Minnesota PRSA Pro-Am Day gives a new perspective on the everyday of public relations

We’re used to tours around here. Several times a week, a few people are walked through Risdall, stop in the PR department, and continue on their way through the building. But it isn’t every week that the guests stay for very long.

Minnesota PRSA’s Pro-Am Day changes that every year. A PRSSA student is paired with a PR professional, and spends the better part of their day job shadowing, asking questions and learning about the field. This year, our student learned about what makes a PR company work, as well as job finding strategies, how to market his resume, what belongs on a cover letter and strategies for contacting potential employers.

But it’s a day that teaches us in PR as well.

After spending a few years in the field, what we do is second nature. Working with a new client? Take the time to build trust and get to know what they do and how they do it. Building an integrated communications plan? Better talk objectives, strategy and tactics. Have a new product or service? Pitch reporters and publications.

Pro-Am Day forces us to think about what we do from a new perspective. It makes us think back to our green days, before a PR internship or full-time employment, and boil down our years of knowledge into the nuts and bolts. How do you talk to a new client? Ask as many questions as you need to understand them, what they do, and what makes them different, and know that trust is earned over time.  Building strategy and tactics? Talk about what makes your client different, goals and objectives, results that matter and the best way to share their story – be that a news release, new website, media outreach and promotion, etc. Are you pitching media? You need to know what they cover, when and how to approach them, and the best way to follow up.

While Pro-Am Day is about the students, it’s also a chance for agencies to look inside and see what makes them tick. It doesn’t happen every day or every tour, but we’re glad it happens every year.

Recording News Interviews Is In The Public Interest

In today’s Ragan PR Daily, Gill Rudawsky talks about videotaping news interviews, which he calls a “useful tactic for PR.” His discussion is interesting and focuses on the impact and negative reaction of journalists and the potential pitfalls. He also provides very useful reference sources, especially with regard to the legalities of recording conversations. Two of the three comments posted before mine were negative and made suspect the motives for this tactic.

Actually, I believe it is crucial to record news interviews. What do reporters have to hide by objecting? For years, I have recommended audio recording of interviews, which are then transcribed and the audio and the transcription are made available to all stakeholders on a website.

I generally reserve video recording for controversial or contentious stories.  It’s the same deal: transcribe and put both up on a website. I do strongly recommend that story release deadlines always be honored.

The rationale? Organizations spend enormous amounts of time fussing, fretting and preparing for interviews where the only audience is the reporter. Then a story is fabricated from these conversations and presented to an audience that only sees the final product. Why withhold the ingredients of a story?

The investment of time, energy, resources and distraction should be made available to the largest audience possible, if only to truly justify the investment. Sharing the information widely lets those affected make up their minds.  They have useful information which they deserve to know anyway. Why should a reporter — a stranger — have more information than an employee?

If a reporter is abusive, accusatory or bullying, that should be made available. If your spokesperson flubs, stumbles, mumbles and bumbles, that should be shown as well.

This is one of the great conundrums of journalism.  They produce their product in great secrecy and expect the public not to ask what was left out. This behavior is one of the most obvious reasons legacy media are having such difficulty. The more secrecy there is, the more people believe that what is reported is mostly made up.

One of the greatest benefits of social media is the opportunity for many to view the same set of reported events and provide alternative perspectives.

It’s called transparency. And today’s journalism needs a big inoculation to help stem the relentless incremental corrosion of public trust and credibility.

Will Leaders and Companies Ever Learn From Their Mistakes?

By James E. Lukaszewski, ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA

 

Among the most frequent questions I get when speaking to groups or talking to clients, and especially to victims and survivors, are:

  • “Why do companies and their leadership continue to make the very same mistakes time and time again?”
  • “Don’t they read the papers?”
  • “Don’t they watch the news?”
  • “Don’t they talk about how to avoid the problems they see their colleagues, peers and friends having?”

It’s a question of ethical leadership.

The simple and direct answer is, very rarely. Businesses don’t learn because the typical response to a crisis is focused more on forgetting than learning. The first inclination is to punish the innocent, next, to cover up the misdeeds of the powerful; and then purge the organization of anyone remotely associated with the problems, including the chief executive, sometimes the CFO and even the general counsel.

These summary cultural executions effectively deny the organization the opportunity to learn how to detect, prevent and deter such circumstances from occurring again because the only people who can teach these things are the perpetrators who were responsible in the first place.  But they are gone, or muzzled by their attorneys.

