Asiana's Crisis Response: Actions Don't Speak For Themselves; Studies Show Companies Aren't Ready To Respond To Their Next Data Breach; Gene Grabowski On New Food Import Inspection Rules; Paula Deen: Sorry Works But Only If You Say It; Jeff Bezos And The Washington Post: This Changes Everything; The O'Bannon Case: A Golden Opportunity For College Sports Programs; Generic Drug Makers Will Soon Face The Regulatory Music

1. Actions Don’t Speak
for Themselves
ASIANA’S CRISIS
RESPONSE:
EDITION 3
MonthlyAUGUST, 2013

2. 03 Contents
04
06
07
08
10
12
16
COVER STORY
CORPORATE & REPUTATION
CRISIS
Digital & Engagement
LITIGATION
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
VIDEO
Asiana’s Crisis Response: Actions Don’t Speak For Themselves
Studies Show Companies Aren’t Ready To Respond To Their Next Data Breach
Paula Deen: Sorry Works But Only If You Say It
Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post: This Changes Everything
The O’Bannon Case: A Golden Opportunity For College Sports Programs
Generic Drug Makers Will Soon Face The Regulatory Music
Gene Grabowski On New Food Import Inspection Rules

3. Weekly
4 05
siana’s public response to Saturday’s
crash in San Francisco is raising
more than a few eyebrows.
Immediately after the crash,
the carrier seemed to be making all the
right moves. It apologized quickly and
sincerely and even went as far as to state
that the cause was not mechanical – a rare
demonstration of responsibility that drew
praise from observers and pundits.
But since then, the company’s statements
have been few, far between, and largely
relegated to Korean media outlets. The
company hasn’t made spokespersons
available to U.S. reporters, despite the fact
that the American public remains glued to
the story. And even though rapid response
is Rule One in the airline crisis playbook,
it took three days for the carrier’s CEO to
arrive on the scene.
Asiana’s decision to forego crisis
communications counseling has also been
noted. In response, Asiana says that now is
not the time to focus on the airline’s image.
In response to that, I would argue that now
is the only time to assert control over the
disaster narrative before it spins beyond
the airline’s control. In this era of instant
and lasting impressions, Asiana’s strategy
is allowing others to drive and influence
the conversation. That’s the last thing a
company in crisis can allow.
One has to assume that Asiana is working
hard behind the scenes to get to the bottom
of what happened and implement measures
that will help ensure a similar episode
never again plays out. But the benefit of
the doubt is not enough to satisfy wary
air travelers focused on safety above all
else. For evidence of that, just look at
how the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) is communicating with its
stakeholders.
We don’t have to assume that the NTSB is on
the job. We know it is. Three days ago, very
few people in America could have picked
NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman out
of lineup. Today, everyone knows her name.
That’s because she’s been a fixture on cable
and network news broadcasts, social and
digital media, and in print.
The NTSB certainly has its hands full in
these first days of its investigation, but it
understands that a key part of its job is
reassuring the American public that it’s
doing all it can to prevent accidents like
this in the future. As such, it ensures that
regular media engagements inform us about
new findings as they develop – and comfort
anxious air travelers in the process.
The NTSB understands that actions don’t
speak always speak for themselves. In
crisis, someone needs to speak for them.
While Asiana is limited in what it can
communicate under NTSB rules, there are
always messages of concern and action that
can be deployed to help protect an airline’s
reputation as a responsible steward of
passenger safety.
Right now, those messages are nowhere
to be found. As a result, it’s Asiana that is
coming off as the problem; and the NTSB
that is coming off as the problem solver.
Ernest DelBuono is a Senior Vice President
at LEVICK and Chair of the firm’s Crisis
Practice. He is also a contributing author to
LEVICK Daily.
A
L
Asiana’s Crisis Response: Actions
Don’t Speak for Themselves
Ernest DelBuono
Originally Published on LEVICK Daily

