Here’s a great resource for news junkies.

Newseum has interactive maps of the world. Click on an orange dot for the front page of the newspaper from that location. Double-click for a full-sized image ready to read.

Earlier this month I was asked by the editors of Ragan.com to write an analysis of President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame. Here’s the full text and video of the speech. My article ran on the front page of Ragan.com (“News, ideas & conversations for communicators worldwide”) the morning after Obama spoke. It’s now been moved ‘behind the firewall’ and is only accessible to subscribers of the Ragan Select service. It was fascinating to read the comments made by over 20 professional communicators. Here’s the article and comments, followed by my response.

Obama bridges the divide at Notre Dame

By Ian Griffin

President Obama’s commencement address at South Bend, Ind., attempts to find common ground with abortion foes

President Obama delivered the second commencement address of his presidency at Notre Dame on Sunday. The build up to the speech saw fierce arguments about whether it was appropriate for a prominent abortion rights supporter to be honored at one of the nation’s premier Catholic institutions. Speculation about noisy off-campus rallies, student and faculty boycotts and other disruptions occupied cable TV, the blogosphere and the Twitterverse.

Controversial and difficult situations can bring out the best in a speaker. Historic speeches are often given in times of dissention and revolt. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and JFK delivered memorable lines in the face of adverse circumstances. Winston Churchill was not commenting on a European soccer match when he said, “We shall fight them on the beaches.”

One suspects that President Obama might have relished the opportunity to discuss the controversial issues of abortion and stem cell research at this event.

His challenge as a speaker was to defuse the controversy and take the heat out of the moment. He did that by forging a bond with the audience. He bridged the divide after openly acknowledging that it exists.

Consider three examples of ways the speech found common ground with the audience.

“Fair-minded words”

Watch the first part of Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame.

All politicians love to quote letters from supporters. Obama chose to quote someone who potentially opposes him. A letter he received from a pro-life doctor caused him to change the words on his Web site characterizing abortion foes as “right-wing ideologues.”

By using a respected figure from the other camp, he called on the audience to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do … (and) discover at least the possibility of common ground.” At the same time, he made it clear that he didn’t change his position. And he did not expect the doctor to change his. In other words — agree to disagree.

“The soldier and the lawyer”

Obama quickly moved from a readily understood pair of opposites to an illustration of why people might have differing views on a complex moral argument. He did so in three steps. First, he contrasted a soldier and a lawyer — equally patriotic, but with differing opinions on what is important to protect the country. Next, a gay activist and an evangelical pastor deploring HIV/AIDS across a cultural divide. Finally, he contrasts those who oppose stem cell research versus those whose children could benefit from medical advances.

By implication, our social roles determine our beliefs.There are no moral absolutes, only the relativism of equally valid views (itself a controversial statement to make at a Catholic university, but he did not go there.)

“A saintly man”

Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago supported, as did Obama, community organizations on the South Side of Chicago. He was not an ideologue. He and Obama were “bound together in the service of others.” He was “always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground.” And by implication, he’s told the audience, so is the person speaking these words.

From your house to my house

By far the most effective bond he built with the audience was acknowledging 91-year-old Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, or “Father Ted,” former president of Notre Dame and sole survivor of Dwight Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Commission. Hesburgh forged an agreement on a “twilight fishing trip” among commission members that led to the Civil Rights Act and, by implication, made it possible for a black man like Obama to be elected. The icing on the cake was the fact that the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision was handed down on May 17, 1954 – 55 years ago to the day.

Few speechwriters are granted such potent historical material to work with. By skillfully working the coincidence of the date, the historical figure in the audience and America’s struggle with racial inequality into the conclusion, Obama was guaranteed a speech that left them cheering.

Comments:

Monday, May 18, 2009 8:52:58 AM by Knute Rockne
Next. Obama can address the most serious issue facing Notre Dame: the more-than-two-decade drought in NCAA football championships.

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:49:02 AM by Christopher Lower
Shame on President Obama and shame on Notre Dame Officials! This should have been a day of honor for these men & women who worked so hard to get to this point of graduation, and for their families. Instead it became a circus!