The Penn State circumstance is the most complete recent example of this flawed but continually accepted strategy.

Phase One: Denial, disbelief and Institutional Deafness: Ignoring the circumstances and allegations, questioning credibility and motives, and discrediting those making the allegations.

At Penn State: Internally the early reports were clearly delayed, ignored, discouraged, and discredited for eleven years.

Phase Two: Victim confusion. The institution and the perpetrators claim that they are just as much the victim as those who they have been alleged to have assaulted, intimidated and otherwise harmed. The voice of doom speaks, “If this continues, the institution could be harmed.”

At Penn State: As the scandal became more real, institutional defensiveness kicked in all the way to DEFCON 5, the official feeling of being under attack and forced to respond.

Phase Three: The phony internal investigation strategy stage which prolongs the denials before finally determining either that the allegations are bogus or that, “It was an isolated incident”. In the process, the victims are further discredited; the challenging authorities are demeaned.

At Penn State: Victims, media, and any naysayers were actually set upon by students, faculty and community members. All the while, the chief known perpetrator, Mr. Sandusky, and others in the administration were at liberty to try to cover their criminal activities and abusive behaviors, including Mr. Paterno. Ultimately, Mr. Freeh was retained and produced a devastating outside, independent analysis and recommendations.

Phase Four: The head-fake shifting blame to everyone else but the folks in charge.

At Penn State: The perpetrators, even the police and the co-conspirators, protected each other until the forces of public pressure absolutely required that they be exposed and removed.  All this happened, despite a clear pathway of culpability from within the organization in athletics and moving up to the very top.

Phase Five: Failing to truly punish the guilty or subject them to corrective behaviors. Two extraordinary consequences occur:

  • First: the loss of knowledge of how these problems came about from those who have a better understanding of the entire organization than anyone, the perpetrators.
  • Second: an entire avenue of learning for the institution and subsequent cultural modification is removed.

At Penn State: Early on there was an extraordinary movement to begin forgetting the incident as quickly as possible. Even now, the University is on the public relations defensive to continue the process of eradicating these incidents from their memory through extensive PR efforts.

Phase Six: Punishing the innocent.  Along comes the first of a series of sanctions aimed at the institution, but hits the students instead, missing the perpetrators, the collaborators, and the facilitators.

At Penn State: They welcomed the sanctions largely because they themselves couldn’t figure out what to do that would be publicly and internally acceptable.

Phase Seven: Bury or hide all the remembrances to ensure forgetfulness. This approach, involving forced forgetfulness, denies the victim’s validation for their suffering and demeans and diminishes the beneficial impact of those who are able to stand up and bring comfort and justice to the afflicted.

 At Penn State: They removed one statue of Mr. Paterno, but left another in place.

Phase Eight: Persecution of the innocent is piled on by outsiders.

At Penn State: The NCAA sanctions the school by taking away years of victories, punishing thousands of students no longer attending the University, including those who attended honorably while in school. The NCAA has, like so many intervening outsiders, provided a distraction rather than a solution.  The University of Minnesota has announced that it will not recruit athletic students from Penn State.

What is learnable from this tragedy?

  • Culture change requires that the University preserve, expose, disclose and continuously discuss these criminal behaviors rather than simply eradicating them from the life, even the history of the organization.
  • The perpetrators and those found guilty should be required to make periodic appearances to subject themselves to public and survivor questioning to help others understand the sources, nature, and scope of damage to deter future, similar criminal behavior.
  • Traditional, puffy public relations is the exact opposite of what’s needed and will encourage the cover up of previous, and perhaps current, negative administration activities. Public Relations signals an end to additional ongoing disclosures, and diminishes and demeans the important culture changing activities going on.
  • The new compliance structure should continue investigating, be vigilant, and impose compliance. The facts, information and data should be disclosed continuously as discovered. This monitor must focus on present senior administrators of the institution. Their predecessor’s lack of leadership, complicit behavior that still goes largely undiscovered and unpunished. And, given half a chance, history demonstrates that the new interim administrators are weak and likely to follow or be pushed into similar repulsive behaviors.
  • Culture change occurs through a continuous senior leadership based effort to remind, remember, rehearse, and revisit the circumstances that permitted the victimization of these children. The cultural change goals are to ensure that such events and circumstances are deterred, reported, investigated, prosecuted and prevented.

How long does culture change take? Well, let’s see.  When will the victims stop being victims?

The student body insults and punishments will continue, but now by former friends.

This is the old psychology idea that spreading the pain and suffering out among a much larger base of individuals, helps all affected heal or help in the healing .The real effect is that the guilty feel innocent and the innocent feel even guiltier.  Believe it or not, there are many who would call this good, therapeutic practice. Ask a victim or their surviving relatives if that’s how they feel.

We find this same delusional notion in other fields…  In Public Relations your gaff is covered up and reduced in intensity if you can gather a cluster of third parties around to you to protect you and distract others.  In industry the old axiom was, “Dilution is the solution to pollution.”

There has to be a better way.  These patterns of willful ignorance, organized forgetfulness, organizational deafness, and the love of yesterday are what give management and leadership the opportunity to say nothing, learn nothing and do nothing.

 

This article also ran at CommPro.Biz on September 5, 2012.

Winning When Everyone is Mad at You: How Waging Peace and Reducing Contention Can Bring Success — Seven Strategies

Wherever there is conflict, confrontation and crisis, there is contention. In today’s Twitter, Blogger and bloviater dominated world, working to resolve important issues, questions and decisions often begins very contentiously and ends only after one side is beaten and leaves the field; there is a mutual withdrawal, or mostly commonly, one side wins and the other side stays angry.

Winning, it turns out is never about getting 51 percent of individuals or groups to concur or comply; it’s getting 51 percent of those who matter. This thinking leads to an axiom and a law.

Lukaszewski’s first axiom of winning in contentious situations: Almost every decision of any consequence is made despite serious, often powerful collateral contentiousness. The media can be mad, or support someone else, some of your neighbors can be irritated, even your employees can be against you, but stay the course, be constructive in your approach and you can win.

Lukaszewski’s law of success and survival: Neither the media, your severest critic, angry neighbors, irritated legislators, nor regulators can truly stop what you have set out to accomplish. The most significant damage is almost always caused by the intervention, timidity, or hesitation of an overoptimistic boss or Board, well-meaning friends, “supporters,” or relatives, and failure to address the issues raised by those who feel victimized by the process.

These seven principles are the components of a strategic approach for winning:

1. Wage peace every day: Reduce the production of critics, enemies and victims at every opportunity. Talk tough, act tough, or threaten and you will have war for sure. War produces casualties, victims, and new critics, all of whom will live long enough to destroy, delay, or stop your best efforts.

2. Reduce contention: Contention is the absence of agreement. Work for agreement, incrementally, every day. Stop causing contention.

3. Seek permission rather than entitlement: Getting permission depends upon gaining public agreement and consent. Avoid and resist anything, anyone, or any decision, that delays, denies, disables, or damages the permission process. Act like you’re entitled to a public decision and you’ll really be stopped cold.

4. Control testosterosis: Anger, irritation, frustration, and confrontation cloud judgment, damage relationships, cause misunderstandings, create critics, naysayers and rarely accomplish anything good. Stop taking contrary views and negative messages personally. The only one who is suffering from this is you. No one else cares. Remain calm and carry on.

5. Be Democratic: Recognize and leverage from the patterns of democracy, avoid political games and game players, all those people have their own agendas. They will dump you in a minute.

6. Work as directly as you can: Like most everything that matters in life, agreement is generally achieved, when the principals commit to sit down face-to-face and directly work out their differences. Engagement builds stakeholder support, and reduces the production of critics.

7. Communicate Intentionally: Success depends on simple, sensible, positive, declarative and constructive communication, common sense, direct, prompt action, empathy, transparency, and engagement. Explain to everyone as well as remind them of your communication and behavior intentions so they will know what to expect and how to behave in return.

Over the 30 years I’ve been helping clients get public permission, communities, critics, individuals and organized opposition have consistently grown more powerful in their ability to stop or significantly alter the plans of even the most worthy projects and powerful companies. With “social media” the power of individual opposers will continue to grow.

I’ve also learned that you can often achieve your objectives with people being upset, the media angry, your employees split, and in communities that may be more divided than unified.

Winning depends on altitude (keeping calm) and attitude:

1. Candor: Public trust depends on receiving information well ahead of their actual need for it. The most toxic strategy is to fail to answer every question, provide key information after it is truly needed, or work to disparage, demean, or discredit those who oppose or have concerns about the project, and go to the trouble of making them public.

2. Patience: Accomplishing your goals is going to take longer than ever imagined, even to achieve interim milestones.

3. Resources: Success will defy financial management. More money will be spent for things one never imagined would happen, or be requested or required.