4. 06
The survey of 194 IT executives and
professionals at companies whose gross
annual revenues range from $100 million to
$20 billion a year shows that more than two
thirds of respondents have increased their
focus on cyber security issues in response
to the flood of media coverage generated
by instances of data loss and theft. But at
the same time, more than a third of those
surveyed still report that they aren’t aware
of any response plan their organization has
developed or practiced.
Given the rash of breaches we’ve seen
in 2013 alone – at companies, hospitals,
government institutions colleges and
universities, and even Twitter – that’s
an astonishingly high figure. Today, data
breaches are practically inevitable; and
when organizations aren’t prepared ahead
of time to assuage stakeholder anxiety,
they pay a hefty price in terms of brand
credibility and trust.
Outreach plans need to be in place so
that affected parties can take immediate
measures to protect themselves in the
wake of a breach. The IT, legal, and
communications teams need to work
together beforehand to ensure that accurate
information about a potential breach can
be shared with law enforcement and the
general public – without adding to the legal
and brand liabilities at play. Organizations
need to know the journalists and bloggers
who cover data security issues in their
industries and develop relationships with
those influential voices before they are
needed. Perhaps most important, all of
the above exercises need to be updated
regularly as notification laws, consumer
expectations, and media scrutiny continue
to evolve.
At a time when every organization is a
potential target, more than a third of them
aren’t ready to navigate the minefield that
is data loss communications. At a time when
preparedness is as important as prevention,
that means there’s a 33 percent chance that
the next company to land in the spotlight
will be caught with its pants down.
Jason Maloni is a Senior Vice President
at LEVICK, Chair of the firm’s Litigation
Practice, and Leader of the firm’s Data
Security Team. He is also a contributing
author to LEVICK Daily.
07
DATA BREACH
Study Shows Companies Aren’t
Ready To Respond To Their Next
According to Protviti’s 2013 IT Security and Privacy Survey, large
and small companies are taking notice of the reputational hazards
that accompany high-profile data breaches; but still aren’t doing
enough to ensure an adequate public response should one occur.
Jason Maloni
Originally Published on LEVICK Daily
L
Gene Grabowski
on New Food Import Inspection Rules
click on the image above
to view the video.
6 7

5. 9
here are those who will never forgive
Paula Deen for her former trespasses.
As her books continue to fly off the
shelves, it’s apparent that there are
also those who will stick with her despite the
revelation of disgusting, racist comments made
years ago. When those statements first came
to light last week, the rest of her audience was
still up for grabs. But with each passing day
of stubborn denial, that population shrinks
dramatically. As broadcasters, retailers, and
sponsors flee, it seems Ms. Deen never learned a
key tenet of crisis communications today: Sorry
works, but you actually have to say it.
While it was an ill-advised point to make on the
Today Show last week, Ms. Deen did strike a
chord when she said that anyone in the audience
who had never said anything they’ve regretted
should pick up a rock and throw it at her head.
After all, who among us has never uttered
something stupid or hurtful? Ms. Deen was
under oath and asked if she had ever used the “N
Word.” She could have perjured herself (never
a smart strategy), but instead was honest about
mistakes she seems to regret. The problem is
that she thinks she deserves points for that. But
candidness is not repentance; and honesty is not
an apology.
Now, unless I was reading Huckleberry Finn, or
some similar reference, I have never used the
“N Word.” Since childhood, I have been sensitive
to the fact that diversity is one of our universe’s
great gifts. But that said, I think many people
like me could have found it in their hearts to
forgive Paula Deen if she had only asked our
forgiveness. I truly feel sorry for her, but I
can’t say I’m impressed by her bumbling this
past week (full disclosure, as a serious cook
of healthy foods, I never would have bought
her cook books, but I might have found her a
better human being). Just look at the PGA’s
Sergio Garcia. His racially insensitive comments
directed toward Tiger Woods are already fading
in the rear-view mirror. Why? Because he said
he was sorry for a stupid mistake that he vows
never to repeat again.
How difficult would it have been for Paula Deen
to face the same cameras she cooks in front
of every day and simply say “I’m sorry; I hope
you will forgive me sooner than I can forgive
myself?” How difficult would it have been to
make an act of contrition that buttressed her
apology with action? Instead, Ms. Deen forces
upon us the “there but for the grace of God go
I” narrative, rather than let us come to that
conclusion naturally. Instead, she shows the
most emotion when denying that she is a racist
and making public calls for sponsors not to drop
her – and demonstrates that she cares more
about her image and income than those who
were offended by her comments. Instead, she
has seemingly opted for a prolonged, tortured
process that may never lead to true redemption.
All of this makes it easy for Smithfield Foods,
Target, Wal-Mart, and others to cut ties with her
brand, which some industry insiders already
saw as a “declining asset.” It gives the Food
Network an easy excuse to not renew her show,
which has long been declining in the ratings. It
even forces the hand of book publishers such as
Random House, who are dropping what some
call “a guaranteed bestseller” because Ms. Deen
is simply too toxic.
If it were only TV and retailers that were
running for cover, one could argue that this
episode is being leveraged to paint cold business
decisions as “the right thing to do.” But when
publishers ignore Ms. Deen’s staggering
numbers on Amazon.com, it’s clear her
reputational nightmare hasn’t been adequately
addressed.
In the pantheon of celebrity sins we have
pardoned in the past, Paula Deen’s is not the
worst we’ve encountered. But before the public
can embrace that fact, she has to say I’m sorry
– and show she means it. Anything less and she
can kiss all but her most die-hard fans goodbye.
Follow Richard Levick on Twitter and circle him
on Google+, where he comments daily on the
issues impacting corporate brands.
T
Paula Deen:
Sorry Works, But
Only If You Say It
L

