Thursday, July 19, 2012
Romney Adrift in Communications Nightmare
By Richard Nicolazzo
www.nicolazzo.com
Watching Mitt Romney and his campaign staff attempt to manage strategic communications is painful.
The furor over when Romney exited as CEO of Bain Capital is the latest example of how fundamental mistakes in information management can derail a Presidential campaign.
As an observer who’s been involved in public relations, strategic communications and crisis management for nearly four decades, I feel like I’m watching a college baseball team play the New York Yankees.
It’s a sound bet that in 2008 when Obama won the White House, Romney knew he would be running again four years later. With that thought in mind, there is no excuse for not identifying and thoughtfully addressing possible land mines that could (and have) come back to haunt him.
For example, one has to wonder why a rock solid timeline wasn’t developed regarding Romney’s departure from Bain? In particular, why didn’t the campaign deal directly with publicly filed documents that listed Romney as chief executive and sole owner of Bain during a three-year gap of 1999 to 2002?
So far, there is no hard evidence that Romney was “actively” involved in the daily operation of Bain while he was running the Olympics. However, is there a smoking gun to come? If emails between Romney and Bain executives begin to surface, that could be another body blow. Though I’m not suggesting they exist, emails have caused major damage to candidates, business executives, Hollywood celebrities and government officials.
Regardless, during this three-year period he collected a $100,000 yearly salary. According to a report in Vanity Fair, Romney may have also benefited from more than 130 Bain funds organized in the Cayman Islands. A lack of clarity on these and other issues creates the perception that Romney has something to hide.
The issue of tax returns, which has been in the news for months, is another communications failure. Obama, the person Romney knew he would be facing, released seven years of tax returns. Thus far, Romney has only shared his 2010 tax return and promises to release 2011 when completed.
From a strategic communications standpoint, Romney’s tax returns should have been released long ago. He could have gathered some of the nation’s top financial and political reporters and briefed them in detail. Obviously, it would have created a major story, but largely taken the issue off the table for most of the campaign.
It’s now so bad that even Republicans like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour have urged Romney to release the tax returns. The Democrats, led by Sen. John Kerry and others, are having a field day with this issue.
Explaining his refusal to release the forms on Fox News, Romney said “…the Obama people keep on wanting more and more and more – more things to pick through, more things for their opposition research to try and make a mountain out of and to distort and to be dishonest about.”
This view reinforces Romney’s mistakes. If his campaign strategists had released this information in the first place, this issue could have been dealt with months ago.
Why is tax transparency such a big issue? Lincoln Mitchell of Columbia University may have said it best in a Huffington Post blog: “The American people, particularly after 2008, are less enthralled by the magical powers, and more suspicious of the true methods of business success than they have been in decades. Romney would have made a good candidate in 1980, 1988 or even 2000, but today his wealth and strong ties to the financial world are, on balance, negatives.”
Tax or Penalty
The trap Romney fell into when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “Obamacare” is yet another example of poor information management. Romney and his staff knew for months that the Court would be rendering a decision in June. “Communications 101” dictates playing out scenarios and having statements ready.
But what happened? Reacting to the decision during a CBS News interview, Romney said Obama’s individual mandate in the signature healthcare law is “a tax.” Two days earlier, appearing on MSNBC, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney did not agree with the court’s majority “tax” label, instead considering it a “penalty.”
This is another glaring example of poor communications strategy and planning.
Flip-Flopper Extraordinaire
Romney’s recent communications woes follow years of what can only be described as indecision and flip-flopping. By changing his position on a large number of issues, he’s been consistently inconsistent in his messaging.
Earlier this year, a writer for Business Insider’s Politix section wrote a story about a political playbook that was used by John McCain when the two battled in the 2008 primaries.
In 200 painstakingly researched pages, the briefing book came up with 14 clear cut cases of Romney flip-flops. The subjects included immigration, George W. Bush tax cuts, support for President Reagan, the National Rifle Association, gun ownership, global warming, the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, same sex marriage, stem cell research, favorite books, healthcare reform in Massachusetts, tax pledges, money in politics, and his stand on pro-choice.
That is a long list to overcome.
Still, new polling shows Romney’s inconsistent messaging may not be having a dramatic impact on voters. A just-released poll from Quinnipiac University had Romney and Obama tied at 44-44 percent. In June, the same poll showed Obama with a 47-42 percent lead over the Republican challenger. It will be interesting to see how future polls play out.
More Consistent Communication
Which brings us to this point: what can Romney do in the three-plus months before the election to reframe the debate and begin articulating his vision of how he would revive a moribund economy and put America “back to work again”.
First, he should release at least the last five or six years of tax returns (his father, George, set the gold standard by releasing 12 years of returns). It’s hard to imagine the issue will go away anytime soon. Surely, it will surface in future debates and along every stop on the campaign trail. How bad can these tax returns be?
