Were These Messages Intended?

By Eric Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers®

In this post, a variety of (unintended?) messages.

It reads: "3 Accused of Gang Rape in Monroeville."

The billboard above is promoting a local Alabama TV station's anchor team. It is from the blog Mashable, The Social Media Guide. While Mashable reports it could not vouch for the authenticity of the billboard it does say it did receive corroboration: “The photo has been confirmed as real and WPMI-TV’s general manager and news director were suspended over the incident, reports Rob Holbert.”

Next, reaction to a news report the Federal Reserve will set down new regulations governing multimillion-dollar pay and exotic incentive packages for the banking industry. While community banks might not be affected by all of the new rules, they do expect more bureaucracy, as a result. Hence, this comment from Steve Bridges, Executive Director of Legislative & Regulatory Affairs with the Community Bankers Association of Georgia: “I don’t think it’s unreasonable,” he said of the proposed rules, but “this is just one more thing that [banks] have got to add to the stack. The stack’s pretty large already.”

His message is almost contradictory. My interpretation: “It makes sense, but we resent it.” His title would suggest that Bridges lobbies on behalf of Georgia’s community bankers. Certainly, they can’t be happy about the increased paperwork and additional costs it will require. Seems to me they would want their representative arguing against yet more bureaucracy.










Rewinding the calendar to the mid 1980s, a time when terrorists were targeting American travelers visiting the Mediterranean region. The result: US vacationers were avoiding that part of the globe. Greece was feeling the economic hit; after all, tourism is their primary industry. So the Greek tourism board went on the offensive with advertising and interviews to coax Americans to reconsider and come back to the cradle of Western Civilization.

Unfortunately, their New York-based spokesman failed to consider who might be watching when he appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America. About 70% of the viewers to these morning shows are women. They often are the ones who make family travel plans. Considering the reason for avoiding Greece was a fear of terrorism, women wanted to know that they will be safe and secure. Instead, as you’ll hear in the video below, their concerns were ignored.

Could he have used a more offensive word for his argument than "attack"? And he said it twice. Plus, his claim that you're safer in Greece than you are at home is an obscene leap of logic. Then, he admits that the tourism board's promotional campaign deliberately ignored safety and security issues.

By the way, I've been told by two people I've trained that he's a lawyer by day...indeed, a litigator. Did you get the sense he was arguing his case as if he was in court? He completely misjudged the jury in this case.

And finally, a man who probably never should’ve considered being interviewed anywhere, least of all on TV. This guy was selling alibis. That’s right, alibis. Having an affair and you need a cover story to give your spouse? His company comes to your aid, for a price, of course. And if you think that sounds smarmy, wait until you see and hear him in this video.

Is he someone you'd do business with?

Of Mammograms and Double-Speak

The Critical Importance of Message Development

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®


The most egregious mistake made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force before releasing its recent report on mammograms was either the failure to prepare a comprehensive and understandable communications plan, or believing what sounded like double-speak to lay people and even other doctors would be quite clear. Also, you have to wonder if the task force failed to anticipate the controversy it would be igniting.

Its spokespersons have served only to confuse and contribute to women’s concerns.

I’ve embedded several pieces of video in this post, making it longer than most. But if you’re looking to make a case for thorough message preparation and practice, then please take the time to watch each of them. And feel free to share this post with others.

What I've gleaned from the stories I've seen and read, the report's conclusion is that women under 50 should consult their physicians and then decide for themselves about the need and frequency for mammograms. I’m not interested in arguing the wisdom of that; I’m not a doctor.

The task force’s report has incited concern, anger, debate and vociferous disagreement, all fueled by a flurry of ambiguous and confusing statements and interviews. Their repeated missteps have managed to keep the story alive for a number of news cycles.

CNN American Morning co-anchor Kiran Chetry interviewed a breast cancer survivor who is well under 50 and, fortunately, discovered a tumor, thanks to routine testing. Then, Chetry turned to task force member Dr. Lucy Marion, Ph.D., RN and dean of the School of Nursing at the Medical College of Georgia (click on video).



CNN’s resident medical expert, Dr. Sonjay Gupta, participated in the interview and, as he listened, you could see the concern—if not anger—tighten his facial expressions. He questioned Marion--quite legitimately--from a doctor’s perspective on how to advise patients (click on video).



As confusion mounted, anchor Chetry asked Dr. Marion about the possibility of the task force reconsidering its recommendations (click on video).



The live interview ended there. But Gupta’s concerns did not. He continued interviewing Lucy Marion off-air and then played it back later in the morning, wondering how the task force's value of a human life came into play (click on video).



Meanwhile, ABC’s John McKenzie interviewed another U.S. Preventive Services Task Force member, Dr. Timothy Wilt. The result was only slightly better (click on video).



Like CNN’s Chetry, McKenzie asked Wilt if the task force might reconsider (click on video).



Yet a third task force member did tell correspondent McKenzie that she is consulting with fellow members on ways to clarify their message.

There’s an old saying, “Better late than never.” But you have to wonder if, in this case, it’s too late, that too much damage has been done by the task force because of its inability to deliver a clear and compassionate message.

Also the body language of Drs. Marion and Wilt did nothing to help them. Their wandering eyes and, in Marion’s case occasionally closing her eyes for a protracted period of time, detracted from their credibility and made me wonder if even they believe in the conclusions of the task force. Clearly, neither one seemed very comfortable with the messages.