What’s Your Name?

Of Nukes, CO2 and Mastodons.

By Eric Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers®, LLC

Contentious interviews can sometimes amuse, on occasion enlighten, and often simply frustrate. Here’s one you might find satisfies all three possibilities.

In light of the “Act-of-God”/nature-instigated nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, CNBC lined up an interview with Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA), a member of the House Energy & Power Subcommittee. But the conversation soon migrated into a disagreement over CO2 and global warming.

In the midst of the debate, the congressman suddenly asked anchor Joe Kernen, “What’s your name? I missed your name…” Kernen’s expression was priceless. This must have been a first in his years of experience. “It’s Joe,” he responded. (You can see and hear it by clicking on the video below.)

Inslee’s failure to know his interviewer’s name is difficult to excuse. But the fact that he stopped and asked is absolutely inexcusable. All he needed to do was continuing using “you” in addressing Joe. Instead, he sacrificed some of his credibility. Hopefully, someone in the congressman’s office had the guts to tell him.

A Prototypical M&A Interview

By Eric Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers®

Thirty-nine billion dollars.

That’s what AT&T Mobility is anteing up for T-Mobile. If approved, they’ll form the largest cell system in the U.S. If the Justice Department says “no” to the deal, AT&T has to pay T-Mobile a $3 billion break-up fee.

Those are big numbers…especially the break-up fee. That puts down a pretty heavy bet the sale will be approved.

Lots of questions about this huge merger, posed by the hyper-kinetic, hyperbolized, often over the top Jim Cramer of Mad Money fame on CNBC. On his firing line: AT&T Mobility & Consumer Markets CEO Ralph De La Vega. De La Vega did a good job, overall, although he did answer the first question saying “this is a marriage made in heaven.” That little trite expression took some of the bloom off the rose, to use another trite phrase.

But, he was much more on point after that, speaking directly to government regulators, shareholders and customers about the advantages of the deal and the two companies.

This interview is a good example for you, especially if you’re a public company talking to the media about a merger or acquisition, or any other issues where some of your responses require restraint. Some examples

Q: Cramer: “Why three billion (break-up fee)? How did you arrive at that? That’s such a gigantic amount, especially if the Justice Department says forget it, you’re out (of the three billion).”

A: De La Vega: “We feel very confident. We’re not going to comment on the exact process of the department, we’re very respectful of what they use. They Department of Justice has always looked at competition on the local level…and when you look at it on the local market level 18 of the top 20 markets have five or more competitors…so the combination of this will still keep the U.S. as the most competitive marketplace in the world.”

Q: Cramer: “You say no divestitures are needed…what are you willing to give away? Would you be willing to fund…competitors to get this deal done?

A: De La Vega: “I don’t know that it’s appropriate to talk ahead of time about what we’d be willing to do…but…if you look at the amount of spectrum that AT&T and T-Mobile have combined, Sprint has more… They have three times more spectrum than we have per subscriber… So, there’s still going to be great competition…”

Q: Cramer: “I see a story that ‘AT&T deal raises fears of higher charges.’ (As a shareholder) don’t I absolutely want higher charges?”

A: De La Vega: “Well, if you look at the history of the merger and the pricing activity in this country, Jim, what you’re going to find is prices have actually fallen 50% over the last ten years even though you had the Sprint-Nextel merger, also the Verizon merger, prices have come down…”

Q: Cramer: “Shareholders might say…I hope they’re able to not spend that much money on capital expenditures now; they cut back the number of towers they use, they don’t need all these towers; and they can start returning more money to shareholders. But, in terms of growth, you want the opposite of that. How do you reconcile these two?”

A: De La Vega: “Well, I think the way we do it is the way we are planning our businesses. I think we’re going to continue to invest, Jim. In fact, we have said that we’re going to invest an additional eight billion in infrastructure to facilitate us making this merger work and extending the LTE to 95% of the population. We have a metric that we say about every billion dollars results in 7,000 new jobs…I think it’s good for the overall economy.”

