The summary that will never get me a PhD

This four part case study looked at the different ways an institution – usually considered as an unattractive administrative body – could acquire the reputation of being cool, as in the combination of the feeling of liking it with the desire to belong to it. Why would an institution become cool is another question that will be left unanswered here.

No way we're talking about being cool without a reference to George.

In a hasty and totally subjective way, with no strong ground on which to build his argumentation, the case’s author identified five kind of institutions:

1. The ones that are just born cool because their « raison d’être » rocks and is supported by adequate actions and needs little communication – the given example being Unesco and the generic class being « cool by ontology ».
2. The ones that benefit from the charismatic essence of their leaders or, even better, of a series of charismatic leaders. What else than the White House could belong to the category is still a mystery to the readers but the generic class is still called « cool by capillarity ».
3. The ones that had absolutely no possible chance to even dream of being cool but which succeeded never the less thanks to huge spending in communication (and possibly other ethically debatable means) – the proposed example being the FBI and its army of influence provided by the Hollywood industry since the thirties and the proposed class being « cool by majoring in mass communication and minoring in blackmailing ».
4. The same kind as the previous one, only they fail in trying, even with good professional communication, the French Hadopi being one of them and the generic class being « most institutions ».
5. The ones that had only slightly better starting chances than the FBI and yet reached the tribe of the cool by making sure their activities fitted with their purposes even if they were founded by possible Dr Evils – only examples the author could come up with being two American foundations, the Gates’ and the Soros’. Generic class: « cool by action ».

Yeah, yeah. And…?

That will sound basic to most of readers in the field of communication, but the key to any success, when it comes to your branding, lies in the identification and definition of your brand’s core values. You only need a few of them, but they must be strong, clear and shared amongst your organization.

From those core values, and depending on the strategy you want to develop and conduct, you might find a benefit in becoming cool. If this becomes your goal, well, some leverage exists:

• Your leadership – but also any representative of your organization. It’s one thing of having one Obama or one Steve Jobs at the top of your pyramid, it’s another to be able to count on thousands well educated scouts, professional ambassadors, devoted evangelists. The organization’s staff, the users communities can do marvels in bringing some coolness to a brand. Charisma can be spread out within any organization if the people selected stick to the core values and make them theirs.
• Your actions – it’s not only what you say, it’s mostly what you do. It pays in the long term and one mishap can fully damage your brand reputation – but if you keep acting within the perimeter of your core values and of your raison d’être, you may acquire a cool reputation. In a few thousand years.
• Your communication – promoting what you do well in a fun, entertaining, interesting way can speed up the reputation building process. It will never be the sole factor – but you’ll hardly reach any cool status without some communication.

In some cases, communication might be your only chance. There is a reason most institutions are perceived as boring, dull, uninteresting – it’s because they serve the public, the community and it’s not always sexy. Yet, by assuming what defines you and by playing with it, rather than denying it, you can become cool.

There is almost nothing cool in a public library in the era of Internet – and yet:

If corporations are psychopaths, I’d say institutions are rather neurotics. What’s the difference?

In his 2003 documentary (and following book), The Corporation, Canadian Joel Bakan “establishes parallels between the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave and the DSM-IV’s symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.”

If corporations are psychopaths, I’d say institutions are rather neurotics. What’s the difference? The former doesn’t know he’s has a mental condition and doesn’t differentiate his (affected) mental perception from reality, whereas the latter knows there is something wrong with his condition. In that aspect, institutions know communication (amongst other characteristics) is not their strongest asset and they are often reluctant to embrace what it takes to really communicate.

Of course, the lines are moving, especially in the US where staff moves more naturally from public administration to private sector and back. The influence of our over communicative world strikes European institutions as well – but for a public organization, there is still quite heavy reluctance to brand and market itself.

The cool factor is not an absolute necessity to reach – yet it does help to carry and spread any messages an organization might want to push. We’ve seen it’s possible for institutions to be perceived as cool – not to all of them and hardly without some effort, but it’s reachable.

However, the cool factor is only the cherry on the cake of a well planned and conceived communication strategy.

Best example I could come up with is: « This is FBI, open the door! »

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

You never have really time to look at it in the movies

If you look at it with a bit of political mindset, there is nothing ontologically cool in the FBI. While there is nothing wrong with their current mission statement:

Our mission is to help protect you, your children, your communities, and your businesses from the most dangerous threats facing our nation—from international and domestic terrorists to spies on U.S. soil…from cyber villains to corrupt government officials…from mobsters to violent street gangs…from child predators to serial killers. Along the way, we help defend and uphold our nation’s economy, physical and electronic infrastructure, and democracy.

this institution has quite an amount of stains on its reputation. From the beginning, the FBI had to deal with dirty businesses, under the assumption that it takes what it takes to fight crime. Black lists, manipulations, blackmail, illegal wiretappings… One of the darkest but notable period lasted during the emergence of civil rights leaders (1960-1970):