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:09:42 AM by Bill Rheinlander
President Obama’s words at Notre Dame were soothing and conciliatory. He usually does that well. However, his actions speak much louder than his words. He talks about unity and common ground, but his voting record and policy proposals divide and conquer.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:25:00 AM by Jay
I think you’re headline overreaches. I don’t think he, in fact, bridged any divide, although he attempted to do so in reasonable terms.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:34:58 AM by Anonymous
Obama continues to use slick words that don’t reflect his government policies. Your headline is nonsense.

Uncle Sam

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:37:14 AM by Anonymous
Bullshit.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:40:59 AM by MyWord
More rhetoric but no substance. Obama didn’t bridge any divide. He still approves taking innocent lives in the name of “choice.” Those who favor life still believe it’s sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. So just what divide did our orator-in-chief bridge?

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:25:03 AM by TK
As a member of the Catholic church, I think it’s terrible that Notre Dame looked the other way when it came to one of the church’s major moral issues and allowed President Obama to even step foot on campus. The graduates deserved better.

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:38:20 AM by Nancy Lewis
Really? Slick? Bullshit? I think not. “The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness.”

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:47:12 PM by Kevin
Whew – many of these comments are a good illustration of the intolerance that religion too often creates. What happened to loving the sinner? Instead we get demonizing, ego-based diminishing of this man’s worth, and a wish to simply nullify any different ideas. I hope I live to see the day when organized religion matures to the point where it acknowledges that other ideas not only exist, but they can be in the majority. And even if they’re not, they don’t simply go away because your book tells you they’re bad. Now, from a communication standpoint, it sounds like Obama took the highest road possible that still respects both his own beliefs and those of others. So far I’ve seen no legitimate points made to dispute that – just defensive sniping without substance. Where is the objectivity of the professional communicator here? In sadly few comments, it seems.

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:57:04 PM by Anonymous
Obama handled it beautifully. It’s a nice change to have a president who’s willing to face an audience that disagrees with him on something significant, address the issue and reach out for common ground. Notre Dame, and particularly its president and vast majority of the graduates and families in attendance, were extremely respectful and even enthusiastic throughout, to their credit. Notre Dame also invited President Bush a few years ago, rightfully so, even though he is a big supporter of capital punishment. I’m sure there must have been some protests then, though don’t recall.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:05:53 PM by Jim
Obama “bridges the divide?” That’s just silly. There is still a divide. The treatment this president gets versus the treatment the previous president got from commentators such as Mr. Griffin is ludicrious.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:16:26 PM by Mary Dando
Much as I love Barack Obama and truly appreciate having him as our President, I think his words, in the end, struck a hollow note. The “can’t we all get along” theme that ran throughout his speech is definitely conciliatory, but I also found it a tad condescending. As Ian Griffin points out, while he sought common ground, he also made it clear that he had no intention of changing his position. Here was an opportunity to reach out to those who believe that the “termination of a pregnancy” is just plain wrong and immoral, and tell them how he intended to “bridge” the gap. Of course, like most pro-choice advocates, he has no problem with the death penalty. Those of us who are pro-life, we’re pro-life all the way: we’re against the death penalty, assisted-suicide, and the nonsense of sending men and women into combat in a ridiculous situation like the war in Iraq. I even have a problem with the President’s ramping up of our armed forces in Afghanistan, and bombing so-called Taliban strongholds in Pakistan. If he truly wants us to meet as one mind, one compromise he could offer is not to dismantle the law President Bush put in place just before he left office, which allows those in the medical community to opt out of taking part in abortions in major hospitals. President Obama has acquiesced on every demand from Planned Parenthood. Now would be a good time to acknowledge that the pro-life position is a valid one, and do something concrete to recognize it. In this case, actions not words, however profound, are necessary planks in crossing that bridge.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:34:34 PM by pat
In the previous post, “acquiesced” takes that pronoun “in,” not “on.”

