Since hanging out my solo shingle in 1993, my PR practice’s motto has been “Building Better Relationships Through Effective Communication.”  I’ve just completed an accidental graduate course in the principles of effective communication.

Earlier this month, Randy and I celebrated my nursing-home-bound mother’s 91st birthday by hosting a family reunion in our home.  The event included my mother’s remaining sisters. 

One is an 89 year-old nun, who, like my mother, has advanced Alzheimer’s disease.  The other is their “baby” sister from San Diego, a recently widowed, robust, 83 year-old who loves port, Shiraz and from-the-bottom-of-your-soul laughter. 

She was accompanied by her two daughters, one a third-grade teacher, the other with talents that include animal communication.  We were joined by two of my cousins from Texas, one whose new career as a country singer is blossoming, the other reveling in her retired life as a grandmother, including the newest grandbaby, two months old, attached to her mother, “the food source.”  For the “big” party, we were joined by three cousins from Lancaster, plus my niece, her husband and their new baby.  In other words: it was quite a crowd, ranging in age from two months to 91 years.

Through five jam-packed days of sharing meals, chores, photo albums, stories, elder-care, silly games and an ambulance trip to the local Emergency Department, we reconnected with one another in the most powerfully satisfying way.  As I reflect on why we all had such a memorable time, it’s clear that it was all about effective communication.  Here are some of the lessons I re-learned:

Embrace diversity.

Our crowd included people of every age, life experience, political affiliation and belief system.  Yet despite the many differences among us, we shared the recognition of something we have in common:  family.  We acted from that recognition by accommodating everyone’s special needs, learning about one another’s opinions and always assuming one another’s good will. Wouldn’t our public discourse be less coarse, our stress levels lower, our health better if we were to approach everyone with whom we communicate recognizing our common interests as part of the human family?  Wouldn’t our corporate communication be more effective if we genuinely accounted for the diversity of our audiences?

Include emotion.

We laughed, we cried and we talked about it.  When the extent of her sisters’ declines became apparent, my youngest aunt expressed her sadness and her gratitude that she was able to spend time with her sisters again.  We all wept when we watched my cousin’s video tribute to her recently deceased dad, my uncle.  We laughed so hard during our games that we cried until our sides hurt.  Imagine how engaged our organization’s employees would be if our employee communications found room for people’s hearts?  Just think how our corporations’ reputations would shine if their communication included the recognition that people are emotional beings?

Ask for help. 

When it became clear that I simply could not provide for my mother’s physical needs without robbing her of her dignity, I simply asked for help.  Doing so didn’t make me weaker; it magnified my power.  Every woman in our home rose to the occasion and lifted her up in a cloud of caring.  When she took a fall, we called 911 and asked for the help of professionals.  When we ran out of guest rooms, we asked our friends to open their home. Is it possible that our organizations would communicate more genuinely, more powerfully, more effectively if they were to ask for help in understanding what their customers, employees and communities really want from them?

Help. 

It was a great gift to us that our dear friends and neighbors opened their home to two of guests. But we weren’t the only ones to benefit.  Our friends told us they felt privileged that our relationship had grown so strong over the years that we would share our family with them so intimately. We, in turn, were inspired by their perspective.   Helping can be a mutually empowering activity when it’s given and taken without guile.  Take note, corporate philanthropy departments.

Say thank you. 

We prepared for weeks.  We had guests for five days.  We made 12 meals.  We worked from 6:00 a.m. to past midnight every day.  We had one or two alcoholic beverages from time to time.  There were many moments when we wondered aloud where we were finding the “steam” to keep going.  But the fuel source was apparent:  it was the sheer joy going on all around us and the barrage of non-stop gratitude that we had created such an opportunity to be together.  Many people contribute to our organizations’ success.  Remember to thank them for it.

Play. 

We had a house full of grownups who were completely willing to throw themselves into play: games involving toilet plungers, pineapples and toilet paper, with goofy hats and silly prizes.  No one was worried about looking foolish; in fact, that was pretty much was the point!  Everyone left with their dignity intact, a happy heart and a boatload of memories.  “Play” and “corporation” are not mutually exclusive. It’s OK to play. 

Be open to new perspectives.

