Realist (3/03):
Ron Levy [see below] may fully deserve whatever affluence he ejoys, having written on this board that NAPS earned $5 million a year while he ran it, but Leon Panetta surely deserves better than the jibes Ron Levy directs at him for not earning more--and earnings are not the measure of one's intellect or worth--not heading a PR firm, not in a top job at a major candidate's campaign, and working "at a California college where he teaches a course in Public Policy."
Panetta magnificently served the American public in Washington for years while Penn served multibilion dollar corporations in New York, so Panetta may not have the contacts or resume to get a job like Penn's. Panetta is not just at "a California College" but heads the Leon Panetta Institute at a great university.
He may say startling things not because they get media coverage but because Senator Clinton and the American public may deserve better strategy than she has been getting from Mark Penn, though talented and Harvard-educated he is.
Just as it's okay to say an emperor has no clothes, it's okay to say a pollster-turned-PR-executive has no good strategy.
Ron Levy responds (3/04):
Panetta served America magnificently and I deeply respect him but he's NOT heading a PR firm, NOT in a top job at a major candidate's campaign and IS teaching a course in Public Policy. His "institute" is at Santa Clara with 8,000 students.
Most significantly, if you look at whether Panetta's criticism implies that he really KNOWS about campaign management estimates and planning--and if you ask yourself whether he COULD know these things since he's not on the inside--you can judge whether the negative things he's saying are to get media coverage and perhaps, sadly, to get revenge for being terminated as a Clinton West Winger. The millions, which have nothing to do with Penn and Panetta, went 90% to my daughters to whom I had given my shares, and when one sued me for control, that was the end of the lovely affluence.
I hope Panetta is doing better.
Impartial (3/03):
Why should we believe that Panetta's ideas on how to win are better than Penn's ideas? Panetta makes a slashing attack but Penn may be mightier than the sword.
N. Richard Lewis, President, Lewis & Associates, Los Angeles (2/28):
I think Hillary suffers from a lack of speech training and, considering the high quality of the idea content in her speeches, lackluster wordsmithing . There are no memorable phrases and she sounds like a shrill virago when she raises her voice for emphasis.
Thinkman2 (2/27):
Please tell Mr Penn that whining won't make it so! When you choose to play in the political sandbox, you are not always the winner.
Ex B-Mer (2/27):
The Hillary campaign reflects the typical big agency client experience these days: Lots of promises, "deep thinking" by "heavy breathers," huge invoices and, at the end of the month, tiny activity reports with little to show for where all that money went.
In Mark Penn's case, six months ago he had a proven winning product that couldn't miss and he somehow blew it for his client. That takes some real doing! I'll bet he now hopes B-M's big clients aren't watching.
As he always does, Frank Rich nailed it Sunday: "The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating."
Curiouser and curiouser (2/27):
It's all about hubris. Penn thinks he's a great strategist. Apparently not. If I were the big guys at WPP, I'd be awfully nervous about having the CEO of one of my biggest PR agencies doing such a miserable job, failing in public -- and worried that clients might wonder where Penn's attentions are -- with client accounts or with Hilary?
Ron Levy (2/27):
Penn is right because you can give an account advice that won't help -- even if the advice is brilliant and based on superb research -- if the account doesn't take the advice. "In title he was chief strategist," says the story," but "his authority has gradually been diluted by a variety of advisors all eager to push their own message. No one reported to him at headquarters, and many decisions had to go through [campaign manager] Ms. Solis Doyle."
Leon Panetta, a wonderful administrator and coordinator, faults Penn (who heads a competitor of Panetta's firm) for "dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed."
But classical marketing management wisdom, taught at Wharton (where I went) and I'd guess at all top business schools, is that you analyze your market into segments and then target each market segment with a research-based appeal.
Also Panetta, though superbly bright, almost certainly didn't have the black book--the research findings--so he's in no position to judge what approach "was needed." "When you are in command, COMMAND," complains an anonymous source (there's often something detestable about anonymous accusers), but Penn was NOT in command. Solis Doyle was.
No one at headquarters, this story points out, reported to Penn. He may still win despite the troubles. Or he may lose because the opposing candidate is a better speaker--awesome and inspiring--and becaue Sen. Clinton voted for the war.
But the candidate can't also be the campaign manager, neither can the pollster and chief strategist, and it's the campaign manager more than any other staffer who's responsible for the outcome.
Dukakis was ahead by I think 17 points (this is from memory), but his campaign manager kept him off the tube for 11 days and nights so everyone could confer on strategy and nessages. When the 11-day period was over, so was the 17-point lead.
Midlevel Manager responds (2/28):
With all due respect, although Ron Levy speaks deferentially of Leon Panetta ("a wonderful administrator" and "superbly bright"), and although Panetta was for years the chief of staff for the U.S. President, Ron pretty clerly seems to conclude that Penn is right and Panetta is wrong. But why? Isn't it just as credible that it's the other way--that Panetta is right and Penn is wrong?
Ron Levy responds (2/29):
Mr. Panetta deserves our deep respect for managerial skill because he served two years as no less than Chief of Staff to the President of the United States. But when we judge whether Panetta is biased or unbiased about Penn, Google is enlightening and raises questions we may find interesting.
1. Panetta left the White House four years before Clinton did. Should we guess Panetta quit out of boredom to or take a better job--or that he was terminated and still perhaps bitter?
2. This O'Dwyer story reports Panetta "rips" what he calls Clinton's "clueless" (Panetta's word) campaign. Google shows an article headed "Leon Panetta Slams Clinton Pollster," and another article, "Leon Panetta Blasts Clinton Campaign." A third article on Google quotes Panetta about Sen. Clinton and then accuses the Clinton campaign of "arrogance" and "schizophrenic episodes." Does Panetta--who rips, slams, blasts and accuses--sound unbiased or emotionally involved?
3. As a member of Fleishman-Hillard's "international advisory board," a job which may perhaps carry less prestige and money than Penn gets as head of the bigger Burson-Marsteller--sought out by the giant beef indusgtry, countries and hundreds of other heavyweight accounts--could Panetta feel a mite envious and competitive and feel that he, Panetta, should have been chosen to head B-M or at least some other PR firm?
4. Penn has a top job in a major candidate's campaign but we can't see from Google whether Panetta has a job at anylevel in any political campaign at all. His bio says he's a graduate of Santa Clara University (Penn is from Harvard) and refers to "a long and distinguished career" including a "tour of duty in the U.S. Army." Further down his bio says Paznetta "served as a First Lieutenant" and that he "is the recipient of awards and honors too numerous to mention."
5. O'Dwyer, whose accuracy I trust totally, says Panetta "faults the Clinton campaign for underestimating the widespread appeal of Obama and an overall lack of planning." But how can Panetta know what the campaign estimated? Does he really know--or is he guessing--that there was a lack of planning. Was he invited into the planning sessions and now ratting--or not invited in and now guessing?
6. The Clintons seem bright so it may tell us something to ask, after YEARS of experience working closely with Panetta and Penn, which man did the Clintons bring into the campaign management--Panetta or Penn? Martin Sorrell and Howard Paster are also respected for intelligence so which man--Panetta or Penn--did they hire to head Burson-Marsteller?
7. Why, if Panetta likes PR and feels qualified to Judge Penn's work, does Panetta have a job on a PR advisory board instead of having a senior management job in PR? (He works at a California college where he teaches a course in Public Policy and may try to say startling things that get media coverage.)
If I were a candidate or a client, I'd be grateful for an opportunity to hire Mark Penn (or Fleishman-Hillard which also gets awesome PR results) and not be dissuaded by Panetta's opinions about things based on information he may not really have.
|