Best wishes,

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:47:18 PM by Jeff
Mary – You say that “those of us who are pro-life” are against the death penalty, the war in Iraq, etc.? If so, I wonder why we didn’t see anywhere close to the same level of protest on the life issue at Notre Dame when Bush spoke there and received an honorary degree? He’s about the biggest proponent and user of the death penalty the country has ever known, and we know about the war in Iraq. Also, you say that most pro-choice people are pro capital-punishment? My observations have been just the opposite. Most of the pro-choice people I’ve known, often on the liberal side, are anti capital-punishment. By the same token, it seems most of the outspoken pro-life people (often conservative) support the death penalty and the politicians or notables who support it. Conservative talk radio hosts come to mind, as an example. (Also, they were supporters of the war.) So, consistency could be called for on both sides, and certainly not just the pro-choice side.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:52:51 PM by Anonymous
Despite a well written post the grammar [censored] strikes again……

Best wishes!

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:57:14 PM by Joel Hoshkins
Another reliably pro-Obama piece from the reliably pro-Obama Ragan’s. Old Ian just drools lovey dovey goodness all over Patron Saint Obama’s lap.

How can a pro life person “open their hearts and their minds” to the slaughter of children? It doesn’t jibe, Herr Obama. You see, Christians believe God knew us while we were still in our mother’s wombs (Jeremiah 1:5). Christians, you know? Like you’re supposed to be.

Another pretend Christian speech from the Pretend Christian in Chief.

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:15:13 PM by Anonymous
The last posting by the grammar police (anonymous) had at least two errors in his/her single sentence alerting us to the grammar issues, not to mention the inclusion of a censored word. Maybe this is getting a little silly. (Any mistakes?)

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:20:55 PM by Anonymous
Love how the Obama worship just keeps on rolling along!

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:40:36 PM by Mary Dando
Jeff, You’re quite right. Many of the protesters at Notre Dame would probably be for the death penalty if asked, and yes, the Catholic bishops were strangely silent about the war in Iraq when it came to honoring George Bushm and on many other occasions. But this is much broader than Notre Dame. Obama had an opportunity to really reach out to those who find abortion abhorrent, and not just talk about conciliation. I have little in common with radio shock jocks, and I’m more likely to be considered liberal than conservative. I’m pro-life, but you’ll never find me outside an abortion clinic waving grotesque images of aborted fetuses, or screaming “baby killer” or behaving like an out-of-control fanatic. However, I think there are many people out there like me who voted for Barack Obama, and are pleased with the way he’s leading this country, and standing up for the little guy, and I’d just like to see him acknowledge the pro-life position as a valid one.The recent Gallup poll says 51 percent of women in the U.S. describe themselves as pro-life. Yet, even before an equitable healthcare system is in place, right out of the gate Obama signs federally funded stem-cell research into law, and allows for U.S. funding for overseas contraceptive programs. With regard to the latter, most people would agree that anything that helps contain the spread of AIDS in the world is a good thing, but while it satisfies pro-choice supporters, I’m not convinced that it’s going to be that effective. If all it took to stop the spread of AIDS was encouraging the use of condoms, I think it would be practically eradicated by now. We’re talking about a cultural change. Most of the men who have infected their wives or girlfriends with AIDS, didn’t take the precaution of using a condom when they strayed from monogamy. Safe sex meant nothing to them then, why would it mean anything to them now? And I disagree with Ian Griffin. This was not one of Obama’s finer moments. This speech should not be compared to those of Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King who rose to the challenge in adverse circumstances. Obama had a great opportunity to open up the abortion debate for discussion, but he blew it. I’ve never had a problem with his appearance at Notre Dame, or his being conferred with an honorary degree, I was just disappointed that he took the easier road in his speech.

Monday, May 18, 2009 4:05:41 PM by Jeff
Mary – Not to go on too much with this, but I agree with many of your sentiments. Just a point or two. I think you can have a strong pro-life position (anti-abortion) and still be a supporter of federally funded stem cell research and contraceptive programs, neither of which destroy existing lives (though I know the former can be debated and will continue to be.) Also, keep in mind that much of the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa, is not related to sexual activity. In general, I thought Obama did a strong job of acknowledging that there is a legitimate difference of opinion on these issues and he kept it respectful. He seems to be committed to addressing societal and economic issues (lack of healthcare, poverty, etc.) that contribute to more abortions. We’ll see how it goes. But I think you and I have more common ground than not.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:35:14 AM by Anonymous in DC
Well, once again, most of these comments argue the issue itself, not the speech (and its techniques).

“Jay” (Mon 10:25) is correct: the speech may not have actually bridged the divide, but it represented a major attempt to bridge it in reasonable terms.