When it comes to faith versus proof, I’m a science kind of guy.  So I tend to shy away from arguments and experiences that don’t include data.  But when my cousin revealed her talent (and apparently, fame) as an “animal communicator,” I was struck by the appropriateness of the messages she delivered from our old dog, Buster, and our newest rescue, Zippy.  Days after the event, she sent us a lengthy e-mail with details of Zippy’s pre-rescue life that she had gleaned from a cross-continental “conversation.” She doesn’t know if this stuff is real or imagined.  I don’t either. But by being open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, my canines and my cousin are in communication, I am appreciating her in an entirely new way.  Could our organizations become more effective by opening up to different perspectives?  Just ask Zippy.

I’ve just finished a bargain-table paperback, The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid, the memoir of a fellow Baby Boomer, born in 1951 in a town very much like my Lancaster-PA hometown. Like me, the author’s mother made nearly every meal with Jello, breadcrumbs, Campbell's-cream-of-something soup and mayonnaise. He cherished his coonskin cap, spent 25 cents and long Saturdays watching serialized movies at a 1,600-seat, Egyptian-esque movie palace; and was trained at home and by "the good sisters" that any thought or deed other than blind obedience and social conformity would land you either in jail or hell, not necessarily in that order. Everyone was unfailingly polite or, as the author puts it, they would be “executed summarily.” As I read it, I found myself longing for those good old days, when aggrieved pitchers and chagrined umpires shaking hands on the mound would not have been front page news, political candidates questioned one another's ideas, not their haircuts and every once in a while we’d assume that maybe, just maybe, the other guy has good intentions.  Are you not weary, too, that our public discourse (gads, even that expression sounds quaint) has become so raw, so mean-spirited, so angry? I do not entertain the fantasy that this situation will change, sadly. It’s become systemic in our institutions and our media.  But I have been carrying out a small, guerilla action of my own that gives me ongoing hope for the human condition: engaging in random acts of conversation with strangers. The interactions are un-dramatic — I like your hat, you’ll love that book, your kid is adorable, I bought that peanut butter and loved it, let me help you with that. People respond with thanks, smiles and usually a little more conversation about the hat, the kid or their food choices. So much from the “mid-century” seems to be returning to fashion these days. My mother had advice that I hope will be among the vestiges of that era that will regain some purchase in our lives:  “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” I know it sounds simplistic. But I’m finding that it is still a surprisingly powerful prescription.

A few days after writing this blog, my Aunt Kitty send me this video about the Hugs Campaign.  Made me cry.

 

An ad hoc committee of the Public Relations Society of America is circulating a petition that would remove the requirement for PRSA’s leadership to hold the Society’s basic professional credential, Accreditation in Public Relations (APR). There’s a lively debate on the subject at http://prsay.prsa.org/index.php/2010/05/10/to-remove-or-not-to-remove-the-apr-requirement-for-board-service/comment-page-1/#comment-2958. This was my contribution:
 
Like Steve Lubetkin, I “never cease to be amazed” that this issue continues to arise; it seems a no-brainer to me that we should want and demand that the members of our leadership hold the credential that we say is a distinguishing mark of professionalism, dedication to a set of principles and standards. This argument "We do not in any way mean to detract from the importance or credibility of APR ... However, we recognize that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of capable, passionate, experienced, and intelligent members of PRSA who have dedicated themselves to this organization through active membership and volunteerism" is specious. Allowing people to serve in national leadership positions when they do not hold this fundamental credential, which requires a bachelor's degree or its equivalent life-experience, inherently denigrates the credential. We should thank and honor those hundreds if not thousands of members who faithfully serve our organization and provide them with the support and encouragement they require to obtain the credential, not lower the barriers to national leadership. I do not want anyone serving at the national leadership level of my organization who cannot stand toe-to-toe with a CEO and argue forcefully that this credential is important. I learned many years ago that a salesperson can’t possibly sell a product that he or she doesn’t use. Trying to do so is a form of communication called propaganda that has no place as a practice among our membership at any level.  

