Ken Eudy, CEO
Bio
One of the founders of Capstrat, Ken lends strategic communications counsel for a variety of clients including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, the North Carolina Health and Wellness Trust Fund, ACS, RBC Centura and the University of North Carolina. He spent six years as a TV news correspondent for stations in Raleigh and Charlotte, and six years as chief political writer for The Charlotte Observer, North Carolina's largest newspaper. In 1987-1988, Ken was executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party. He was also senior vice president of public relations at FGI. Ken has been ranked among the 20 most influential lobbyists in North Carolina. In 2002, he was inducted into the North Carolina Public Relations Hall of Fame. For 10 years, Ken taught Writing for the Media as visiting lecturer at Duke University. He received his B.A. in journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He serves in numerous civic local and state civic roles.Articles
-
You know, it just doesn’t look good.
Mar 16, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 3 CommentsIf you keep up with the PR trade world, you may have noticed that the O’Dwyer organization did not include our agency, Capstrat, in its new annual rankings of PR firms. Jack O’Dwyer publishes newsletters, a magazine and maintains a Web site covering the public relations industry. Capstrat has been ranked among the top 25 U.S. firms for several years.
This year, Jack was very clear: if we wanted to be included in his rankings, we had to pay $3,000. The $3,000 could be used to buy subscriptions or advertising in his publications. But no money, no ranking.
I admire anyone who does what Jack has done for a long, long time – cover an industry objectively while seeking advertising revenues from those he covers. Journalistic integrity inevitably has cost Jack some advertising dollars through the years.
That’s why Jack’s ultimatum is disappointing. We don’t advertise Capstrat’s services very much in trade publications. Much of Jack’s readership is our competition. Why advertise to them?
Jack complained that we were willing to pay dues to the Council of Public Relations Firms (I’m a board member), but unwilling to support him by purchasing advertising or subscriptions. That comparison is nutty. CPRF is a professional organization. Jack is a publisher.
But if you want to go there, I’m not sure we’ve ever gotten a lead from a client who saw our agency in the O’Dwyer rankings. But we sure have gotten hired as a result of the Council of Public Relations Firms’ “Find a Firm” search engine.
A couple lifetimes ago, when I covered political campaigns for The Charlotte Observer, I would ask candidates questions about integrity or judgment. Oftentimes, the candidate would reply something like this: “I haven’t done anything illegal, immoral or unethical.”
My usual response: “Yeah, but you know, it just looks bad.”
Jack, your ultimatum just looks bad.
-
Loyalty and Lying
Mar 10, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 1 CommentsOur culture places a great value on loyalty. Families instill it. Marketers crave it. But loyalty - blind loyalty - has been shown to lead to lying. How many cases have we seen in the news recently of political aides lying to protect their bosses? One need look no further than Andrew Young, the aide to presidential candidate John Edwards, who agreed to admit paternity of a child out of wedlock that Edwards had fathered.Those of us who work for others, either directly or in a client relationship, must walk and chew gum at the same time. I love my clients. I am deeply loyal to them. But I shouldn't and wouldn't lie for them.
Tags: andrew-young loyalty -
What worries you more – runaway business or runaway government?
Feb 3, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 3 CommentsA person could be forgiven for head-scratching after reading the results of a survey by Gallup in late January. When asked, "What worries you more, too much regulation of business by government or not enough regulation of business by government?," 57% said too much regulation and 37% said not enough.What's going on here? All the recent polls show trust in corporations at or near historic lows. According to Gallup's survey about six months ago, only 22% expressed trust in banks and only 16% said they trusted big business.
Okay. So it's fairly safe to say that Americans are skeptical that businesses have their best interests at heart. But here's where the Obama Administration and Congress may be going off track: citizens don't believe that the answer is in regulating and legislating businesses into doing the right thing.
And by the way, according to Gallup, there is a dramatic split in how Republicans and Democrats view this. More than 8 in 10 Republicans are against more government regulation, compared to about one in three Democrats who are against more regulation.
The takeaway for businesses? Do more to show your commitment to your customers. Don't misread that. The takeaway is not to SELL more to customers. It's to do more to show your commitment to your customers. Better service. Better explanations of your policies. When something goes wrong, do your level best to fix it. Be in touch, even when you're not trying to get more business.
It's all about being a step ahead of the needs and desires of customers.
Do we need more regulation of banks? You bet. That system rewards risky behavior - at the expense of Main Street investors. But being a step ahead of your customers will be viewed far more favorably by most Americans than more government regulation.
-
The political hit -- a high-risk-low-reward strategy
Jan 29, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 1 CommentsThe far Left is wailing and gnashing teeth over the Supreme Court's mystifying decision equating a corporation's political free speech rights to an individual's. My friends on the Left are gnawing their fingernails over the prospect of corporations spending millions to defeat an elected official who dares to cross the corporation.
