the company, ensuring that work is completed efficiently. It shouldn’t be too long until insurance companies decide to improve their operations with digital transformation techniques to keep up with other businesses around them.
You need AI and machine learning to turn this hot mess, including poorly scanned documents, faxes, PDFs and handwriting, into actionable info in a cost-effective way.
Collaborating with Insurers
The next panel was especially interesting as it focused on how insurtechs and insurers can collaborate for the best results. There were two executives from each camp. Mee-Jung Jang, Managing Director at the MetLife Digital Accelerator powered by Techstars, moderated.
The panel covered a wide range of topics, like how Chubb and MetLife work with insurtechs, expectations, successes and failures.
Partnership models can vary, e.g. Terry Luciani, MetLife VP of Innovation, said that they draw from the Techstars accelerator. Chubb collaborates with startups organically, according to Sean Ringsted, their Chief Digital Officer. Chad Nitschke, Co-Founder and CEO of Bunker (an insurer and technology platform that serves SMBs) contacted and now works with Chubb.
Tim Attia, CEO of Slice Labs, a cloud-native platform for innovative insurance providers, said that that large carriers have experience and can help a smaller company like Slice to scale.
When asked about failures, each had a different take: Terry said that the last mile of business implementation is hard. Chad pointed out that failure is important, and everyone needs to be honest with themselves. Tim agreed with these thoughts and suggested that distribution is key, not just a product-driven focus.
Terry pointed out a sobering number: just 5 proofs of concept result from 1000 startups. He added that it is important to set criteria and have clear metrics.
When asked about advice for insurtechs, Sean Ringsted of Chubb said: “Have a business proposition, don’t just lead with technology. Have clear markers, be prepared for a long journey; you’re going to iterate.” Terry Luciani of MetLife said: “You need to know my business. Leave me with next steps.”
Building Excitement for Life Insurance
I found the next session interesting because it focused on some of the unique issues in life insurance.
Moderator Grace Vandecruze, MD of M&A firm Grace Global Capital, pointed out that there are 46 insurance companies in the Fortune 500, each with an average age of 98 years. Consumers trust the industry only slightly more than cable TV providers.
Mike Logsdon, Co-Founder & COO of loyalty platform Life.io, pointed out a “dismal” number: one in six can’t name their life insurance carrier. The industry wants to innovate but suffers from a legacy culture.
Adam Erlebacher, CEO of Fabric agreed, and pointed out the irony of companies so thoughtful about using data to price risk being late to the Internet; the industry has focused on building product rather than on delivering great customer experiences.
In another session, it was great to hear from Ty Sagalow, who was one of the founders of homeowner and rental insurance innovator Lemonade.
Ty said that insurance has a branding issue; it’s the only industry where there’s an inherent conflict between the customer and provider. When one wins, the other loses. He also cited the Urban Dictionary definition of insurance: “A business that involves selling people promises to pay later that are never fulfilled.”
There’s no simple answer to the industry’s reputational dilemma; but perhaps companies like Lemonade will help. They donate money left over from claims to charity, as pointed out in this article in Financial Times.
Every startup wants to be the belle of the media ball. But what do you do if the press just aren’t biting? It’s all the worse if they’re lavishing attention on the competition.
why do media latch onto certain topics, personalities, companies and
brands? Given that reporters, with varying degrees of editorial
oversight, have discretion about what they cover, the $1M PR question is
how to become the object of a media love fest.
There’s no simple
answer or formula, else we’d all be famous for 15 minutes. You can start
to get a sense by tracking their stories: reading between the lines,
unpacking sentiment and bias and tuning in to their social media
Or you can read this. I share some rules below, based on my many years of experience helping startups launch and grow with PR. The tips reference examples from technology and politics.
The Power of Brand
Build a strong and admired brand, and the media will beat a path to your door — or at least spend less time dodging your pitches.
It’s hard to overestimate the importance of
brand. Witness the media fascination with Trump, or any of the big tech
players (of course, the coverage is not necessarily fawning, with either
of the above examples).
The brands become a muse that pay dividends in terms of earned media coverage – often with no discernible hard news in sight.
The obvious question for a B2B startup is, exactly how can you achieve this?
Let’s face it, things have gotten weird with the Internet lately (and all things related – like the Web, apps, and social media). We used to have a great thing going! Now, Internet, you’ve become clingy, stalkerish, irrational, and carelessly share my personal info.
The rant could turn into a much longer post, but I’ll focus here on a subset of the complaints, namely four words that no longer mean the same things, largely due to Internet tech and culture.
Read on below, and I’d love it if you can share your thoughts and any other words that no longer have the same meaning.
When I was coming up in the world of PR I became fascinated with the field of memetics. Here was a science, or at least theory (famously postulated by Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene) that claimed to explain how ideas propagate.
Understand memetics, I thought, and I will be the PR whisperer; able to make buzz and even press releases catch on and spread far and wide (as I further detailed in this post). Flash forward twenty or so years and it is not well-intentioned if sometimes annoying US marketers who’ve mastered memetics. It is the Russians, as they so ably proved in the last election – when they infected social media to try to influence the outcome.
But my complaint is not about the science – if memetics was ever a real one. It is the word meme, which is the atomic unit of memetics. Like it’s biological counterpart, the gene, or a virus, memes are designed to catch on and spread. This snippet of culture could be something as a small as a catchphrase or as large as the Bible, and entire religions.
Anyway, that was the idea. Now they have come to signify the junk food of the Internet, silly distractions, or propaganda shared by political zealots.
Now I’m afraid I’m starting to sound like cranky old dude… “Sonny, when I was young…”
Seriously, the kids think they invented things like content and influencer marketing – but these staples existed long before the online world (one of the early examples of the former was the Michelin Guide, which promoted travel and sold tires in 1900, as explained in the Wikipedia definition).
The influencer used to be someone who was, well, influential in a field – an industry analyst, educator, executive, reporter, etc. Now I think most people equate the term with social media influencer – anyone with a big Instagram following who shills for a brand. Real influence is about more than just a number, I wrote a while back.
News and Truth
The last two are related, so I am grouping them here.
Just a few years ago, there was little debate about the meaning of news and truth. The Internet killed these things, with the help of cynical politicians and scheming Russians. Some would also argue that social media platforms ate news media for lunch (who are punching back with some scathing articles recently – e.g. see this USA Today story, this one from BuzzFeed, and this CBS News piece).
Today we have fake news and alternative facts. A couple of years ago I wrote: it’s the end of the truth as we know it, about the failed promise of the internet, as a public commons to crowdsource knowledge and wisdom.
Just witness the struggles of the social media platforms as they attempt to mediate the flood of content and separate lies from theory from actually legitimate info.