Platform Online Magazine  recently asked me to comment about an IKEA pubic relations campaign developed by one of my almas mater, Ketchum Public Relations, described by PR Week here: http://www.prweekus.com/best-use-of-online-media-2009/article/123792/, http://www.prweekus.com/corporate-branding-campaign-of-the-year-2009/article/123785/, as well as the campaign's site: http://www.marklivesinikea.com/. The campagn won a major national award and I'm not sure it should have.  Here's how I responded to the magazine's questions:

First of all, what is your favorite aspect of this campaign and why?
The videos produced by Malkoff’s team and the website environment they created were beautifully produced.

What do you think made this campaign stand out to the judges?
I think the judges were so enamored of the creative part of the campaign that they gave a pass to the fact that the goals of the campaign were not expressed as measurable objectives (at least as reported in the several media reports I reviewed) and that the results reported were not tied to the goals:  “Communicate its new brand message, increase brand awareness and traffic among potential customers: Web-savvy guys and girls, age 18 to 35, and IKEA loyalists, typically moms 23 to 37 years old.” I didn’t see evidence that these loosely stated goals were achieved by a small sales increase in one store, a small increase in website traffic or any number of YouTube views or media impressions. 

IKEA gave Mark total control of film production and the company didn't pre-screen any of his videos. Do you think this was a good decision, or was it a risky decision with a lucky outcome?
I think it was a considered choice, not a risky one.  I assume that IKEA and Ketchum did their homework on Malkoff’s approach and had solid evidence in his body of previous work that his style would work well with the brand’s own quirky, edgy advertising style. 
  
Why do you think this campaign was successful?
I’m not sure that it was successful.  It was certainly clever, inexpensive and probably a boatload of fun for the agency/client team.  But as a piece of marketing communication work, I don’t see the evidence that it produced what it set out to produce.

Had you heard about the campaign before it received this award?
I had not heard about the campaign even after it won the award.  I’m sure this is a function of my professional interests, reading and surfing habits and not a statement about the campaign.
  
The total budget for the campaign was $13,500;  according to fortune, IKEA North America had a total revenue of about $18,300,000 in 2005. Given that information, do you think the brand should have invested more in this campaign to broaden the reach?
No.  The cost of the campaign compared with the revenue of the company is irrelevant.  I believe that it would have been wise to invest in setting measurable objectives for the campaign and then measuring against those objectives to determine if the concept had a big enough payoff to roll-out into other markets.

What would you have added to the campaign or changed about it, if anything?
I think I’ve pretty well covered that.

Do you think Mark's videos and blog posts did a good job of communicating IKEA’s target messages (“IKEA has everything you need to live and make a home” and “Home is the most important place in the world")?
I viewed about a half-dozen of his videos and did not read any blog posts.  From what I saw, I think the first concept (“everything you need”) was well supported though not actually said; the second concept (“home is the most important place”) was actually undercut by the concept since Malkoff was not at home.  He pointedly left home to do this stunt.
  
After moving out of IKEA, Mark later spent an entire month living on AirTran planes.  If Mark's stay at IKEA had been extended beyond his one week, do you think the extra time would have helped the campaign in any way?
No.
  
Do you think this was the best way to reach the target audience (Web-savvy guys and girls, age 18 to 35, and IKEA loyalists, typically moms 23 to 37 years old)?
It certainly makes intuitive sense that focusing on web media such as YouTube would be likely to reach the first targeted demographic.  I just don’t know enough about the habits of mothers 23 – 37 to know or guess whether the campaign was likely to reach them.
  
Do you think the videos did a good job of subtly highlighting IKEA's product offerings?
Yes.  The way that IKEA displays its products in its stores is nothing short of genius merchandising.  So just showing it does the trick. I have had many pieces of IKEA furnishing over the years, I know that they’re generally made of inexpensive materials, are murderously difficult to assemble and not very durable.  Yet whenever I find myself in an IKEA store, I still marvel at the room and full apartment layouts.
  
Do you think other brands would have the same success with a similar type of campaign? Could a competing furniture store have implemented the same campaign as successfully?
Other brands, sure; another furniture store, I don’t think so.  I can’t think of a national furniture chain that employs the IKEA merchandise display concept; in my experience they tend to be organized by types of furniture, not in full room settings.  I don’t think the concept would work well in that environment. 
  