In March 1971, a Media, Pennsylvania FBI resident office was robbed; the thieves took secret files and distributed them to a range of newspapers including the Harvard Crimson. The files detailed the FBI’s extensive COINTELPRO program, which included investigations into lives of ordinary citizens—including a black student group at a Pennsylvania military college and the daughter of Congressman Henry Reuss of Wisconsin. The country was “jolted” by the revelations, and the actions were denounced by members of Congress including House Majority Leader Hale Boggs. The phones of some members of Congress, including Boggs, had allegedly been tapped.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Amongst the debatable actions of the FBI, the harassment of actress Jean Seberg leaves a sour taste to all aficionados of the French movie « Breathless »:

An FBI victim we'd all like to hug and console.

The FBI used illegally obtained information about Jean Seberg to concoct an article it planted in Newsweek magazine that defamed the actress, who was then seven months pregnant with her second child. The FBI’s goal was to “cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the public”. Accordingly to some authors and researchers, the FBI’s actions against Jean Seberg resulted in her suicide.

(Source: Wikipedia)

More, after 9/11, the FBI was partially to blame for not preventing the attack:

The 9/11 Commission’s final report on July 22, 2004 stated that the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were both partially to blame for not pursuing intelligence reports which could have prevented the September 11, 2001 attacks. In its most damning assessment, the report concluded that the country had “not been well served” by either agency and listed numerous recommendations for changes within the FBI. While the FBI has acceded to most of the recommendations, including oversight by the new Director of National Intelligence, some former members of the 9/11 Commission publicly criticized the FBI in October 2005, claiming it was resisting any meaningful changes.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Yet, the FBI is cool.

Choosing well your profile picture on facebook is vital

Its facebook page only counts 127,985 fans (August 2011) while the facebook’s group “FBI, Open the door !” “No… it’s cool when you break in” totalizes 495,380 fans (possibly because of their profile picture). But the demonstration of coolness is not to be found in their social media popularity. It’s rather in the impregnation of pop culture with FBI and its special agents that counts. Movies, thrillers, TV shows, comic books, the Simpsons… The FBI reaches the status of being a myth by itself which populates, inspires, gives birth to myriads of works pieces of fiction. Why is that? Because there’s nothing better than a story with Special Agents fighting crime.

Actually, there is almost a branding schizophrenia between FBI’s reality and its perception. It doesn’t come from its nature nor from a specific charismatic leader – the most famous being J.H. Hoover who might be quite responsible for the sulfuric reputation of the Agency during the 48 years he ran it. The source of FBI being cool is to be found by external branding management or, to rephrase, by outsourcing the cool factor to the entertainment industry. The FBI knows well the value of good communication, as one of their Special Agent, Mr Cris Hoover, clearly explains in his paper « The Strategic Communication Plan ».

Strategic communication entails packaging a core message that reflects an agency’s overall strategy, values, purpose, and mission to persuade key stakeholders and enhance positioning. Active, not reactive, it establishes organizational clarity and dissuades freelance endeavors that may serve a few well, but detract from the organization’s overall direction and purpose. To this end, one important tool, a solid strategic communication plan (SCP), should synchronize organizational units and align resources to deliver a common core message.

The source of the FBI being cool is to be found by external branding management or, to rephrase, by outsourcing the cool factor to the entertainment industry.

The current mix of the Agency is quite good to look at: website, jobs’ posting, most wanted list (my favorite) and even a fun and games site for kids (check the « Tools of the trade » section, it rocks.) It’s state of the art of institutional agency, with, I suspect, quite some money behind it, and serves as the main channel of their communication to demonstrate the reality of their work, by opposition with the image given by the entertainment industry.

You know you're cool when you appear in The Simpsons

The power of cool comes from the pop culture’s endless use of the FBI. From the start, J.E. Hoover  « was also quite eager to use his new authority to bring Hollywood into line with what Hoover thought was their proper role in society (propaganda organ for the government) and while Senator McArthy grabbed the headlines, Hoover was busy behind the scenes recruiting various people to inform on each other and factionalizing the Hollywood community so that it could not resist him. » (Source: COINTELPRO: FBI Activities in Hollywood).

Important word here is: « propaganda ».

As Yves Chenal tells, « Hoover understood he needed to win the public opinion and tried hard to have media providing a positive image of its agency. He harassed Hollywood producers to obtain his agents would be pictured under a favorable light in the movies. That’s how James Cagney incarnated an agent with all best qualities in « G-Man » in 1935, sparking off many vocations. Since then, the FBI is a media star. »

(Source: Herodote.net, FBI – La construction d’un mythe hollywoodien)

There was a will from the start to sell the FBI, its special agents and its activities to the audience, a will that obtained incredible results by combining threat and influence over the producers with Hollywood dramaturgic know-how. There is everything in the FBI you need for many good stories. Use it properly and constantly and, voilà, you’ve become cool even though some of your daily activities are questionable.