4. Stomach Power: Set your stomach for all the lies, misunderstandings, deceptions, bad behaviors and misrepresentations created by angry, frightened, and unqualified people with real power, combined with a willing media, and the outrageous motives they will ascribe to you, with all of your explanations, good work and intentions just bouncing off.

5. Staying Power: Community decision making is slow, sometimes silly, even stupid, sloppy, expensive, confusing, and emotionally driven. Settle back and go with the flow. Kick up, kick out, and you’ll go nowhere pretty quickly.

6. Pragmatism: Winning means constantly waging peace and re-acquiring community consent daily. It means relentlessly doing the doable, knowing the knowable, getting the getable, and achieving the achievable.

If democracy is one thing, it is a process. Those who propose, if they can stay the course, can expect to achieve less than they had hoped, sometimes far less, but usually wind up with more than they need to successfully achieve their objectives, which are likely to change as the community has its say. If you believe that you are entitled to get what you are asking for, you are entitled only to disappointment.

Your goal is to help work preemptively, constructively, and productively to shorten the timelines and lower the barriers that are inevitable byproducts of public decision making. Wage peace and win earlier, if winning is possible at all.

— James E. Lukaszewski, ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA

Also seen on DuetsBlog, Sept. 4, 2012

Time to Fire Your CEO? The When, The Why, The Where and The How

If you are a CEO today the news can be pretty dismal for many. The ranks of CEOs seem to be churning faster than ever. The average tenure of new U.S. and European CEOs is shrinking, now down to an average of 41 months.

As a trusted advisor, how do you know when it’s time for the CEO to go? What are the indicators, the mistakes, and the evidence that signal the need for departure? Who makes the decision, what’s the sequence of events, just how tough, and embarrassing, is it going to be? Is there a way to save them from their own failures?

A number of sources each year, usually the business magazines, take a poll, do some kind of survey, look up at the sky, and come up with the top reasons CEOs have to exit. One conclusion we can quickly draw is that the risks to CEO survival are steadily increasing.

Here’s Lukaszewski’s CEO Departure Index (LCDI) — a compilation of recent departure reason lists and what I see every day as a leadership consultant and observer.

1. Failure to get the job done. The number one reason is the inability of the CEO to actually carry out or execute what he or she was hired to achieve.

2. Over-optimism. Constantly casting every decision, action, and outcome in the most positive light possible whatever the actual circumstances. Sooner or later somebody notices a key shareholder, a whistleblower, industry watchers, CEO watchers, the SEC, the Justice Department – you get the picture. Someone is always watching and counting what CEOs do.

3. People trouble. Big dreams, big aspirations, overcoming major obstacles often requires the acquisition of new people with new talents. Hiring the right people at the right altitude is one of the greatest challenges of top leadership. The failure rate for such new hires is high, probably 50% or better. When these people fail, the boss fails too.

4. Stuck in the mud. This is leadership failure. No matter what the fanfare, accolades from the board, even industry recognition, outsider or insider, huge problems, a demoralized workforce, persistent bad news can combine to defeat even the most highly credentialed CEO.

5. AWOL. This is the CEO who loves the television camera, the public platform, who is the high-profile do-gooder. When public visibility supersedes meeting fundamental management responsibilities, trouble lies ahead.

6. Too long in the tooth. A compilation of ten-year forecasts by executive search and outplacement firms puts the average tenure of a new American and European CEO at about 41 months. Every month beyond this threshold puts the incumbent deeper into this “long in the tooth” zone and closer to the door.

7. What business schools failed to teach. In the good old days of being a CEO, now long past, being a Chief was a career capstone. The job was fundamentally operational, inspirational, institutionally focused, and a pretty good gig. Today, by some estimates, the CEOs job has become about 40% operational and up to 60% nonoperational. Before, an angry shareholder would be mollified by the IR folks. Today this individual blastsright through to the CEO’s desk. The same is true for public policy problems, neighbor problems, product problems, angry dissatisfied customers, and victims. Failure to manage these highly emotional nonoperational circumstances is among the most important and growing causes of CEO departures. Silence is definitely toxic to the CEO’s career, going something can also be career defining.

Emotional behaviors and demands tend to fall on management’s deaf ears. What these people learned in business school was that only what you can measure or count matters. Guess again.