What do you think other brands/PR pros/aspiring PR pros should learn from this campaign (positive or negative)?
Don’t become so enamored of a clever concept that you fail to set measurable objectives that are tied to your business objectives.  When you set measurable objectives, measure against them and don’t try to pull the wool over your own or your clients’ eyes by pointing to “results” that have nothing to do with — or are not convincingly tied to — your objectives.  In the words of Ketchum’s original research guru, Dr. Walter K. Lindenmann, it’s outcomes not outputs that count.
 

For The Thunderbolt Kid and Random Acts of Conversation, click here.

I’ll never forget my first crisis-communication project.  I was about to meet for the first time with the executive team of a new client, which was in a business that handled all manner of toxic and deadly industrial substances. 

When I arrived with my business partner at the time, the CEO and his team were fuming.  They had just been told about a newspaper article that reported on the company’s spill of a chemical into a waterway in a town hundreds of miles from where we sat.  The CEO essentially demanded that we immediately “issue a press” calling the local reporter and his editor “yellow journalists.”  I asked simply, “Have you read the article?”  No one in the room had.  They were relying on the telephone report of an employee in the hinterlands who clearly had an agenda that involved covering a certain anatomical feature beginning with the letter “a.”  The article, when we read it, was fair, balanced and complete.

In scores of client crises encountered in more than 30 years, I have seen and almost always helped to avoid fundamental mistakes such as responding with invectives to newspaper articles that no one has read.  Here’s some of the common mistakes I’ve seen:

Responding to ego damage instead of real damage.  Too many crisis-communication situations are infected with the probably incurable disease I call Testosterone-itis.  Rather than responding to and managing the reality of a crisis, those driving the response too often are blinded by the damage done to their feelings.  For example, the executives of an insurance company that specialized in annuities was under attack by a rogue rating agency as “most likely to fail” because of its so-called “junk bond” holdings.  Though the executives wanted to send a letter to every annuitant reassuring them that the company was well managed, an overnight random sample of annuitants revealed that only a tiny percentage even knew the name of the company that had issued their annuities.  Imagine the firestorm that a letter to all of them would have ignited.

Greatly over-estimating the role that mass media play and under-estimating the role that opinion leaders play in creating or resolving the crisis situation.  This mistake was just as common in the pre-Internet days as it is today.  Yes, mass media (including social networks, Twitter and such) do play an important role during crisis situations.  But all crises start and grow with at least one victim and at least one other person pointing out the victimization.  Successful crisis-communication programs speak to them directly, not at arm’s length.  (For a series of charts describing how crises emerge and resolve, along with specific strategies and tactics to employ during each of the three major phases, visit my website. )

Taking actions that will extend the crisis, not resolve it.  (Think Toyota, the modern-day J&J and the Vatican.)  There’s a phase during every crisis during which it can almost always be resolved simply by fixing the problem that is causing a crisis to germinate.  It often requires a mea culpa along with the fix and a realistic set of steps to avoid a re-occurrence.  But too often, company executives listen to their attorneys and not to the overwhelming evidence that acknowledging and fixing problems does more to help a company’s reputation than any amount of foot-dragging, passively voiced non-apologies (“Mistakes were made …”) and finger pointing.  The corollary of this mistake: being guided by fear of lawsuits rather than doing the right thing.

Allowing dangerous gaps in the crisis infrastructure.  These gaps include lacking a plan, the tools necessary to implement it and to monitor its progress.  Gaping holes I’ve seen include lack of a well-coded and complete database of opinion leaders; having no regular methods for monitoring social media and having no alternative means of communicating with key constituent groups when one method can’t be used or isn’t appropriate. 

Planning a communication program is a science and an art.  Read more here.  

 
It’s long been my pet peeve that, when organizations behave egregiously, they are said to have “a public relations problem.” Yet when they behave in exemplary ways, their actions are “merely public relations.”  Thank god for the Catholic Church, which in recent weeks has demonstrated abundantly that “vile” behavior is simply that, not simply a failure to communicate.
 
To anyone who is following the Vatican’s blundered cover-up of systematic child rape within its clerical ranks (as Catholic author Andrew Sullivan characterizes the issue) and its tone-deaf response when caught with its collective cassock down, it’s clear that this 2,010 year-old institution has not caught up with modern crisis communication techniques, to say the most. You’d think that an institution that has institutionalized confession and forgiveness would have figured out by now that “mea culpa” is a lot more powerful than attacking the victims. 
 