They fret that after one or two politicians are picked off by the vengeful corporation, others will fold like a cheap suit, toward the will of rapacious corporate interests.
Not so fast.
If the Supremes had issued this goofball ruling in 1975, that might have been the case. Back then, we had three networks, along with three strong local stations affiliates, and we had a local newspaper. Their advertising rates were so expensive only corporations could afford these primary ways of communicating with voters.
But today, the Internet has vaporized that barrier to the entrance of the town square. Look no farther than Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's fine book, "The Audacity to Win." In writing about the campaign's communication strategy, Plouffe rarely mentions TV advertising without also underscoring the importance of YouTube and social media to Obama's success.
Anybody with a broadband connection and something to say can generate an equal and opposite reaction to corporate expenditures attempting to take down an errant officeholder.
But more important, it's unlikely that we'll see corporations spending millions of dollars to oust offending politicians simply because the risks far outweigh the rewards. Sure, millions in TV advertising by a company could result in some feckless politician losing an election.
But let's remember – corporations never win popularity contests with voters. After the bank bailout, executive compensation and million-dollar bonuses on Wall Street, corporate America is more unpopular than ever. Let's face it -- many corporations are remarkably ham-fisted when it comes to the intersection of business and politics.
In some respects, being attacked by a corporation could be the best thing that could happen to a candidate.
-
Corporations, Citizens Equal At Election Time
Jan 28, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 2 CommentsThe far Left is wailing and gnashing teeth over the Supreme Court's mystifying decision equating a corporation's political free speech rights to an individual's. My friends on the Left are gnawing their fingernails over the prospect of corporations spending millions to defeat an elected official who dares to cross the corporation.They fret that after one or two politicians are picked off by the vengeful corporation, others will fold like a cheap suit, toward the will of rapacious corporate interests.
Not so fast.
If the Supremes had issued this goofball ruling in 1975, that might have been the case. Back then, we had three networks, along with three strong local stations affiliates, and we had a local newspaper. Their advertising rates were so expensive only corporations could afford these primary ways of communicating with voters.
But today, the Internet has vaporized that barrier to the entrance of the town square. Look no farther than Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's fine book, "The Audacity to Win." In writing about the campaign's communication strategy, Plouffe rarely mentions TV advertising without also underscoring the importance of YouTube and social media to Obama's success.
Anybody with a broadband connection and something to say can generate an equal and opposite reaction to corporate expenditures attempting to take down an errant officeholder.
But more important, it's unlikely that we'll see corporations spending millions of dollars to oust offending politicians simply because the risks far outweigh the rewards. Sure, millions in TV advertising by a company could result in some feckless politician losing an election.
But let's remember - corporations never win popularity contests with voters. After the bank bailout, executive compensation and million-dollar bonuses on Wall Street, corporate America is more unpopular than ever. Let's face it - many corporations are remarkably ham-fisted when it comes to the intersection of business and politics.
In some respects, being attacked by a corporation could be the best thing that could happen to a candidate.
-
How can you tell when John Edwards is lying?
Jan 22, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 4 CommentsIn surveying the morning news coverage of the John Edwards debacle, the only sympathetic figure I saw was my longtime friend and sometimes competitor, public relations pro Joyce Fitzpatrick. Joyce ended up being a spokesperson for Edwards.
In Friday's News & Observer: "I don't have any plans to return to public life," Edwards said through spokeswoman Joyce Fitzpatrick late Wednesday. "I just hope that I can find another way to serve."
And then, later in the same article: Edwards said through Fitzpatrick, the spokeswoman, that he had lied so long, in part, out of concern for his wife, Elizabeth, who has an incurable cancer, and their children.
Oh, brother. For those of us in the communications world, a client like Edwards is a nightmare. It brings to mind the old joke, "How can you tell when (in this case) John Edwards is lying?" Answer: "His mouth is moving."
It is hard to be a spokesperson or an advisor for anyone in a position of power or authority - even when they're telling the truth. Mainstream media and much of the blogosphere view it as their mission to reduce them from larger than life to smaller than life. As Finley Peter Dunne, the Chicago humorist, once wrote, "My business is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted."
Not only does John Edwards fall comfortably into the comforted class, so do CEOs of most U.S. corporations, university presidents and heads of nonprofit organizations.
So my dear friend Joyce Fitzpatrick surely knows that being a spokesman for John Edwards is as precarious as being a landmine sweeper. For better or worse, when you become a spokesman for someone, you put your credibility on the line, too.
You always hope that clients will be honest with you if you're their public relations adviser. After all, you can't give them your best advice if they don't level with you. But some people - apparently Edwards is one of them - become separated from the ability to even know the truth, much less tell it on an ongoing basis.
Having known Joyce for as long as I have, I know her advice to Edward was: Tell the truth. Tell it all. Don't shade it. Get it all out and keep on keeping on." If only for Joyce's sake, I hope he takes it.
-
Lessons from the Special Election
Jan 20, 2010 :: Ken Eudy :: 1 CommentsSo Democrat Martha Coakley lost a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won, and supporters of health care reform saw their veto-proof Senate disappear.
But it would be a mistake to attribute Coakley’s loss to her support of health care reform. And businesses should pay particular attention.
Brown would have won even if health care reform did not hang in the balance. The reason? Americans remain angry about the bank bailout. They’re enraged at what they perceive as excessive profits and bonuses and extravagant executive compensation – with their bailout dollars.
They stopped opening their 401(k) statements months ago. So they don’t know that stocks and mutual funds have rebounded. But what they do believe is that very little has changed in the way banks and most large corporations operate.
For businesses, the message is pretty simple: your customers are angry. They believe you should be regulated more heavily, especially if your business is financial services. They despise your CEO. And they don’t trust that you’re in business to help them; they think you’re in business to take advantage of them and serve yourselves.
Most of their attitude is driven by weariness of a prolonged economic downturn. Consumers don’t mind if companies are making healthy profits, as long as they are doing fine financially. And they don’t believe they are.
So for businesses, the lessons are: Displays of empathy. Frugality. Sound values. And, as always, the Golden Rule: treat customers the way you’d like to be treated.
Tags: -
Stop it!
Nov 17, 2009 :: Ken Eudy :: 1 CommentsThis is the time of year when I'm immersed in annual planning -- budgets, initiatives, compensation, org chart tweaks.
This kind of examination also means you have to look realistically at what's not working. In this climate, it's easy to blame the economy for anything that's not humming. The challenge is to separate dysfunction caused by economic disruption from dysfunction caused by the way we're organized to get work done, or by poor decisions we've made on staffing a project. Or, who knows, maybe it's the client who's dysfunctional.
Planning is not as much fun as client work. Plans are created. Time lines set out. Responsibilities assigned. But every person tasked with carrying out new a new planning initiative already has a plate heaped with client responsibilities. So it's crucial that we focus on the top two or or three most-needed adjustments.
The iconic management consultant Peter Drucker, had a series of crucial questions he would ask managers of the companies that had engaged him. Among those questions: "What are you doing now that you should stop doing?"
For an organization like Capstrat that has a big tool kit of services, that's a crucial question. Not that we should shut down our Interactive Group or stop doing Public Affairs.
But should we only work for clients who are willing to push us as hard for great work as we want to push them? On another front, should we continue working with clients whose procurement process makes doing great work unlikely?
Important questions....
Tags: leadership management -
I’m going to quit. I promise.
Sep 24, 2009 :: Ken Eudy :: 3 CommentsI usually go for a run about 6:15 a.m. But because of a string of early-morning meetings, I’ve recently run a few times after work. I live in town and run on the sidewalk alongside busy streets, so I pay attention to the cars.
I’ve been surprised – stunned, almost – at the number of drivers holding up their Blackberrys and IPhones paying scant attention to traffic, much less to defenseless runners.
I know what you’re saying: “Ken, you, of all people, have room to talk.” It’s true. I’m chief offender of texting while driving. Heck, when I was a newspaper reporter on deadline, I used to compose stories while driving down I-85 at 65 miles an hour.
But running against traffic where every other driver was holding up a Blackberry at eye level was an eye-opening experience.
So I turn myself in. I will only read my email at red lights. Hold me accountable. And honk when the light turns green.
Tags: -
Service as Strategy
Feb 25, 2009 :: Ken Eudy :: 0 CommentsAfter a client meeting last week, our client contact pulled me aside, fixed me with a hard stare and said, "I just want to tell you one thing."
"Oh, boy," I thought. "This might not be good."
She said, "Your team is incredibly responsive. They are really on top of things. I just wanted you to know that whenever we've got to get something done, we think of you first."
The next day, I called our client. I wanted to know if there was anything else behind her comment. Nothing like trying to milk a compliment for everything it's worth.
She said, "I just notice that some clients seem to be pulling back on service. I was wondering if your agency's strategy in this downturn is to intensify service."
Actually, yes. We say that the best way to keep clients -- downturn, upturn or no-turn -- is to meet their needs and solve their problems with as little disruption to them as possible.
It was a good reminder. Clients notice when you pay attention to them. So pay attention!
All Articles