8. Failure to manage persistent bad news. One of the most interesting contrasts illustrating the vulnerability of CEOs is the difference between the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989, and the British Petroleum disaster of 2011. Exxon CEO Larry Rawls blasted the press, chided and insulted activists, government officials, just about
everybody who argued that the spill in Alaska was a big deal. He and his pals at the petroleum club enjoyed extraordinary press coverage of their anger, vitriol, and whining.

Fast forward to 2011, Tony Hayward says a few stupid things: “I would like my life back….” and “The Gulf of Mexico is a really big ocean,” and he’s out the door.

9. Being the leader when bad things happen. Today, virtually the first person tossed overboard will be the CEO. Boards and shareholders have learned that the best way to stop the lightning is to get rid of the lightning rod, the CEO. Want to moderate negative media coverage, fire the CEO. Want to move inquiries away from the company
or organization, fire the CEO. Want to distract the detractors, even temporarily, fire the CEO. Want to temporarily redirect the work of public officials and congressional committees, fire the CEO.

There is a ritual for showing these people the door which is, in and of itself, a bit ludicrous and maddening. This ritual has ten basic components:

1. Establishing the grounds for removal: Once the decision has been agreed to, this is often the most difficult and challenging assignment. The decision to remove is way easier than figuring out why and how.

2. Determining what information might be necessary to achieve the removal objective: Sometimes the appointing authority is so gun shy, the step becomes a major source of delay and debate.

3. Preparing the exit compensation strategy: Another major point of contention between those who want to punish, and those who want to move on. There’ll be a big check in either scenario. Count on it.

4. Constructing the nondisclosure i.e. protecting the guilty, the incompetent, the conspirators, and the complacent): Why this is so important remains a mystery to most,but nevertheless takes up significant discussion time.

5. Testing the waters: Someone has to start the, “you need to exit” conversation. It’s usually a couple, sometimes three people, for what will be an 8 minutes or less conversation.

6. Redoing your plans following first contact: Despite some shock and awe, this is when the real uncertainty, sometimes paralysis, sets in. This is classic strategic planning.

The reality is that after the first shot is fired, a whole new strategy will likely be needed to respond to the CEO’s reactions.

7a. Keeping those in the know from premature public disclosure: Like most urgent or crisis like situations, it’s never the media, the government, your toughest competitor, or even an angry employee that messes up your plans and spills the beans. Premature disclosure is all too frequently done by a board member who has a different perspective, an overconfident CEO, a well-meaning friend, or a relative.

7b. Destiny Management: Managing the story from the inside out: If ever there was a time to enforce the systematic and rigorous cascading communication strategy based on engagement, this is the time. Start at the top with leadership, and then migrate further south to the next level of leadership, then further south to the first line supervisors with probably a total of four messages, each message being between 75-100 words. These mini-scripts then make up whatever you say outside, regarding of the questions the organization is being asked. Adverse news accounts, web accounts, and social media accounts are collected, corrected, clarified or commented on, with great promptness on your organization’s web site. It’s your destiny. If you fail to manage it, someone else is waiting in the wings to do it for you.

8. Preparing for leaks, hiccups, unintended consequences, and stupid mistakes. These stumbles, fumbles, bumbles and mumbles are caused, to be charitable, by the need to be perfectly ready. The problem is, once this process is underway there is no stopping it, and there’s only one way to avoid the stumbles, get it done fast, even faster than fast.

Hiring people is always a dicey business. Firing people, upon reflection, is always done with a dull meat ax. Avoid prolong the process. Do it quickly – now – and fix far fewer mistakes later.

9. Waging peace, finally, rather than war: If the target of the disposal effort pushes back, typical business school strategy says taking things off the table, punish them, teach them a lesson, “Don’t be a sissy when you’re doing this.” After a while, somebody really smart recognizes that the most powerful word to achieving your dismissal objective is, “yes,” rather than no. Leave the important stuff on the table, if you really want them to leave.

10. Writing the check that zips their lips… and covers your bad judgment. Frankly, I’ve never understood the reason for nondisclosure agreements. The usual legal rationale is the prevention of copyrights, release of proprietary or competitive information.

However, since most organizations have only one CEO at the time, the likelihood of copycats seems small. The more likely reason is the prevention of somebody’s personal embarrassment among business buddies and yet another bad headline. I always remind my clients that the check they write today will likely be the smallest check they will ever write in this matter, so let’s get to it. It turns out that, as in most crisis scenarios, speed beats smart every time.