Yet that is exactly how the Vatican has responded. At Easter mass in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope hugged the dean of the College of Cardinals, who broke all traditions and inserted a “welcome” into the mass in defense of the Pope, calling charges against him “petty gossip,” part of a “vile” smear campaign orchestrated by biased media intent on weakening the papacy’s moral authority. 
 
Many of my friends and colleagues know that I once spent a good deal of time and energy as a graduate seminar leader for Werner Erhard’s est training. (The work he began continues via today’s Landmark Education.) I remember being at an event that Erhard conducted at which someone asked why he had chosen to incorporate his organization as a for-profit rather than a not-for-profit entity. 
 
He replied that for-profit organizations have the benefit of direct and immediate feedback from the marketplace. If they’re doing something of value, they survive. If not, they don’t. Since he wanted to provide value, Erhard said he wanted evidence for that. Not-for-profit organizations, he said, tend to lose sight of their missions and turn their attention to survival of the organization. Without the feedback of the marketplace, they tend to survive by focusing on survival. As a fully recovered former Catholic, forgive me if I shout “Bingo!”
 
There is a PR person working in the Vatican, believe it or not; Father Federico Lombardi, an Italian Jesuit, is the Vatican spokesperson. In an interview with Time, he pointed to the “speed and vastness as well as the expectations for response” from media and that “we have been late in learning this within certain ecclesiastical quarters.” Though some news reports about the situation have had “problems,” he’s clear that “we shouldn’t see it as a conspiracy or part of some calculated attack.”
 
So why is Lombardi’s advice not being taken? He reports to the Vatican’s Secretary of State, the #2 man who is, as Time reports, “an exponent of the conspiracy-against-the-Pope perspective on the crisis.” No, indeed, the Vatican does not “have a PR problem.”

People in my business frequently receive solicitations to compete for new business by responding to requests for proposal (RFPs) that range in length from a few paragraphs to a few chapters.  One hundred percent of the time, the information provided is absolutely inadequate to propose anything — except that the author engage me or one of my colleagues to have another go at it. I’m betting that my physician, attorney, financial advisor and accountant haven’t received a single RFP this year — or ever for that matter.  But if they did and they were like those I see in my profession, the one my physician would receive would tell her the symptoms, the diagnosis, the course of treatment, the prognosis and conclude by asking “What would you do, by when and for how much?”  Oh, and we need it next week. 

The RFP circulating among my colleagues at the moment, for example, asks for a “comprehensive communication plan” that “should be as complete as possible, with the year broken down into phases — with price ranges attached to each segment.” But as background, it provides nothing more than two sample messages that only a tone-deaf CEO could love because, we are lectured, “consistent messaging is a central component of successful communication campaigns."

The intellectual property I have to sell in 15-minute chunks is as informed, specialized and valuable as any other professionals’. But few of them are ever asked to give away their core competencies in a bid to win new businesses.  Among my professional colleagues, the most valuable service we have to offer is precisely the service that RFPs would have us give away: the ability to understand a client’s situation, bring education, science and experience to bear in a rigorous, thoughtful planning process, which ultimately answers the what, by when and how much questions.  And quite a few others like “Where do we stand now?”, “How will we know if we’ve succeeded?” and “What haven’t we thought of?” 

It’s easy enough to ignore these ham-handed, amateurish RFPs.  And we do.  But what is of deep concern is the fact that these RFPs-to-ignore have been written by people who are responsible for protecting the reputations, being the social conscience, engaging the employees and selling the products of the organizations they represent.  And they clearly do not know what they are doing, not even by any standard that would apply to the rawest new graduate from any of the excellent university programs that train our new professionals. 

From time to time, the subject of licensure for Public Relations practitioners burbles up in our ranks. Despite that pesky First Amendment and its protection of free speech, the idea has made it to several state legislatures in the past decade or so.  In principal I heartily agree that there needs to be a reliable method for distinguishing the charlatans and amateurs from the professionals who are educated, experienced and have committed to a code of ethical behavior.  (I have spent a good deal of my professional career holding and promoting Accreditation in Public Relations, the most viable candidate.)

