A Case for Kasky
By Ron McCall
Nike v. Kasky, now in the U.S. Supreme Court, could determine
whether or not public statements made by corporate executives,
when acting as company representatives, are subject to the
same rules that regulate the advertising business. As Allan
Jenkins indicated in his article in the April/May issue of
Communication World, the outcome of the case will have
a profound affect on business communications.
And it could be positive.
What if?
If Nike wins, will a victory for the shoemaker decide once
and for all the boundaries that separate free speech from
commercial speech? Most doubt it, because commercial speech
and how corporations engage in it is far too complex for this
case alone to resolve the issue. Other suits will surely follow.
What if Kasky wins? And they might, given the murky definition
of commercial speech and the mood of the country toward corporate
executives these days. But an opinion for Kasky will not result
in a nuclear winter for the communications business as some
friends of Nike have pictured it. Quite the opposite perhaps.
A ruling for Kasky could actually have a positive affect in
three critical areas of our business: Topic, Content, and
Audience.
"First, a word or two about who we are"
A ruling for Kasky could raise the bar on the topics CEOs
talk about. There are some 800,000 seminars and conferences
held in the United States and Canada every year according
to Meeting Professionals International. None of them want
to hear an executive deliver a commercial. But invariably
they do.
· At the Economic Club of Detroit recently, the CEO
of a large telecommunications company mentioned his company's
name no less than twelve times and referred to it another
seventeen, all within the space of twenty minutes.
· An executive of a major U.S.-based chemicals company
gave a speech in Europe recently and evoked the name of his
company no less than 27 times.
· Not long ago, a senior executive of a German automaker
called attention to his company at least thirteen times by
name and referred to it another 32 in a speech at a world
auto conference.
· And recently, at the Economic Club of Chicago, the
CEO of a major U.S. airline mentioned his company's name a
sparse ten times by comparison, but said "I believe,"
which is a clear indication of free speech, only once, and
that too was in reference to his company.
A ruling for Kasky could change a lot of this commercialism
by moving senior executives away from talking about their
companies, where there is limited value and diminishing protection,
and move them toward thought leadership, where their opinions
about global issues are highly valued and protected as free
speech.
Positioning our executives to engage in high-value dialog
and preparing them to take on issues that transcend their
individual companies will, without question, enhance our value
as communicators.
A ruling for Kasky might just be the external force that
moves corporate executives to a higher calling, and with them,
us too.
Time to Tighten Up
Secondly, a ruling for Kasky will hold the content we provide
our executives to a higher legal standard than it is today.
But unfortunately, the basics of solid research and primary
documentation have become all but lost arts in business communications.
We Are SO Big
Alleged false claims landed Nike in court. Could you be next?
· A large express delivery company claims on its website
to connect a global marketplace that spans 211 countries.
Wow! That's big. Especially since there are only 192 countries
in the world, according the U.S. Department of State.
· An executive of one U.S.-based company claimed in
a speech recently that his company "is the world's largest
chemicals company." Well, maybe so, if you don't count
BASF, the German-based chemicals giant, which actually is
the world's largest.
· A company based in Europe claims in its press releases
to be "the world leader in mobile communications."
Could be, if not for Vodafone. Or NTT DoCoMo.
And how about those testimonials?
"Give me some customer examples"
Executives love to use customer examples. Thinking about
creating one? Think again. How about that local citizen who
is an outstanding example of your company's good works in
the community? Got their address? All too often customer testimonials
and glowing examples of community outreach are just too good
to be true. A ruling for Kasky could make these false claims
very costly.
Just the facts, please
While we are all well aware of journalistic standards, they
are often ignored, which erodes our credibility and that of
our executives. A ruling for Kasky would bring about a much-needed
correction in this fundamental area because it would force
us to substantiate the content of our messages. And with integrity
and credibility of content comes trust, an attribute our corporate
executives could sorely use.
"Is this microphone on?"
And thirdly, as most of us know, the vast majority of the
general public isn't listening to what corporate executives
have to say these days. Why? They've heard enough. Executives
are simply overexposed and underprepared.
A ruling for Kasky could actually save corporate executives
from overexposure by drawing them in and giving the mantra,
"less is more," real meaning. And in the interim,
corporations will have an opportunity to improve the professionalism
of their communications operations so that when their executives
do begin to address the public again, they will find an audience
more willing to listen … if they address a high-level
issue and approach it with solid content.
Without an audience, there is no need for communications
support. But an audience that listens is extremely valuable.
As painful as it might be in the short-term, a ruling for
Kasky could provide this extra value.
Ron McCall is president of Executive Communications, located
in Kingsport, Tennessee. He can be reached for comment:
By telephone at 423.288.2929 EST
By e-mail at rjmccall@executivecom.com
By website at www.executivecom.com
|