De La Vega wrapped up the interview speaking to AT&T’s expectations for continued explosive growth of the cellular industry. Throughout he remained on message, aimed squarely at the Obama Administration, Justice, shareholders and, yes, customers.

Overall, a very good job dealing with sensitive issues, especially speaking to the Justice Department’s role in approving the AT&T-T-Mobile merger and recognizing the Administration's desire for wider availability of wireless.

Body Language: The Ultimate "Tell"

Fred Smith, Founder/Chairman/CEO

FedEx

by Eric M. Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers, LLC

First, let me preface this post to say I've interviewed Fred Smith before. He's engaging, open and interesting. Indeed, his picture above indicates accessibility.

But body language can easily disguise your true feelings. On the other hand, it also can—and often does—betray a person and reveal your true feelings.

In this recent CNBC interview, Smith’s facial expressions take you through a series of emotions, although his immediate expression leaves an impression I suspect he did not intend.

The Set Up

The anchor is establishing the context for the interview. Fred Smith has a look of concern, perhaps even some slight dread. However, he's been interviewed many times and I doubt he feels either concern or dread. This just might be his way of concentrating on the camera and what he's hearing in his ear via an IFB.

The Introduction

Now he's formally introduced and his face softens into a controlled smile. He looks more comfortable and as a viewer, you probably feel more comfortable, as well, albeit subconsciously.

The Question

Smith is engaged as he hears and processes a question. His comfort level is even higher as he's being asked for his considerable knowledge and expertise.

The Response

Smith's facial muscles are relaxed. He's in his sweet spot talking, perhaps, about one of his favorite topics, tax cuts, as indicated on the screen.

The Goodbye

This smile seems more comfortable and natural than his first one when he was being introduced. No doubt there was a sense of relief. TV interviews can be stressful, especially from remote locations where you must relate strictly to a camera.

Smith's very first expression when the director punched up the camera to put him on-screen was off-setting. My original impression was that he looked angry. But, again, I know from my own experience interviewing him that probably wasn't the case.

The takeaway here: rehearse all types of interviews with a camera so you know how your body language (non-verbals) is either validating or invalidating your messaging.

Steve Jobs & His iPhone 4’s Worm

By Eric Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers®

Steve Jobs was right about one thing. He and Apple are not perfect. Jobs was talking about the dropped calls problem with the new iPhone 4. But he also proved he’s not perfect in how to handle the media fallout.

Jobs was wrong to ban live broadcast coverage of his mea culpa news conference. This was big news for iPhone customers, present and future, and all the interested parties on The Street.

Fox Business Network, CNBC, Bloomberg and any of the all-news cable networks hoping to provide live coverage were left with one option: repeat information incrementally as it came to them from their people inside the news conference. In-between reports, fill with conjecture and opinion. Jobs left them no choice but to fill the time helping create impressions about Apple that are counter productive to his goals. Many of them were less than complimentary. (Click on the video below for an example of CNBC’s make-shift coverage.)

But that wasn’t Jobs’ only mistake. After opening his briefing admitting Apple’s not perfect, he took 30 minutes before offering his solutions. First, he launched into all the positives about iPhone 4; the 3 million sold, high praise from the trade press and users, etc.

“He’s in denial guys,” a CNBC reporter declared as this factoid dribbled out in text messages from producers inside the briefing.

CNBC had 7 (later joined by an 8^th) reporters and commentators all on camera together to fill the time and fill in the blanks. While they waited for first details, it was revealed Apple knew it had an iPhone 4 problem dropping calls more than three weeks earlier. That prompted one of their panel members to say “this means they waited for a customer to complain.” He suggested Jobs was being disingenuousness; or, he said, they never really properly tested the phone.

Another, “did they rush to market?” A third reporter asked the question on the minds of most watching the coverage, how are they going to fix the problem? It would be awhile before that answer finally came.

As more details came out on what Jobs called "antenna-gate," one of CNBC’s panel members wondered aloud: “Isn’t this just an Apple backlash; they’ve been ridin’ high, they walk on water, and now we gotta take ‘em down.”