James E. Lukaszewski is the President of The Lukaszewski Group Division of Risdall Public Relations, based in the Twin Cities. His practice includes crisis preemption and management, leadership and organizational recovery.

This article also ran in CommPro.Biz on July 29, 2012.

Video spending online about to double

I attended a seminar by emarketer predicting that video spending for online advertising/visibility is expected to double in the next two years (even faster growth for mobile video). We already know that video is the most powerful way to tell your story and build brand experiences online. Very soon it will be necessary just to compete for attention.

Facebook Timeline Changes

Facebook now requires business pages to follow the Timeline format and automatically switched it for you over the weekend. If it caught you by surprise, here are some of the major changes:
• Cover and profile photos: the cover photo will be the large photo across the top of your Timeline page, whereas the profile photo is the smaller photo that will appear on wall posts/comments (like they have in the past); Cover photo: 851 by 315 pixels, Profile photo: 180 by 180 pixels
• The new “About” section format: now in the front/center of the page, right under the profile photo – all information remains the same, just a location change
• Milestones: companies are able to add milestones to the Timeline that can easily translate your brand’s history
• Tabs: the tabs on the left side of a company business page will now be moved to the top right and called ‘apps’ – and Timeline only allows 12 total apps
• Here are two examples of brands that have switched from the page to Timeline format:
o https://www.facebook.com/subway
o https://www.facebook.com/ford

Bravo Delta

I am 1,000,000 mile flyer on Delta Airlines and soon will be one on United once they complete their mergers. But last night, December 7, 2011, I saw something happen in an airport that is absolutely new and amazing.

It was a typical flying day,New Yorkwas all messed up, lots of cancellations and holds, and I, of course, had to be there that evening. I arrived at the airport 90 minutes early, made it through security, got to the gate and my cell phone rang. It was a happy androgynous voice from Delta Airlines telling me my flight would be delayed about two hours, no further explanations. That was my last contact with the Delta androgyny.

Two Delta reps showed up to stand at the boarding counter and provided absolutely no information whatever. The guy in the red coat, probably a supervisor, had an accent so dense, combined with practically swallowing the microphone, that no one could understand what he said even if you three feet away at the counter.  He looked out the window with his back to customers and continued speaking. The woman gate agent was so nervous, due to growing customer agitation, that half the time she spoke, her voice dropped off even though her lips were moving.

Despite the delay the crowd seemed really quite docile, but concern was growing. Then Delta dropped the hammer. LaGuardia had called a ground stop, which tossed out every airplane’s schedule with absolutely no indication of when things might begin again. Now a buzz was really beginning. That’s when the miracle occurred.

The captain of the flight came off the plane up the ramp and came to the rostrum. He took the mic and calmly, adding a couple small jokes, explained what was happening. I have not seen this happen in 35 years of flying. Everyone quieted down, and many gathered around the rostrum to listen more carefully.  In a couple minutes he explained the situation, told us that the ground stop was a very serious indication, but he was determined to get the plane and all of us out of there if it was at all possible.

Calmness reigned. But, the miracle continued. The Captain stayed in the boarding area visiting with customers, holding a couple babies for pictures, and even walked one or two older customers down to the Delta customer service desk. We were now more than two hours late.

After about 30 minutes the Captain, still in the gate area, got a phone call on his cell, went to the rostrum and told everyone his plan. It took 20 minutes to board the airplane; we sat on the tarmac for another 20 minutes or so and finally took off fromNew York. The flight was smooth but the weather inNew Yorkwas really bad. It took two nerve-racking tries to land the plane.

I told the captain as the passengers debarked, that his performance inMinneapoliswas amazing and enormously appreciated. Yeah, the landing was tough and scary, but this day this man earned his pay on both ends of the flight.

They didn’t give his name, but it was daily Delta flight 2296,Minneapolisto LaGuardia, 5:14 PM (theoretically). I told the pilot I hoped somebody would remember how he handled this flight, the crucial role the captain played in calming concerned passengers, and that maybe this ought to be taught in Captain’s school. It was pure, powerful leadership in action.

Bravo Delta Airlines.