Perhaps on a state-by-state basis we’ll come up with a system similar to those that license real estate agents, beauticians and psychologists, in which professional organizations certify competence, the state endorses the certification and limits the use of certain terms — such as psychologist — to those who are certified. But I’m betting that the states have some other issues on their plates at the moment that may have higher priority.  So meanwhile, the RFPs I receive will continue to go into the recycle bin.  And there are no free samples forthcoming from me and many, many of my colleagues.
 

This is the text of a one-hour online chat I had today with McAfee's tech support.  It is, unfortuantely, self explanatory.  You'll see that at the end of this unhappy hour I was sent to "Tier 2 support."  There, the problem was solved after a "mere" 25 minutes.  And this is supposed to be state of the art.

> Thank you for contacting McAfee Consumer Support. How can I help you?

Customer: I have the McAffee security suite form Comcast and I need to reinstall it on a WIN7 64-bit OS.  Comcast has switched to Norton, which I hate, and I want to stick with McAfee.  Can you tell me if my current file will install properly and where to get a proper key?

Jeethu: Hi David, this is Jeetu from McAfee Technical Support and I would be assisting you today.

Customer: OK

Jeethu: As I understand you need to reinstall McAfee . Is that right ?

Customer: The file I have BTW is DM-Setup-Serial.exe

Customer: Yes

Jeethu: David, not to worry. I will try my level best to help you.

Jeethu: David, for verification purpose, may I have your home telephone number with area code first?

Customer: You MUST be in India! :)

Customer: 610.422.0048

Customer: 610.792.3329 sorry -- this is my HOME number

Jeethu: Yes, David. I am from India.

Jeethu: How do you currently connect to the Internet? (Dial-up, DSL, Cable, or Wireless)

Customer: I could tell because of your British-isms.

Customer: Cable

Jeethu: Thank you for all the information, David.

Jeethu: David, I am happy to assist you with this issue. In order to assist you better, I need to gather some basic technical information about your computer. I will send you a pop-up, please click on 'OK' to provide me the information.

Customer: OK

> representative Jeethu has requested system information from customer Customer.

> customer Customer has sent system information to representative Jeethu.

Jeethu: Thank you for providing system information, David.

Jeethu: David, we would like to offer you a free remote session in order to assist you better with the issue. May I go ahead and take a remote access to your system in order to resolve the issue?

Customer: You're welcome

Customer: Sure.  But I'm competent to download and install a file myself, if that's the plan.

Customer: RU still there?

Jeethu:  David, I just want to  check if any other software will block the installation.

Customer: OK.  Or tell me what you need and I'll get it for you.

Customer: Do you need me to go to a URL and enter a code to get started?

Jeethu:  David, have you removed norton from your computer ?

Customer: Yes.

Jeethu: I was unable to locate your account with the e-mail address you had provided. Is there an alternate E-mail address, with which you might have registered your McAfee account?

Customer: davidkirk@theprguy.com is the only one I use regularly.  Perhaps it is my Comcast address, davidkirk@comcast.net

Customer: Hello?

Jeethu:  David, now you may go to the website us.mcAfee.com and enter the Email Id  davidkirk@comcast.net and start installation.

Customer: OK.  Standby

Customer: What password should I use?

Jeethu: The password of this email Id davidkirk@comcast.net

Customer: I do not have a record of it.  Do you?

Jeethu: David , You may click forgot password under the login and you will get the password to your email.

Customer: OK.  I am waiting for that to arrive.

Customer: Still waiting.

Jeethu:  David, did you enter the email Id in the forgot password box?

Customer: ... and waiting

Customer: Yes

Customer: Can I simply download a trial version and receive the key from you?

Jeethu:  David, you already have a valid account with McAfee. It would be great if you install from your account.

Customer: Jeethu,  This call has now taken 25 minutes for what should be a an incredibly simple operation.  I need to get this done as I have client work to accomplish. Can't you figure out a faster way?

Customer: For example,, can I use the installation file I already have?

Customer: Will it work on a 65 bit machine?

Customer: Sorry 64 bit

Jeethu: This could have been done in an easier way if you would have remembered the password ,David. Please check for your password and try installing later. Is that fine with you?

Customer: No.  I have checked for my password and I do not have it.  Your system is not sending me a confirmation, although it has already sent me a notice of the service ticket that you and I are on right now.  I don't need your admonishment, I need your help.  So how do we get this done? 

