Posts Tagged ‘Brian Schaffer’

SEC & Social Media

Let’s not get too excited just yet over the SEC’s decision to allow public companies to utilize social media as a primary source for disclosure, provided they disclose to investors which platforms they intend to employ.

While I join many others and readily agree that social media will become an increasingly important and prominent part of disclosure, the SEC’s half response to a slew of recent high-profile social media disclosure test cases, e.g. Netflix, is actually a step back for Reg FD.

Remember, Reg FD was created to provide a level playing field so that all investors, ranging from small retail to large institutions (and everyone in between) would be provided information simultaneously and through a platform that was readily accessible to all.

My concern for the SEC’s announcement yesterday resides with what constitutes accessible platforms. When Reg FD first came about, the approved disclosure platforms were fairly obvious: press releases, national newspapers, broadcast television, radio, etc., and the burgeoning Internet, which over time has increasingly been given prominence, especially in 2008 when corporate websites were deemed to constitute disclosure.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

This has been a big year for Apple. Of course, every year for the past five years has been relatively big for Apple, but hey—we finally have the iPhone 5! And iOS6! And a fantastic new maps app!. . . Wait, what's that? Hold on, there was drama surrounding the app because it didn't have the normal coat of polish that most Apple products have? And both Google Maps and Youtube apps are no where to be found in iOS6? Oh my, I feel weak, I need to take a breather.

Apple recently released the  iPhone 5 along with iOS6. With these releases, they've introduced their own maps and navigation app to questionable fanfare. Should Apple be concerned about the more-than-usual bad press?

Okay, I'm good now. I just needed to cuddle with my functionally sound Samsung Galaxy S3. Amazingly, it was able to tell me how to navigate from freak out mode to sanity once again. How do the following amazingly intelligent individuals feel about Apple's current drama?

"They should be concerned for a few reasons, but not the obvious one some people may raise: will the maps issue have any impact on sales of the iPhone 5? I think everyone agrees that the five million devices sold over the first weekend – after it had been well-documented that the maps app was an issue – makes that a moot point. And let’s also differentiate between the maps and navigation. While of course the navigation relies on the accuracy of the maps, the turn-by-turn voice navigation and easy-to-read street signs are clearly an upgrade from Google. But yes, the accuracy is an issue and currently Google by far has the better overall maps app.

Further exacerbating this situation is the attention they covet and force upon themselves. You can’t hold press conferences and make a spectacle of a phone launch and then not expect the media and consumers to exploit issues when they develop. They set themselves up for this extra scrutiny in comparison to a more subtle launch; although, they were not going to hide this flaw and hope they could work out the issues by themselves before anyone found out.

What they do need to be concerned about is the loss of their total control and dominance over consumers. No longer will people follow them blindly and assume everything works perfectly, nor defend them as vigorously when issues arise. They will be like every other company that has to prove itself, even to its most loyal customers. Tech reviewers will spend more time trying to exploit glitches and imperfections. Apple can regain control by launching the next device with no significant issues, known or unknown, and position maps as a one-off issue and not a slippage in engineering, marketing, quality control or communications.

What could they have done better this time around? Simple: better manage expectations. More specifically, they should have: 1) Let people know maps was still in beta mode, just as Siri remains on the iPhone 5 after her prior introduction, and that only a full product introduction will allow them to work out the known kinks with the help and support of dedicated Apple users; and 2) They should have continued to offer Google Maps until the next iPhone comes out, at which time their own maps app should be able to stand on its own. Enacting one – and certainly both – of these management-expectation scenarios would have bought them more time and allowed them to stay in front of the situation instead of appearing to be caught off guard.

I’m sure a few people were fired and some new policies for product introductions will be put into place so this isn’t repeated in the future. Now if they could just control Foxconn." ~Brian (@bschaffer)

More opinions after the jump > Read the rest of this entry »

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

I could not help but feel a sense of sympathy for Walmart’s communications team (IR, corporate comms, PR, internal comms) when reading this past Sunday’s front-cover New York Times story about the company’s bribery scandal (my colleague Jen highlighted the communication implications on Unboxed Thoughts yesterday). While I possess no inside knowledge beyond what the story outlined, I was repeatedly struck by what indicated to me an incident where top-level company officials thought they knew best and proceeded without counsel from a broader circle of advisors. As a communications practitioner, we have all been there. Company officials will often focus on only the legal consequences and not the impact on other constituents. The mindset is that legal trumps all, except when it’s only one facet of an issue like this one. In today’s world, communication is not a “siloed” discipline. Corporate governance is not the sole purview of legal. This responsibility now also falls to IR. But financial impact is no longer limited to IR and now trickles down to PR. My point is that communications is a chain; it’s all interwoven and as the old adage goes, you are only as strong as your weakest link. If you keep one constituency in the dark, you can bet that’s where the trouble will arise.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

I know we all have regulatory fatigue and the last thing we want is another rule. However, this is one we can all agree on. And by “we” I mean IR practitioners and Wall Street. My proposed rule seeks to officially end the practice of companies attempting to bury bad news late on a Friday, or worse, over the weekend. This tactic never works and never has. Companies that use this tactic only succeed in unnecessarily angering their core constituents. If the news is material enough that it warrants an 8-K, and you have flexibility as to when to make the filing, don’t get cute and do it after market on a Friday.

In today’s marketplace this practice is baffling, especially considering that almost all public companies provide instant email notifications of when SEC filings are made. It’s comparable to a burglar calling the police to tell them he is robbing a house at 4:00 a.m. Why do companies continue to think they can outsmart Wall Street by employing such tactics?

Read the rest of this entry »

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

I often write in this blog about the importance of knowing the nuances of corporate governance and disclosure requirements pertaining to IR, and by extension, PR. This has become even more important with the increasing number of regulatory requirements companies are forced to adhere to, ranging from Reg. FD to Sarbanes-Oxley to Dodd-Frank to each Exchange’s own listing requirements. Adding to this complexity is the incorporation of IR into broader communications programs, exposing those who are not familiar with regulatory requirements to a new environment, and vice versa.

This is a good thing, until it is not.

If you do not know these rules, not only will you be ineffective, but it can have a litany of disastrous consequences for your client, including a delayed or canceled IPO. I am not saying we all do not make mistakes -- even smart people make an occasional misstep. However, the care and sensitivity required around transactions (especially when dealing with Hart-Scott-Rodino), and in particular IPOs, is of the utmost importance.

Yet, we continue to see the same disclosure issues arise every quarter, with every type of transaction. It is irrelevant if the cause of a disclosure error is due to pressure from a client, or internal pressure to up-sell a client on a range of communications services an agency is not equipped to handle. What is relevant is a detailed understanding of what serves as the key tenets of our discipline: knowing disclosure requirements inside and out.

I offer three simple takeaways:

  1. If you do not know the disclosure requirements, learn them.
  2. If a client asks if you are well-versed in disclosure requirements before retaining your services, be honest about your limitations.
  3. If a client asks you to blatantly ignore the rules, reexamine if this is a relationship worth having, or will it eventually do more harm to your agency than it is worth.

In a highly regulated industry, ignorance is no excuse. The penalties to the agency and the client can be very costly. CJP

Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
No Comments » Written on September 2nd, 2011 by
Categories: Investor Relations
Tags: ,