This is hard work which pays off on the long term. It requires a lot of resources, some of them not being directly the institution’s. Not every institution can subtract their branding management to Hollywood. Yet, almost of them could rely more on communication with a good « strategic communication plan » to build themselves as cool.

It’s not an easy way, though, as we will see in the next post of this case study.

Coolness by capillarity: the Executive Office of the President of the United States

This famous institution is better known as the White House, thanks to the use of a metonym which designates the President and its administration by using the name of the building they are closely associated with. Now, is the White House cool? With 1,113,379 fans on its Facebook page at the time of writing (August 2011), the usual ambition of American kids to become President of the United States when they grow up, the regular use of the White House as a sacrificial element of pop culture (like in the movie Independence day) I would consider it as a cool institution.

They do have a nice logo

Because the White House is the power centre of the USA – and therefore quite an important power over the world as a whole – its coolness varies amongst people benefiting of or suffering from the American politics conducted at any time. Nevertheless, White House’s cool factor is like the American Way of Life – it knows some fluctuations in people of the world’s appreciation but remains a gold value on the long term.

It's either the White House or the Eiffel tower that are destroyed first.

Is it intentional?

Sometimes, you just cannot find something on the Internet, such as the communication budget of the White House. Reason is the massive coverage of the current negotiation between the White House and the Congress over the US budget. See all those crossing over keywords? That’s how you should hide important information on the Net.

The White House, no doubt, has a communication department and even a Social Media Team (we met them!). They’re active in promoting the President’s political views and activities, with notably, those White House White Boards videos which explain technical subjects in understandable ways.

It started a long, long time ago

There is an intention to be perceived as cool, even if it is not the primary aim of White House’s communication – as it never will be for an institution. I would however hypothesize that the coolness of the White House is not to be solely credited to the current communication team. I believe the White House became a cool institution long time ago and that it had everything to do with its tenants rather than with the house itself.

Because most of the US Presidents had strong influence over the world affairs, a lot of them are famous outside the USA. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama… Not all of them were cool people, and it’s clear the White House’s perception from outside is hugely dependent on the personality and political leadership of its tenant. It affects deeply the elasticity of the cool factor. In other words, it’s not sure the Bush years were the best for the White House to appear cool, even if there were some efforts in this direction for a certain audience as the photo below demonstrates.

For some people, those boots are cool. Go figure...

Rather than being cool by essence, I would say the White House benefits from the summing up cool factors of a long list of presidents. With the halo effect brought by history, most of American presidents are favorably perceived. The sum of their personal charm pays off for the institution. Of course, some mandates are worse than others, which fits with the volatility and subjectivity of coolness.

What can we learn from this?

One strategy for an institution wishing to improve its branding perception could be to bet on the capillarity effect and to chose a charismatic, cool leader. This is well known by private corporations when they select a famous personality to lead whatever non-profit causes they suddenly decide to defend.

Unesco plays this card too with its Goodwill Ambassadors:

The UNESCO Goodwill Ambassadors are an outstanding group of celebrity advocates who spread the ideals of UNESCO through their name and fame. They extend and amplify UNESCO’s work and mission and have generously accepted to use their talent and status to help focus the world’s attention on the work of UNESCO.

If you check the list of current Goodwill Ambassadors, you may notice some cool people amongst them.

Opposite effect works too: choosing a non-charismatic character, a controversial personality or a grey leader, even if the person is competent for the job, might impair the whole organization’s reputation, whatever its purpose and legitimacy might be. The metonym effect works in both ways.

So far, we’ve seen institutions that are ontologically cool and others that inherit this quality from their past and present leaders. In the third post devoted to this case study, we’ll have a look at a the ones for which, just like for us, simple human beings when compared to Clint, it requires a hell of an effort to become cool.

Cool factor brought to you by the gang of the former US Presidents

So, let’s be cool, let’s put a virus in our life. It is the trend of the moment. You just need a good and powerful one, it will spread all around and reach people you never though it would. Don’t think I am crazy. Even if the favourite season for our not-so-dear friend Influenza just started, I am talking about a very different kind of virus. A non seasonal one: a marketing virus.

Viral marketing is the advertising El Dorado: viruses are cheap, they spread easily, they normally get to you through a trusted source. There is only a problem: how to create a virus? Some examples have been surprising even to the ‘parents’ of the creature. Others are well thought products. In any case, it is clear that the favourite environment for these viruses to spread is the internet, and we know a bit about it, so why not create a virus?

Some of the most creative members of the team have already come with some ideas, some attempts that have not been able to become stronger than the institutional vaccination. But WebComm creative laboratory never sleeps; sooner or later we will manage to break the barrier. Until we do so, you can start tasting watching our Christmas greetings video “Friday I’m in love” that ended up being an unexpected Brussels virus.