Occupy America: It’s Radical But It’s Necessary

Am I the only one who has noticed that it takes catastrophe to force democracy forward: Black Friday;Pearl Harbor; 9/11; Hurricane Katrina; October 15, 2008? The incompetence, ignorance, and political paralysis of government, combined with the implacable gall of America’s Greed Team—real estate, banking, Wall Street, insurance, and the commercial credit industry—has created a fragile but powerful epiphanal moment when real change inAmerica’s economic structure and destiny is possible. And there are people in the streets ready to take some action with some direction. Here’s the plan:

We have a brief chance to recalibrate and reset crucial economic processes that will help us deter, detect, and prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

How will we capture this moment? I believe that what will catalyze the opportunity for change is America’s growing revulsion toward Wall Street and the major economic and financial engines upon which we have relied for the last couple hundred years. Since an outbreak of business and leadership integrity is highly unlikely, and President Obama’s amorphous and nebulous quest for “change we can believe in” has failed completely. Americans now realize that those in charge of our economic institutions (even the new ones) are the same folks who brought us this catastrophic mess in the first place, and they are simply incapable of getting us out. We need a new strategy, a new roadmap, that demands changes and radically departs from the failed old formulas and arrogant, greedy perpetrators of yesterday, led by Senator Mitch McConnell.

Let me make some simple, sensible, constructive, and positive recommendations for change that can be implemented quickly and could force a cataclysmic shift in how theUnited Statesdoes business while allowing Americans to have much more confidence in and control over who the titans are and how they operate.

Read more »

Cyber Criminals Outsourcing Money-Collecting to Mobile Operators

From Gail Reese, Security Intelligence Analyst at Cox Enterprises through ASIS International:

Cybercrime has come a long way since it was mostly a digital form of vandalism. It has developed into a criminal business operated for financial gain and is now worth billions.

In its Community Powered Threat Report for Q3 2011, AVG focuses on some of the most notable cybercrime developments in the last quarter.

Stealing Digital Currency
Digital Currency has become very popular in a short time. Facebook Credits, Xbox Points, Zynga coins and Bitcoin now play a vital role in a multibillion dollar global gaming economy. Far from being just of virtual value, many of these currencies are actively traded for real currency. This has not gone unnoticed by cyber criminals, now aiming to steal digital wallets from people’s computers. In June a digital wallet containing close to US $500,000 was stolen when someone broke into the victim’s computer and transferred most, but not all, of the money out of his wallet.

Outsourcing the Hard Part, Collecting the Money
In a bid to outsource the hassle and risks of collecting the money, cyber criminals are moving beyond credit cards details and are increasingly using mobile phone operators to do the collecting for them. A criminal might install a Trojan on to a victim’s Smartphone that sends premium SMS messages when the owner is asleep. They might use a Face book scam to get hold of people’s phone numbers and sign them up for an expensive monthly phone charge. A victim’s mobile operator will process the charges and transfer the money to the criminal organization, even if they reside on the other side of the world. If and when a victim notices the charge and the mobile operator is alerted to stop processing payments, considerable amounts may already have been stolen. If the amounts are small enough, many victims may not even notice for months.

Eavesdropping on Android
With Android taking almost 50 percent of the world’s Smartphone market share, it is no wonder that cyber criminals consider the platform an attractive target. Most Android malware focuses on making money from premium SMS. However, in July AVG investigated a Trojan that records a victim’s phone conversation and SMS messages and sends them to the attacker’s servers for analysis to identify potential confidential data. This clearly demonstrates the power of modern mobile operating systems but also the tremendous risks unprotected mobile users are open to.

Other key findings in the report:
• Rogue AV Scanner is currently the most active threat on the web
• Exploit Toolkits account for over 30% of all threat activity on malicious websites (‘Fragus’ is most popular, closely followed by ‘Blackhole’)
• Angry Birds Rio Unlocker is the most popular malicious Android application
• The USA is still the largest source of spam, followed by India and Brazil.
“In Q3 we started to see a clear trend in cybercriminals shifting their focus to simplifying money collection,” said Yuval Ben-Itzhak, Chief Technology Officer, AVG Technologies. “Well-organized criminal gangs are now letting mobile phone operators handle the money collecting part by focusing on mobile phones and setting victims up for charges that will appear on their phone bill some time later. Not only is it a lot easier, it also scales to tremendous volumes making money by stealing small amounts from very large groups of victims.”

A recent report authored by the research agency The Future Laboratory reveals that while cybercriminals and malicious programs are becoming increasingly sophisticated and difficult to detect, users are, alarmingly, becoming the weakest link as they are less vigilant about protecting their online devices. The combination of these two factors presents a potentially disastrous cybercrime scenario.

For more details about each of these threats, download the AVG report.