What’s sad is that too few people (on either side of this or many other issues) make even a feeble attempt to do the same. We’re living in an era of in-your-face, confrontational (and usually disrespectful) language that does little more than inflame and solidify people’s thinking.

It appears that Obama recognizes that fact and, at a time when our country is deeply polarized (on so many issues), he’s encouraging us to work together to find common ground and solutions.

Whether we’re speechwriters or not, we communication professionals often face the challenge of helping our leaders/clients address complex, charged issues. Regardless of where we personally stand on this issue, Obama’s speech serves as a case study we can all learn from.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:20:01 AM by Anonymous
President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame did not ring true to me because his goal was to seduce, not find common ground. He is focused and determined. He wants to change our way of life. That has become quite clear.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:15:02 AM by Anonymous
Anonymous in DC (6:35 am) nailed it – very well put.

My response

These comments raise a number of interesting questions.

1. Can professional communicators handle controversy?

If there truly are real people behind the pseudonyms and Anonymous postings who hold down jobs as communications professionals, what does it say about the intellectual and emotional capacity of public relations staff, speechwriters and others to handle controversial issues?

At the least, it’s a sobering and revealing look into the psyche of those who practice communications for a living – who are paid for their labors – that so few commented on the speech qua speech. Most people chose instead to comment on the issue. It was a topic about which they felt strongly. Many of the Ragan.com audience chose to forego a debate on the effectiveness of the speech in favor of these blunt statements – even as blunt as a single word.

Their analysis was blinded by their emotion. This limits their effectiveness as professionals.

As ‘Anonymous’ said (May 19, 6:35am):

Whether we’re speechwriters or not, we communication professionals often face the challenge of helping our leaders/clients address complex, charged issues. Regardless of where we personally stand on this issue, Obama’s speech serves as a case study we can all learn from.

2. Do corporate communications professionals need to deal with contentious issues?

Even if these professionals let their beliefs and emotions blind their analysis, does it matter? Some might argue most corporate executives communicate in a desiccated monotone. So why should those who serve them exhibit the capacity to deal with interesting, aware, controversial topics in a professional manner?

We live in interesting times. Abortion is only one issue the American public must debate. Few corporate executives outside the healthcare industry probably need to comment on it. Yet issues abound which corporate spokespeople must take a stand on. Global warming affects the energy, automobile, construction and other industries.

Communications professionals need to learn from exemplary speakers such as Obama how to address controversy.

3. Do speeches travel well?

“I can’t get no satisfaction,
I can’t get no satisfaction.
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can’t get no, I can’t get no.”
— The Rolling Stones

Reading the lyrics to this Stones song is a pale imitation of hearing the music, especially if you’re at a live performance as Mick struts his stuff and tells you about a man comes on the radio / he’s tellin’ me more and more / about some useless information / supposed to fire my imagination. There’s obviously way more emotional charge to the live performance.

The same is true of great oratory.

I stand by my headline. Obama did build a bridge that afternoon with the members of that audience. For all I know they left the auditorium with their opinions as firmly opposed to his as ever.

But while he spoke he held them in the palm of his hand.

There was repeated applause. There was a standing ovation. There’s magic in that. And it does well for us to understand how to pull that trick off.

My analysis tried to explain some of the techniques Obama uses.

I recently saw a job posting for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) which listed, among the requirements:

1. A solid working knowledge of budgeting and auditing processes, institutional financial planning and strategic planning;
2. Excellent interpersonal, communications, public speaking and presentation skills.

This made me realize that the stereotype of a CPA as a bespectacled number cruncher is wildly inaccurate.

At the upper levels of the financial profession the ability to present with confidence and connect with an audience is crucial. But do all accountants know what it takes to become effective presenters? Don’t count on it.

My recent blog posting on Presenting Complex Information contains simple rules of direct relevance for financial experts.

Here’s some more specific suggestions.

Avoid burying the audience in raw data

Financial experts can overwhelm an audience with too much data. A poor presentation often contains too much information. Less is more.
Accountants should only present the most important numbers to an audience during the speech. Save detailed financial statements for handouts and reference material. Reassure people that these are available should they need details. Most audiences are more interested in seeing if a few key numbers and financial measures make sense, before they waste time digging through your supporting data.