According to reports in the Arizona Republican, John McCain received more than two decades of Romney’s returns as the former governor was undergoing the vetting process four years ago. Democrats have questioned whether McCain saw something untoward in those tax returns and decided to choose Sarah Palin. McCain flatly rejected the assertion.
More importantly, Romney and his staff must be coordinated when it comes to strategic communications and move from a defensive to an offensive strategy. It is time to stop responding and start initiating. Given the gaffes to date, there is likely no room for another major communications snafu or flip-flop.
How can they make sure it’s smooth sailing from here?
Romney and everyone in the campaign who has the authority to speak for the candidate must be on the same page in articulating their messages on a daily basis.
In the final analysis, the candidate that controls the communications agenda frames the debate. If Romney wants to be our next President, he must take control of the agenda and “manage” the debate.
# # #
Richard E. Nicolazzo is Managing Partner of Nicolazzo and Associates, a strategic communications and crisis management firm headquartered in Boston, Mass.
Joe M. Grillo, Partner, contributed to this blog.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Message Inconsistency Paralyzes a Candidacy
By Richard Nicolazzo
With less than four months to go before the Presidential election, the battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is reaching a fever pitch.
Every word, sentence, statement, campaign stop, and live TV appearance has the potential to shape the outcome.
The speed at which candidates must act is increasing exponentially. Four years ago, new communications elements like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, were accelerating. Today, they blaze across the political landscape like shooting stars.
There’s an old saying that the “fog of war” blurs actions and judgment in the heat of battle. In my view, that fog is playing out in the political arena and impacting communications in ways never contemplated.
What recently happened to Romney illustrates the point.
During a CBS News interview on July 4th, Romney said Obama’s individual mandate in his signature healthcare law is “a tax.” Two days earlier, appearing on MSNBC, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney did not agree with the court’s majority “tax” label, instead considering it a “penalty.”
Talk about being on a different page.
The Obama camp immediately seized this inconsistency in messaging and issued an official statement: “Romney contradicted his own campaign, and himself. First, he threw his top aide under the bus…second, he contradicted himself by saying his own Massachusetts mandate wasn’t a tax – but Romney has called the individual mandate he implemented in his home state a tax many times before. Glad we cleared all that up.”
The mess created a perfect Obama campaign sound bite.
The issue of message inconsistency plays on both sides of the aisle. In June, President Obama said during a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” But his statement was made at a time when the economy was struggling to recover with unemployment above 8 percent.
Like what Romney had to do for Fehrnstrom, Obama’s senior campaign adviser David Axelrod went on Sunday morning talk shows and explain that the President really didn’t mean what he said, calling it an “out of context clause.”
The bottom line is these message patterns were flawed and both candidates paid for it. Unless there is a dramatic change in campaign management, we can expect more.
Message inconsistency does more than short-term harm. Within 48 hours of Romney’s last flip-flop, Rupert Murdoch came out swinging. He “seems to play everything safe,” said Murdoch, who has had his own problems in recent months but maintains a loyal conservative following.
In a Tweet, Murdoch told the world, “Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from the team. Doubtful.” This was all followed by a blistering editorial in the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) that said the campaign looked “confused in addition to being politically dumb” and “is slowly squandering an historic opportunity.”
Other critics from Romney’s party jumped on the bandwagon. Writing in the conservative Weekly Standard, Editor William Kristol wrote, “Adopting a prevent defense when it’s only the second quarter and you’re not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy.”
Erratic messaging is dividing a party that will need much more cohesiveness in messaging if Republicans want to defeat an incumbent President.
Many political pundits argue that politics is a world unto itself, and the basic rules of strategic communications management and message development don’t apply.
I disagree.
No matter what type of pressure a candidate or an official spokesperson is under, in my opinion, there is no excuse for not having their key messages in synch. How difficult can it be for Romney and Fehrnstrom to be on the same page? Can they make the case they don’t have time to be in synch before conducting interviews with national news media outlets?
In today’s helter-skelter media landscape, the importance of clear and precise messages cannot be understated. When it comes to the Presidency, if the wrong message gets communicated at the wrong time, the results could be catastrophic.
It’s not just about a campaign manager’s appearances and messages, but how a potential leader of America communicates to key constituencies here and internationally. In one sense, not only is the President the leader of the free world, but the nation’s “chief communications officer.”
The same principles apply in the game of Presidential politics. That’s not to say that key messages can’t be expanded, tweaked, or even changed, but everybody on the team has to be – and stay -- on the same page.
Presumably, his top campaign communications strategists should have the experience and requisite skills to develop and agree on three to four overarching key messages that need to be consistently and continuously communicated to all audiences.