Jeethu: David, we would like to offer you a free remote session in order to assist you better with the issue. May I go ahead and take a remote access to your system in order to resolve the issue?

Customer: Yes.

Jeethu: Now, you’ll be getting a prompt to give permission to access your computer, so in order to proceed with remote session in a faster way, please choose the option "Full Access to keyboard and Mouse".

> representative Jeethu asked to share the customer's screen.

> customer Customer accepted request to share screen.

Customer: OK.  What now?

Jeethu:  David,please check your junk email.

Customer: There.  Do you see it?

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Jeethu:  David, you will only receive the mail in this email id

davidkirk@comcast.net

Customer: ALL OF MY EMAIL IS FORWARED TO THIS ACCOUNT. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE I NEED TO GO FOR EMAIL.

Customer: IF WILL LOOK AT MY COMCAST ACCOUNT YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE NO EMAIL THERE AT ALL

Customer: Why did you set up this session?  Are you going to solve this problem or not?

Jeethu:  David,but you have registered the account  with the other email Id . This is why you are receiving in this mail Id

Customer: I understand that.  I am telling you that my mail for davidkirk@comcast.net is forwarded to my spamarrest account. 

Customer: What is so hard to understand here?

Customer: Are you going to install the software or continue to harass me?

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Customer: Look at the screen.  This is the McAfee installation file I have.  Can we use it?

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Customer: Hello?

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Jeethu:  David, do you remember the start date of the product?

Customer: I can get the date of the file I have.

Jeethu: Not that the date which you got the McAfee product through Comcast.

Customer: Looks like October 8, 2009

Customer: The info you see on the screen is all I have.

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Customer: C'mon Jeethu

Customer: Do you need to do anything with screen sharing?

Customer: Are you planning to take any actions?

Customer: Hello????

Jeethu: Please login the comcast site.

Customer: I'm logged in already

Customer: I've already been this route.  There is no place to download the latest McAfee file.

Jeethu: Can you just use the same password to login here which you used to login the Comcast site?

> Clipboard sent by Jeethu accepted by Customer.

Customer: I DID THAT ALREADY MANY TIMES AND I HAVE ONLY ONE MORE TRY BEFORE I AM LOCKED OUT!

Customer: DID YOU SEE THAT?

Jeethu:  David, to help you better I will now transfer the chat to our tier 2 team .

Jeethu: In case the session gets disconnected, we will try to contact you back. To ensure that we will be able to contact you, could you please provide me the following details.

1. The Telephone number at which you will be available:

2. Additional phone number, if any:

3. Primary & secondary e-mail addresses:

4. Convenient time for you to get a call back:

5. The time zone at your place:

Customer: Fine.  And I will transfer this entire conversation to my blog.

> Clipboard sent by Customer accepted by Jeethu.

Customer: 610.422.0048

Customer: 610.457.0010

Customer: davidkirk@theprguy.com

Customer: davidkirk@comcast.net

Customer: US business hours

Customer: Eastern US

Customer: Time: 1:01.:24.  Unbelievable

 

Corporate cultures are all very different and make all the difference in customers’ experience and loyalty. About 1.3 miles from our front door, a new mixed-use, “Town Center” has opened its first few stores. My partner and I are at the grocery store and the gym just about every day now. There couldn’t be a wider gap between their corporate cultures.

The grocery store, Wegman’s, is renowned for its fair treatment of its employees. They’re well paid, have excellent benefits and receive in-depth training in their specific specialties. The people behind the cheese counter, for example, all have been to multiple cheese-making regions and countries, at company expense, to learn the fineries of fromage. Tipping is not allowed in its pub. There’s a cadre of “Helping Hands” by the checkouts. I stopped by one morning to pick up sandwiches for a client meeting and discovered that the kitchen wouldn’t begin to make the ones I coveted until hours later. I explained my dilemma to a counter person, who brought out the executive chef. Not only did the chef drop everything and make those three sandwiches, she insisted on reviewing my “luncheon menu” to be sure I had a salt, a sweet and a fruit. Then she took the grapes I had selected for my "fruit course" into the kitchen, washed and towel-dried them.

This page is linked to the primary menu item Contact so that the color of the tab problem can be resolved until Rank installs the fix module