A picture is worth a thousand words

One of the most powerful ways to present numerical data is with graphs and charts. You can translate an enormous collection of numbers instantly into concise, easily understood images. Graphs are an effective way to present trends and comparisons. Keep them simple and uncluttered. Be sure headings, labels, axis tabs, and so on are clear and legible. Here’s one extraordinarily compelling way to present large numbers (hint: useful if you are working on the disbursement of Federal Stimulus funds!)

Give each statistic a context that makes it relevant to the audience

Numbers alone are often meaningless and difficult to grasp by themselves. It’s much easier for non-financially literate listeners to grasp a number if you talk about it in everyday terms that they can relate to.

Speaking coach Joan Detz has valuable suggestions in her book It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It

• Simplify your numbers. Don’t say, “Our state is growing so fast that we need to add 2.91 new classrooms every day. Round up the number to say “three classrooms.”
• Put your numbers in perspective. When Barbara Bush spoke about illiteracy, she urged audiences to “turn off the TV. The average kindergarten student has watched more than five thousand hours of television. That’s more time than it takes to earn a college degree.”
• Create a picture with numbers … “The wasted food would fill X number of refrigerators.”
• Put your numbers in human terms … “This highway would shorten your commute by fifteen minutes.”

By following these guidelines, financial experts can become storytellers who get the message across to audiences in an a way that is interesting and creative.

Practice makes perfect

But remember, just as you didn’t learn the intricacies of Sarbanes-Oxley overnight, you won’t become a top presenter without practicing. Take advantage of courses offered as part of your continuing professional education (CPE) requirements. Seize every opportunity to practice in front of your peers at local association meetings. Volunteer to speak on accounting as a career option to local schools and colleges. Join Toastmasters.

One day, when you apply for that CFO job, your practice will pay off, big time.

Here’s a wonderful 10-page ‘manifesto’ by communication and speech coach Nick Morgan posted to the ChangeThis website. Before You Open Your Mouth: The Keys to Great Public Speaking is well-worth reading.

Morgan asks:

Why is most public speaking so awful? Beyond soulless venues and Death by Power Point, speakers make the same four mistakes over and over again, continuing the sorry state of the art.

Morgan offers four keys to great public speaking:

• first, speeches are awful because speakers make it about them instead of the audience.
• second, speeches are awful because speakers don’t take their audiences on a journey.
• third, speeches are awful because speakers don’t rehearse.
• fourth, speeches are awful because speakers think about their content but not their “second conversation” — their body language.

He offers succinct, hard-hitting advice for each element, such as this on the crucial importance of body language in terms of where a speaker stands in relation to the audience:

From our cave-people antecedents, we are conditioned to notice things and people that move toward us, not things that don’t appear to be a threat and go in circles at a great distance from us.

If a speaker isn’t moving toward the audience, then an audience can’t care about the speaker.
It’s as simple as that. It’s cave-person conditioning and we can’t help ourselves.

If, on the other hand, the speaker moves toward us, and even moves into our personal space—
between 4 feet and a foot and a half—then we suddenly wake up and pay attention. Again, we can’t
help it. It’s our unconscious survival training kicking into high gear.

Check out this thought-provoking article today.

SocialCorp: Social Media Goes Corporate

Postman tells it like it is when it comes to the bind in which social media has placed many corporate communications managers. He addresses the challenge that “Inside companies, people are clearly confused about social media” (p. 160)

This book goes a long way to dispel any confusion. It’s chock-full of checklists, questions to consider, case studies and options to review. The guidance he gives is grounded in what is clearly first-hand experience of the corporate world. For example, this advice on selecting who should represent a company on an officially sanctioned blog is right on the money:

“Choose your bloggers well, counsel them, monitor them, and if need be, shut down their blogs if they are not posting in a way that helps you meet your communications objectives. But try not to censor them ahead of time.” (p. 65)

If you work inside a corporation and need to encourage co-workers or the suits in management to consider the options presented by social media, this is the book to leave lying around the office to stimulate discussion.

From the politics to the technical details and the straightforward PR and communications counsel the book covers a lot of ground. It also manages to be a complete inventory of social media, circa January 2009.