It remains to be seen if the Romney and Obama camps can achieve message consistency in articulating what they would do if elected. So far, the messaging has been inconsistent, shallow and a “game” of one-upmanship. They’re acting like two boys in the playground throwing stones at each other, and focusing only on sound bites.
Time for a substantive dialogue about national and international issues. No more stones and schoolyard games. After all, it is “only about our future.”
# # #
Richard E. Nicolazzo is Managing Partner of Nicolazzo and Associates, a strategic communications and crisis management firm headquartered in Boston, Mass.
Joe M. Grillo, Partner, contributed to this blog.
With less than four months to go before the Presidential election, the battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is reaching a fever pitch.
Every word, sentence, statement, campaign stop, and live TV appearance has the potential to shape the outcome.
The speed at which candidates must act is increasing exponentially. Four years ago, new communications elements like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, were accelerating. Today, they blaze across the political landscape like shooting stars.
There’s an old saying that the “fog of war” blurs actions and judgment in the heat of battle. In my view, that fog is playing out in the political arena and impacting communications in ways never contemplated.
What recently happened to Romney illustrates the point.
During a CBS News interview on July 4th, Romney said Obama’s individual mandate in his signature healthcare law is “a tax.” Two days earlier, appearing on MSNBC, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney did not agree with the court’s majority “tax” label, instead considering it a “penalty.”
Talk about being on a different page.
The Obama camp immediately seized this inconsistency in messaging and issued an official statement: “Romney contradicted his own campaign, and himself. First, he threw his top aide under the bus…second, he contradicted himself by saying his own Massachusetts mandate wasn’t a tax – but Romney has called the individual mandate he implemented in his home state a tax many times before. Glad we cleared all that up.”
The mess created a perfect Obama campaign sound bite.
The issue of message inconsistency plays on both sides of the aisle. In June, President Obama said during a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” But his statement was made at a time when the economy was struggling to recover with unemployment above 8 percent.
Like what Romney had to do for Fehrnstrom, Obama’s senior campaign adviser David Axelrod went on Sunday morning talk shows and explain that the President really didn’t mean what he said, calling it an “out of context clause.”
The bottom line is these message patterns were flawed and both candidates paid for it. Unless there is a dramatic change in campaign management, we can expect more.
Message inconsistency does more than short-term harm. Within 48 hours of Romney’s last flip-flop, Rupert Murdoch came out swinging. He “seems to play everything safe,” said Murdoch, who has had his own problems in recent months but maintains a loyal conservative following.
In a Tweet, Murdoch told the world, “Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from the team. Doubtful.” This was all followed by a blistering editorial in the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) that said the campaign looked “confused in addition to being politically dumb” and “is slowly squandering an historic opportunity.”
Other critics from Romney’s party jumped on the bandwagon. Writing in the conservative Weekly Standard, Editor William Kristol wrote, “Adopting a prevent defense when it’s only the second quarter and you’re not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy.”
Erratic messaging is dividing a party that will need much more cohesiveness in messaging if Republicans want to defeat an incumbent President.
Same Page
Many political pundits argue that politics is a world unto itself, and the basic rules of strategic communications management and message development don’t apply.
I disagree.
No matter what type of pressure a candidate or an official spokesperson is under, in my opinion, there is no excuse for not having their key messages in synch. How difficult can it be for Romney and Fehrnstrom to be on the same page? Can they make the case they don’t have time to be in synch before conducting interviews with national news media outlets?
In today’s helter-skelter media landscape, the importance of clear and precise messages cannot be understated. When it comes to the Presidency, if the wrong message gets communicated at the wrong time, the results could be catastrophic.
It’s not just about a campaign manager’s appearances and messages, but how a potential leader of America communicates to key constituencies here and internationally. In one sense, not only is the President the leader of the free world, but the nation’s “chief communications officer.”
The same principles apply in the game of Presidential politics. That’s not to say that key messages can’t be expanded, tweaked, or even changed, but everybody on the team has to be – and stay -- on the same page.
Presumably, his top campaign communications strategists should have the experience and requisite skills to develop and agree on three to four overarching key messages that need to be consistently and continuously communicated to all audiences.
It remains to be seen if the Romney and Obama camps can achieve message consistency in articulating what they would do if elected. So far, the messaging has been inconsistent, shallow and a “game” of one-upmanship. They’re acting like two boys in the playground throwing stones at each other, and focusing only on sound bites.
Time for a substantive dialogue about national and international issues. No more stones and schoolyard games. After all, it is “only about our future.”
# # #
Richard E. Nicolazzo is Managing Partner of Nicolazzo and Associates, a strategic communications and crisis management firm headquartered in Boston, Mass.
Joe M. Grillo, Partner, contributed to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)