Posts Tagged ‘America’

We Can Do It!

I recently read a blog post on DailyWorth that caught my eye and I could not resist sharing it.  It discussed the fact that in many industries Ambition is still “a four-letter word” for women. It truly surprised me that people still think this way in 2013.

“I think women should be just as ambitious as men, and be proud of it,” fashion designer Tory Burch, recently told Stanford business school.

Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook COO whose new book, “Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead,” is coming out next month, is fond of citing research showing that 36% of women identify themselves as ambitious in the U.S., a far lower percentage than India, Brazil and China. What about the other two-thirds of the women from that survey?  Why would they answer “no” to being ambitious? What messages are women in these other countries receiving that American women are not?

Read the rest of this entry »

Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

The Week Unpeeled

The US jobs report was mostly positive with non-farm payroll adding a stronger-than-expected 163,000 jobs while the unemployment rate edged up to 8.3 percent in July from 8.2 percent in June. The news sent US stocks soaring, with the Dow ending up 0.16 percent for the week to 13,096, a three-month high.  As many analysts commented from the rally positive economic data trumps Euro news, at least for least week.

Elsewhere:

  • Knight Capital continued to dig itself out from severe trading glitches last week that cost the brokerage firm $440 million and perhaps its financial independence as it searched for capital;
  • Hotmail is out as Microsoft is replacing the once-popular email service with guess what? Outlook.
  • Jonah Lehrer, a staff writer at notoriously fact-finding accurate The New Yorker, admitted to making up Bob Dylan quotes in his bestselling book on creativity. Beyond ironic.
  • Gore Vidal, the American “man of letters,” died (and oddly, The New York Times did not reference its one-page obit on its front page;
  • The NASA rover Curiosity was scheduled to land on Mars by Monday;
  • Olympic fever took over as the London 2012 games got underway. Top headlines:
    • As public anger grew at the number of empty seats at events The London Olympic Organizing Committee had to draft in solders, teachers and students to fill spaces, tickets still remain largely unavailable to book through the official site;
    • China became embroiled in the first doping controversy of the Olympics after American John Leonard, executive director of the World Swimming Coaches Association, said swimmer Ye Shiwen's gold medal performance in the 400m individual medley was “unbelievable” and “disturbing”;
    • American swimmer Michael Phelps officially became the most decorated Olympian in history after winning his 22h  Olympic medal at the 2012 London Games and went to win at least one more by press time;
    • Eight players from China, Indonesia and South Korea were disqualified from the women's doubles badminton tournament having been accused of trying to lose their group matches to face easier opposition in the next round; and
    • The streets of London were left deserted with as many as 1.5 million people working from home and people staying away from London resulting in a fall in sales for many of the Capital’s retailers. End of Story
Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

Jordyn Wieber at the Summer Olympics 2012

We’ve all seen the many shots of Jordyn Wieber bursting into tears when she heard that teammates Gabrielle Douglas and Aly Raisman would be moving on to the all-around gymnastics finals at the 2012 London Olympics without her. A New York Times editorial by Frank Bruni likened the media sensationalism to “the Real Housewives of the Uneven Parallel Bars” and called the coverage “melodramatic, voyeuristic and borderline sadistic.” I think Mr. Bruni is being a bit melodramatic himself, but he does have a point. Representing America is a lot of pressure to put on teenagers, especially when they've been gearing up for those few minutes of qualification time virtually their entire lives.

A heartbreaking loss is something that all athletes deal with at some point, but that doesn’t mean the gracious loser communications playbook comes easily. Wasn’t that how any 17-year old whose dreams have just been crushed would react? I’ve seen teenagers react more emotionally to getting a B- on a science test. And they didn’t immediately have to deal with the press pit that Jordyn did.

And even when Jordyn pushed past the media, trying to pull herself together, they caught up with her pressing for an interview. I was so impressed by how she pulled herself together and hit all the right talking points, despite her clear emotional distress. It takes a real presence of mind to remember to be appreciative of the opportunity, happy for teammates, and excited for what comes next, all while fighting back tears.

Jordyn’s statement to NBC was: "It's a little bit of a disappointment. It's always been a dream of mine to compete in the all-around at the Olympics and shoot for that gold medal. I'm really proud of Aly and Gabby both and I'm happy that they both made it to the all-around and I'm glad that I'll be able to help the team out in team finals."

While these messages may have been slipped to her in advance by a team of communications professionals, we all know how critical delivery is. She hit all the right points and didn’t stray out of bounds. She should get a PR medal for handling this devastating situation so well. And who knows, maybe those tears - not to mention the gold medal performance she turned in yesterday in the team finals - will turn into endorsements down the road. America loves a good story. End of Story

Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

Google's Response to SOPA and PIPAWelcome to today's hot topics: SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Is anyone REALLY for it? Sure, I can defend aspects of it. I'm sure anyone can. Shouldn't a company who produces music be allowed to regulate how it's used online? Of course... but how much is too much regulation, and when does big brother get too much of a watchful eye? Frankly, the very concept of corporations being able to control what I think and say online thoroughly irritates me, and cynically I know that some disgruntled punk somewhere will make it his life's prerogative to make sure I never quote their lyrics and reference their music. Ugh, I could editorialize, but I'd just be ranting, so yeah, let's move on to the REAL main event here:

Wikipedia and other websites pulled their virtual plugs on Wednesday, January 18th in protest of SOPA and PIPA. Will their collective voices be heard, or are SOPA and PIPA necessary legislations?

Are you still unclear about what SOPA and PIPA are and how they work? Check out our previous educational post on the subject.

Ready, set and read!

"Although I certainly see the danger in piracy online, the web has always been free from over regulation (quite honestly, it’s probably the main reason why it’s grown at all).  As it relates to SOPA and PIPA, I definitely don’t support any of these provisions as they currently exist—they encourage online censorship, create cyber security risks, and possibly allow for the destruction of start-ups by big corporations/organizations.

If things like this get passed, say goodbye to Internet publishing (as it is now), and say hello to tons of allegations of 'infringed content,' a lack of due process and blacklists.

If you haven’t gathered, I’m glad to see that this is causing a commotion online. It should. And hopefully it won’t be the last protest." ~Bea (beabroderick)

Read the rest of this entry »

Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

School House Rock BillTo what extent does a name account for the success of a product launch? In the communications field, we often devote a significant amount of time to thinking up the perfect name for something, recognizing that the name can be the most impactful part of a campaign. It’s the headline, the slogan, the part that stays with you when you can’t remember the substance anymore. In politics, the products are the candidates, the campaigns, the logos, the ideas and ultimately, the legislation encompassing those ideas. Largely due to the rise of social and new media, political branding efforts are becoming more visible and more important.

On September 8, President Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress (and anyone who wasn’t watching reruns on Bravo). He announced his vision for the American Jobs Act of 2011, which will, among many other things detailed on whitehouse.gov: help small businesses grow; put Americans back to work; rebuild and modernize American infrastructure; support the hiring of veterans and prevent teachers, firefighters and policemen from losing their jobs. He calls it the American Jobs Act of 2011. But instead of thinking about how ambitious, timely, opportunistic, idealistic, costly, brilliant or whatever-adjective-you-like this bill is, I keep thinking, is that really the best name they could think of? Where is the political spin we’re all so used to? Where is the name that gives rise to an emotion that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the bill itself?

Read the rest of this entry »

Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon