Good morning.

Starting today, I'll be posting at a new location.  Please come on by and sign up.

Of course, all previous postings will be staying here.

This ought to be fun.

We must remind ourselves that perspective is important.  The words we say are relevant, but so is the context and delivery.

Case in point.

A colleague pointed out an interesting controversy about Pepsi's new logo.

I think people are making a big deal out of nothing.  If you look at the Pepsi logo's evolution, I'm pretty sure there's no rip-off of the Obama campaign.  To help make that point, strip away the red, white and blue of Obama's campaign logo and the similarities to the new Pepsi logo are tenuous, at best.

What do you think?

Kraft has unveiled a new logo and has changed its URL from kraft.com to Kraftfoodscompany.com.

The new URL is clunkier, but won't really make a difference as kraft.com simply redicrects to the new address.

As you can imagine, though, I want to offer my two cents on the new logo.  In general, I think logos are important for companies to have.  They help brand the company and establish them in the minds of the people they need to reach.

Sometimes, however, companies put way too much stock into their logos; management sometimes thinks that a new logo will help redefine a company.

In other cases, where a company is in the midst of a turnaround or course-change, a new logo, unveiled at the right moment, can help underscore the company's new, positive direction.

That's what happened with Kraft.  The company is turning itself around.  It's changing the way it does business.  The company is two years into its three-year program.  It's timing is right.  What's more, management seems to be saying, "We're not relying on a new logo to help redefine us; our new logo underscores and celebrates what we're in the process of accomplishing."

Undoubtedly, the company paid a pretty penny for the redesign.  I don't think it's wasted, though, because it seems like the new look is working hand-in-hand with the new way they do business.

Please explain to me why financial institutions continue to do stupid things with money.

Wells Fargo was planning Vegas outings for employees.  Bank of America sponsored a "carnival" outside the SuperBowl; Morgan Stanley wanted to send some employees to Monaco.

They also want federal bailout money.

This reminds me of the Big Three auto maker CEOs who all flew to Washington on their own private jets to beg for cash. (See my earlier post.)

The answer really is quite simple.  Financial institutions, like any that deals with customers, must do everything they can to make sure their actions match their words.

Surely, you're rolling your eyes but, believe it or not, there ARE corporate decision makers who don't yet understand this.

Michael Phelps screwed up.  He doesn't deny it.  The question is, will his sponsors buy into his mea culpa?

I don't think his fans really care one way or the other.  For the younger ones, like my son who recently did a school project on Phelps, the story will likely not register.  And, the older ones, such as me, most probably will shrug and say, "We all make mistakes."

However, I just read an AP story that Phelps also plead guilty to a drunk driving charge in December 2004.

Is it more than "a mistake" and more likely a pattern?  Possibly.

Bottom line is Phelps is getting good PR advice.  He immediately admitted his mistake and confessed to "poor judgement."  Doing so, as any PR practitioner will tell you, allows him and his team to get in front of the story and - hopefully - make it go away.

Another high-profile apology - perhaps not AS important as Phelps' - was President Obama.  Regarding Tom Daschle, Obama was as blunt as possible.  "I think I screwed up."  Holy cow!  Talk about disarming your detractors!  Of course, we shouldn't be surprised.  Take a look at this site and you'll see eloquence in action.

Regardless of what you think of Obama, global warming or the BBC, it's interesting to note that a recent five-minute segment was edited to offer a quote from the new president that was out of context, at best, and inaccurate, at worst.

You can see the piece here.

Once you've watched, read this post from Al Thompkins.

Does the BBC's sleight-of-hand matter?  Like I said, the subject matter is almost irrelevant.  The recent refusal of the BBC to carry an appeal to help civiallians in Gaza notwithstanding, I'd suggest this is a symptom of the BBC's efforts to editorialize on a number of subjects.

Second-hand sources have always been dubious.  Now, it appears first-hand accounts aren't much better.

Kids are often taught: "It's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game."  As everyone knows, that's usually said to the game's losers.

But here's a question: does it apply to the winners, as well?

I just read about a girls' school that trounced its opponent 100-0 in a recent basketball game.  The losing side was a school of 20 girls who struggle "with 'learning differences,' such as short attention spans or dyslexia."

Clearly, there are two views here.  On the one hand, kids need to learn that everyone can't always win.  On the other hand, kids need help in developing self-esteem.

As you can imagine, the decisive win was impressive.  But how more impressive would it have been if the winning team (after leading by more than 50 points at half-time) had offered to end the game early?  (Kudos, by the way, to the losing team, for not walking away.)

I often say: it's not just the message, but the manner in which it's communicated.  The winners' reputation is that of success and strength.  However, are they the kids you want your kids hanging out with?  Had they been more thoughtful in their "message delivery" their reputation would be that of winners in many more ways than just one.

The law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore will soon change the way it bills its time.  Apparently, managing partner Evan Chesler recognizes that open-ended hourly billing simply cannot continue and that clients should, in some way, know what they’re paying for.

How refreshing.  But wholesale change will be hard to swallow.

The challenge of how to bill for a given project is age-old.  One can’t simply say this is THE billing structure that works. 

We have three methods of billing at BCI: hourly, project and monthly retainer.  Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.  Each works for different types of clients and projects.

But, at the end of the day, what makes our client relationships work is that we are flexible, accountable and always willing to work out an agreement.

I recently asked a client why he chose us.  His answer, paraphrased, was that he liked our honesty and his ability to back out, with 30 days’ written notice, at any time.  To him, that spoke volumes in confidence.  The message he (correctly) heard was: We will deliver and if not, fire us.

Great speeches.

I just had the opportunity to listen to the President's inauguration address.  In some ways, he didn't really need to say anything great.  The mere fact that he was making that speech was historic and moving.

I only hope he can keep it going.