One inevitable problem any book on a subject as fast-moving as this will face is a limited shelf-life. In a few years it might seem impossibly quaint. But for now, there’s no better guide to new territory. As Postman says on the last page “Start Now!”.

What are the liabilities governing blogs and other social media vehicles? Does the risk mean you should prohibit blogging by corporate officers?

With the rise of blogs, Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media, communications professionals have a wide range of options to connect with audiences. These extend beyond that of delivering a speech in an auditorium or sending an e-mail or press release to a distribution list.

Web 2.0 makes it easy to reach a worldwide audience, but the heady possibilities come with potential liabilities. Any errors in communication will be amplified. This is why many companies find the concept of social media pretty scary.

Allowing employees to blog, tweet or post Facebook updates is obviously more risky than not permitting anything outside the standard channels. Especially if those employees are C-Level executives or the CEO, where regulations exist which govern the disclosure of information by publicly traded companies.

When Web 2.0 rubs up against the staid world of investor relations, finance and legal departments there will inevitably be some friction. But rather than implement a blanket prohibition against any and all communication of corporate information, we need to be aware of the regulations and plan accordingly.

The surprising fact is, social media are often more congruent with regulations than not. Consider the Securities and Commission (SEC) and their Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD).

Reg FD — now a blog friendly regulation

Reg FD prohibits the selective disclosure of “material information” by senior executives. This means communications must be available to all interested parties (such as investors) and not limited to specific sub-groups (such as favored analysts). In August 2008, as a result of a dialog between Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz and SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, the SEC approved the use of Web sites and blogs as compliant with Reg FD.

This means that a company that maintains an up-to-date, freely accessible Web site which is a “recognized channel of distribution” can post updates on a blog without requiring safe harbor statements or other restrictions.

Blogs of publicly traded companies are probably more accessible to the general public than traditional channels of communication such as BusinessWire and PR Newswire. The new ruling could disintermediate them.

There is, however, a challenge for companies with inactive, out-of-date Web sites. It might be argued that posting important information to a moribund blog makes the disclosure ‘selective’. The moral is: blog frequently and make it easy for people to subscribe to your RSS feed.

Avoid anonymous postings

In the world of social media, commonsense rules still apply. It’s not wise to make hidden or anonymous attempts to influence the public perception of your company in any forum. The same considerations apply with online content. Michael Sebastian covered this topic on Ragan.com in December 2008. Attorney Bruce Johnson’s advice was to avoid false advertising or the use of fake identities or anonymous postings by executives.

Prepare for curbs in online advertising

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is reviewing new guidelines for bloggers and social networking site users who advertise or engage in ‘viral marketing’ for a company’s products. The Financial Times reported on April 2 that giving free samples to bloggers and people who tweet favorably about your product might be curtailed:

If a blogger received a free sample of skin lotion and then incorrectly claimed the product cured eczema, the FTC could sue the company for making false or unsubstantiated statements. The blogger could be sued for making false representations.

It’s a small world

Since social media are available on the World Wide Web, you need to be aware of regulations outside the United States. European Union (EU) regulations apply to companies doing business in the EU. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive guards against false representation. EU privacy rules also impact the collection of personal information and email addresses on your website.

Always check with your attorney

This article does not constitute legal advice. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Your responsibility is to develop a sound social media policy which is then approved by your legal department. It’s beyond the scope of this article to review all aspects of such a policy. I recommend taking a look at chapter six of Joel Postman begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting’s new book SocialCorp: Social Media Goes Corporatewhich includes sample social media agreements and policies which can be adapted for use in your company.

With a little courage and a lot of common sense you should find the rewards of fully engaging with social media outweigh the risks.

(This article was originally published on ragan.com)

Pat Obuchowski is the CEO (Chief Empowerment Officer) of inVisionaria, a seven year old leadership, team and life coaching organization. She helps clients achieve their vision on both a professional and personal level by sharpening their leadership, interpersonal, coaching, presentation and organization skills. She coaches for results.

Most recently she served as an internal Lead Leadership Coach with Pacific Gas & Electric Company where she coached corporate leaders and teams to be more impactful and productive. Her special talent includes accelerating the learning and integration of organizational leaders and teams into new roles brought about by transitions, such as promotion, transfer, growth, mergers or acquisitions. She believes people are more fulfilled by mastering their strengths and managing their weaknesses.