Then the lead anchor reported Jobs was comparing his phone to all the other makes, like Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc., saying they suffer the problem of dropped calls, too.

Big mistake!

By making that comparison Jobs single-handedly reduced the Apple’s image as the superior smart phone developer to the level of the competition. Also, why should his customers care about those other smart phones? They own the iPhone 4 and all they care about are the problems they’re having with their phones and what Apple was going to do for them.

One of CNBC’s reporters reacted to the comparisons saying “It makes them whiny.”

And this: “We need bowing and scraping. We want to see him do the Jimmy Swaggert ‘I have sinned against you.’”

Deep into the coverage yet another complained, “We are 22 minutes into this news conference and we don’t know what the fix is…”

“They’re burying the lead,” another chimed in.

And this suggestion that Steve Jobs and Apple may have known before even one iPhone 4 left the factory: “You can’t have a complaint until you’ve shipped the product; that doesn’t mean you didn’t know before you shipped it, it had this weakness.”

Jobs could not necessarily have avoided all this commentary, but he blew the opportunity to set the agenda first by letting the networks feed live coverage and keep the focus on him.

As one of CNBC’s brain trust offered: “That isn’t Apple’s way!” That’s true, and it’s puzzling why Steve Jobs decided to break with tradition.

Is Toyota Stepping on the Gas Too Late?

Caused by a stuck Toyota accelerator?


By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®


Finally, Toyota is talking. Finally, there’s a human face and voice instead of online, emailed and, presumably, faxed statements. Better late than never? Or too late?

There’s conjecture aplenty from financial and automotive industry pundits on the estimated damage to the Toyota brand and bottom line. And blogsters are bombarding Cyberspace with their opinions, as well.

So how has the company done in its emergence from the Toyota bunker? Within the first hour of Toyota’s announcement on how millions of gas pedals will be fixed, Toyota USA President Jim Lentz appeared on CNBC with the business channel’s automotive beat reporter, Phil LeBeau. (Click the full interview below.)

LeBeau questioned Toyota’s credibility, reminding Lentz about the first recall which blamed the sudden thrust of the accelerator on sliding floormats. That was in October. Then, in December, Toyota said some pedals just might be sticking. Then, the third wave: production is stopped and several million cars have been recalled to be fixed at dealerships.

LeBeau cited an ongoing LA Times investigation, raising the possibility that the situation is caused by an electrical problem. Lentz expressed confidence it’s not electrical and said both Toyota and outside consultants have made tests. He said the sticking pedal phenomenon is rare and seems to happen “over time.”

Have customers lost faith in Toyota? Lentz leaned heavily on the automaker’s history rather than predicting the future, which he obviously hopes will mirror the past in customer satisfaction and confidence, although image damage is undoubtedly significant.

To his credit, Lentz took the criticism like a man. Certainly, he could not have been surprised. He maintained eye contact with LeBeau, and answered tough questions generally head-on and reinforced his answers with effective body language. Of course he made sure he recited the obligatory statement that safety is Toyota’s highest priority, a claim that may land on many deaf ears after a series of missteps by the company.

My question is where have you been, Toyota (Mr. Lentz)? Why did it take you a week while all the media had were your statements up against the on-camera testimony of apparent stuck gas pedal victims?

While the experts try to quantify Toyota’s losses, only time will tell us how the intangibles of name and reputation will suffer tangible damage.

Making a Case Against Luxury Taxes

New revenue injections?

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Luxury tax: A tax placed on products or services that are deemed to be unnecessary or non-essential. This type of tax is an indirect tax in that the tax increases the price of the good or service and is only incurred by those who purchase or use the product.

You’ve no doubt heard about some of the “creative” taxes being talked about and—in some cases—perhaps even close to reality. They are ideas your local, state and federal representatives may be dreaming up to fill in the recession-led shortfall they’re experiencing .

There’s the sugar tax, ostensibly to combat obesity in kids while also thinning your wallet. Coca-Cola Company CEO Muhtar Kent thinks it’s a bad idea. No surprise there, but he supports his position with one particularly interesting fact:

A study that says an excise charge on products like his extensive line of colored and clear sugar waters would be about .02% effective in reducing Junior's blubber. He recently made his case quite persuasively on CNBC. Watch for his proactive body language in this video, especially how he leans forward and punctuates points with his hands.

Then there’s the suggested Botax on Botox and related vanity medical expenses. Those ideas cut too close to home for plastic surgeons. To her credit, Dr. Jennifer Walden admits at the outset in a Fox News interview that any vanity tax would be bad for her business. She also makes a case for patients who need her services as a result of some kind of mishap, like an accident. And she takes it a step further, saying a Botax would be discriminatory (click on the video).



Dr. Walden definitely had her message prepared, and she probably rehearsed, too, which is advisable. But while turning away from her interviewer to face the camera may have seemed a cute little move, it came off as contrived and it was a distraction.

Attention Bloggers!

CNBC's Dennis Kneale celebrates how the tables were turned on a mean-spirited blogger:

Target of the defamatory blogging, Lizkula Cohen (pictured below) was quoted in court papers: "I was shocked and embarrassed" to see photo captions and commentary "that were used to describe me as a promiscuous woman who is filthy, disgusting, foul and a whore," Cohen said in an affidavit.

Conflict in the Boardroom?

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Conflict and controversy.

Two staples of the news media diet. Even when neither exists, you might find them fishing for one or both anyway.

And when they dangle their hooks, often they try baiting you with something someone else might have said, suggesting there’s more to the story than you’re willing to tell. This third person technique is a favorite since it often can be used ambiguously yet seems credible and legitimate, as well.

Business reporters can lean on analyst comments, for instance, just as CNBC’s Mark Haines did recently interviewing the new head of Anheuser-Busch Inbev, the Belgium-based beverage company that recently bought the St. Louis brewery.

Is there a culture clash inside the company, Haines asked, where the new owners are more of a "fly coach" mindset as opposed to the former first class style of Bud’s executives? Haines, of course, attributed the suggestion to a Wall Street analyst.

But CEO Carlos Brito didn’t bite. Instead, he very smoothly lined up his company with its customers and a clear message to those amorphous analysts: “We try to emulate what our consumers do. They fly commercial, I fly commercial…They’re our bosses.” (Click on video below to see and hear the question and answer.)

Brito’s answer was an excellent example of focus. He had a clear vision of who were his real, and intended, audiences in this interview and Mark Haines was not among them. Haines and his co-anchor served only as his conduit.

The Case of the Contradicting Analogy

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

On the battlefront in the burger wars, Carl’s Jr. has fired a frontal attack on McDonalds. Big Mac meet Big Carl! Carl’s is heralding its newest weapon in a TV spot, saying it’s bigger (more meat) and a greater value, yet less expensive than the Big Mac:

In a recent CNBC interview, CEO Andrew Puzder of CKE Restaurants, the holding company for the Carl’s Jr. chain, was empahatic about Big Carl's price:

Now, consider this next bite because while he says both quality and low price are compatible, his analogy seems to say just the opposite:

Most assume Mercedes is a premium brand and that they would pay considerably more for a Benz than they’d pay for a Ford Focus. The analogy argues against Puzder’s message of greater value at a lower price, thus potentially confusing his target audiences, typically associated with Wall Street in this case.

The Street likes hearing about public companies making more money. Given his analogy, some may be left wondering if the Big Carl is comparable to a Mercedes, and the Big Mac is akin to a Ford Focus, why isn’t Carl’s Jr. able to charge more, and get it.

Sometimes a Sense of Humor is Required

Rick's Cabaret CEO Eric Langan


“Gentlemen’s Club” CEO Way Too Serious

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

You’ve got to understand the interview environment ahead of time and adjust accordingly.

CNBC’s Mark Haines (pictured at left) has a precocious personality and he enjoys using it. He often finds humor in things, perhaps where we might not first sense it. But this one was easy and you knew ahead of time Mark would have some fun with it.