Creative Vision Statements

She is a Certified Professional Co-active Coach through the Coaches Training Institute and completed their Co-Active Leadership and Leadership Mastery course. She is a leader for Vision Statement work
and a Bigger Game coach, workshop and certification leader.

Pat created the 2008 Vision Statement Movie for NSA Northern California.

Pro-Track Profile

What differentiates Pat from others in the coaching field is her operational experience in working at all levels and in all aspects of business. This experience provides her with a 360 degree understanding of business systems, leadership impact, and organizational politics. She helps people create plans that inspire and then coach them in the implementation of these plans.

She is a community activist who most recently served on the Executive Board of the Silicon Valley Coach Federation. She currently serves as a Global Board Member for the International Coach Federation.

I spoke with Pat about the status of her current projects and what attracted her to the NSA Northern California Pro-Track program. To hear what she told me, click on the podcast icon below.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 5:10 — 1.2MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Appearance is everything at this weekend’s Group of Eight food crisis meeting. Delegates from the eight leading northern hemisphere economies met in Italy to discuss world hunger.

Adverse publicity in advance of an “aperitif and gala dinner” caused the lavish dining arrangements to be replaced with a working dinner and no wine tasting.

The Financial Times report concludes with a reminder that a 2002 UN Food and Agriculture Organization meeting was embarrassed when a lobster and foie gras menu was offered at a forum on global hunger.

Executives and politicians (and their PR handlers) need to maintain constant vigilance as contradictions in lifestyles between the have’s and have not’s threaten the legitimacy of their words if undermined by their actions. The 21st Century is as rich as breeding ground for this hypocrisy as ever was the France of the Sun King or Victorian England.

The Detroit auto executives maladroit arrival in DC in “the jet” (as corporations refer to their private aircraft fleets) is but one example of the speed with which the current crisis is undermining previously non-problematic behavior in the C-Suite.

Executive communicators should be aware of the overall context of a spokesperson’s actions, not just the content of their speech or PowerPoint slides taken in isolation.

Authenticity is a valuable commodity.

Gourmand tastes should be indulged in private. You are what you eat.

As I noted in February, word is that presenters now need to be aware that audiences might be using Twitter to discuss their speech while it is in progress.

There’s more on the implications from Mark Ivey who has a useful article on How Speakers Can Manage Twitter- and Live to Talk About it.

The goal, of course, is to channel the Twitter discussion into a force that works for your speech. For speakers (and communications managers) it’s time to reassess presentation styles and start planning to adjust.

Mark advises specific ways to mitigate the potential disruption Twitter can cause.

Imagine you had to give a presentation on the current economic crisis. We read, for instance, that the Federal Reserve will purchase securities up to $1.25 trillion this year. How would you convey the scale of this to an audience?

One option might be to say that the if these were $100 bills a stack of a trillion would reach 64,834 miles – a quarter-way to the moon. The problem you face as a speaker is that very few audience members have a clear concept of how far 64,000 miles really is; fewer still have been to the moon. But people are fond of these analogies:

One trillion seconds would take you back 31,709 years to the time of the hunter-gatherers. If you lined up the 1.5tn (British) pound coins that were reported to have been wiped off the global markets on one single black Friday, they would get you from here to Mars.

These words impress, but they only replace one abstraction with another.

Better is a picture (worth 1,000 words – which is the approximate length of this blog posting…).

This is one time when a speaker would benefit from a PowerPoint slide.

Pictures illustrating the enormity and scale are much more effective than words.

Here’s a powerful set of illustrations from OneNote which brought home for me what a trillion dollars really looks like – especially in relation to a $10,000 wad of cash, which is something most audience members can grasp:

A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2″ thick and contains $10,000. It fits in your pocket easily:

Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it:

While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet:

And $1 BILLION dollars… now we’re really getting somewhere (Bill Gates would have 40 of these stacks if he cashed in his chips):

Finally, 1 TRILLION, which is a million million, or a thousand billion. It’s a one followed by 12 zeros (note the pallets are double-stacked):

Incorporating images like this in a presentation that deals with large numbers forcefully brings your message home to the audience.