Rick’s Cabaret is a chain of 18 clubs in 10 cities that are euphemistically called “Gentlemen’s Clubs.” Of course, we all know what that means.

Business is good at Rick’s, despite the recession. When CEO Eric Langan was recently interviewed by Mark, Haines predictably reached for some double entendres, noting that the clubs report 48% of their money comes from service revenues. “What would those be?” asked Haines, tongue squarely in cheek. Not even a smile from Langan, as he described the availability of “private VIP rooms.”

Moving on Haines said he was surprised only 12% of revenue was from food sales, and wondered if customers just are not hungry. Langan, ever the straight man in this exchange, replied that food is a loss leader. Haines said, “It’s tough to chew with your tongue hanging out!” To which Langan dead panned: “Yeah.”

Throughout, it was clear all of this was flying right over the strip club executive’s head. Langan probably lobbied for this interview and certainly had to know it could/would be handled in a lighter way. And once he knew Mark Haines was the interviewer, did anyone consider doing some due diligence on Haines’ MO? Langan didn’t need to compete with Haines, but certainly he should’ve heard the humor and made the interview more fun for himself and his target audiences, who undoubtedly would’ve enjoyed the humor, too.

Haines (and viewers, most likely) had their fun anyway, unfortunately mostly at Langan’s expense. (See for yourself; just click on the video below.)

Admonishing Boards of Directors

“Boards (have) to start doing their jobs.”
Tupperware CEO Rick Goings


By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Savvy CEO’s go into news interviews with the mindset of “what’s in it for me?” Nothing wrong with that! The media usually aren’t asking you for an interview just to do you a favor. They need you to help them, so, there’s every reason for you to think about what you can get out of it, too.

That means having a clear vision of the medium you’re talking with, who are their readers/viewers/listeners, and who in that large pool of audiences you need to reach with a premeditated agenda.

Tupperware CEO Rick Goings made the most of his interview with CNBC’s Rebecca Jarvis at the Yale CEO Summit earlier this month. He sent a clear message to investors, CEOs and especially boards of directors. “Growth and perpetuation of the enterprise” is job one of a board, according to Goings.

He added that “weak strategies with weak CEOs has been allowed to exist because of weak boards.” (Click on the video below for the essence of Goings’ remarks.)

Goings obviously isn’t excited by all the government involvement today in the U.S. free enterprise sector. GM should’ve been allowed to fail, he said. And he blames the GM board for not acting years ago in changing leadership and getting a new business model that could’ve prevented the automaker’s historic decline into bankruptcy.

While Goings took advantage of the CNBC interview, the business network probably—and happily—received more than it had hoped thanks to the Tupperware executive’s strong comments.

Jon Stewart: America’s News Anchor?

“Anyone who talks about you…or your business…is media!”

A Very Important Lesson for Business Executives

When CNBC’s Rick Santelli went ballistic over the Obama Administration’s bailout of troubled mortgages, the mainstream media zeroed in on his tirade.

Meanwhile, below the radar, the writers and main anchor of Comedy Central’s Daily Show were busy digging to support their own angle on the story. The result: a solid right to CNBC’s credibility.

Of course, Jon Stewart and his staff attacked from the left. But consider their influence. Stewart’s Daily Show has become the news source for millions of pre- and young adults. Stewart is setting the agenda and getting laughs at the same time.

Indeed, The Philadelphia Daily News Web site wrote a lengthy front page piece on what newsrooms nationwide can learn from the devastating effect Stewart and his crew can have.

The moral of this story is that no one is immune from the far-reach of all media, including alternative media, even comedic media. Well before the Internet, cable and satellite television expanded the horizon exponentially for many more media outlets, many of them niche and potentially very influential. The Internet has served only to explode the media universe to infinity.

While nothing you do will be absolutely “bullet proof,” it’s a good idea to consider all the ramifications, anticipate the negatives, and be prepared to respond to them, if and when necessary, in positive ways. For more on these techniques, consult The Media Trainers®.