6. Weekly
10 11
L
Jeff Bezos & The Washington Post:
THIS CHANGES
EVERYTHINGRichard Levick
Originally Published on LEVICK Daily
According to Protviti’s 2013 IT Security and
Privacy Survey, large and small companies are
taking notice of the reputational hazards that
accompany high-profile data breaches; but still
aren’t doing enough to ensure an adequate
public response should one occur.
The survey of 194 IT executives and
professionals at companies whose gross annual
revenues range from $100 million to $20 billion
a year shows that more than two thirds of
respondents have increased their focus on Jeff
Bezos’ private purchase of The Washington Post
might very well come to mark the moment when
newspapers returned to relevance.
There are those that see the move as a means
to compete with Marc Zuckerberg, the Koch
brothers, the Allbrittons, the Murdoch’s and
others whose investments in media have
enabled them to participate in – and to some
degree, shape – the news. Others may see Bezos
as simply adding another interesting investment
to a portfolio already teaming with quirky
projects.
But this is about more than a Bully Pulpit, and
Bezos has more interest here than merely doing
something interesting. The cross-pollination of a
once-great paper and a digital giant like Amazon
has potential too great to go unexplored. Put as
succinctly as possible, it can digitize, personalize,
globalize, and revitalize a paper that was not
just in decline; but that was scooped on its own
sale by Politico, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, and
the Washington Business Journal, among others,
because it remains an Internet-generation
behind a sea of new competitors.
Login to Amazon.com and you’re unlikely to
see a single advertisement or link that isn’t
at least tangentially related to your lifestyle
and interests. That individualized customer
experience is a major element in Amazon’s
success. Bring the same thinking to The Post
and the natural result is a revolutionary online
presence that features a different newspaper
for every reader, uniquely tailored to each
individual profile. Post readers may not even
have to opt-in for such levels of customization;
Amazon’s data management techniques will
tell the paper which articles – and, equally
important, which advertisements – they are most
likely to engage. This won’t just revolutionize
news; it will change advertising as we knew
it, just when we thought we were getting
comfortable with the existing revolution.
And when it comes to advertising revenues,
innovative customization is likely only the tip
of the iceberg. With direct links to Amazon’s
industry-leading e-commerce platform, The
Post’s book or product reviews – and even
articles that simply mention particular products
or services – could be transformed into myriad
points of sale. That would be a significant point
of differentiation for marketers, and one that
could generate the revenues needed to rebuild
The Post’s reputation for first-class reporting.
Combine that with the cutting-edge digital
customization outlined above and the paper
could once again become the world’s portal
into one of its most powerful cities – reversing a
30-year trend that has seen The Post’s audience
shrink to predominantly those inside or
around the Beltway. It can do for politics and
geopolitical power what the Financial Times,
the Wall Street Journal, and the New York
Times have done for business and finance. New
innovations may even be a springboard to bigger
budgets for investigative reporting; the ability to
more comprehensively cover niche government
beats; a renewed focus on foreign affairs; and
the restoration of other standards that made The
Post a global authority in the Watergate era.
Mr. Bezos likely recognizes that Katharine
Weymouth was dealt a tough hand when she
took the helm, but her tenure began with pay for
play salons and was highlighted by a valentine in
the New York Times the day before the sale was
announced; a valentine that all but said “save my
job.” Declining relevance, layoffs, and a digital
vision that was lacking even by newspaper
standards may not be a fair measure of her
effectiveness in this toughest of eras for print
journalism – and she may still play a leading role
at the paper. But as The Post sets itself to the task
of creating the new, new media, it’s Jeff Bezos
vision that will surely lead the way.
With no investors to answer to, proven digital
strategies, innovative advertising platforms, and
The Post’s still stellar reputation for credibility
in tow, he is just the leader needed to turn the
paper around. Before all is said and done, he just
might create the template that saves the Fourth
Estate.

7. Weekly
12 13
A Golden Opportunity For College
Sports Programs
The O’Bannon Case:
Richard Levick
Originally Published on forbes.com
It’s widely predicted that, if the plaintiffs
prevail in the so-called “O’Bannon case,”
it will radically transform the culture of
college athletic programs and may even
spell the end of amateur sports as we know
it. As one blogger put it, it will “blow the
current model of revenue-sharing in major
college athletics to kingdom come.”
The case in question dates back to 2009
when former college athletes spearhead
by UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon
and Arizona State University quarterback
Samuel Keller filed class actions against the
NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic
Arts (EA), and Collegiate Licensing Company,
the leading collegiate trademark licensing/
marketing firm, claiming their likenesses
had been misappropriated without
compensation.
The forecasts are not fanciful. A pro-
plaintiff outcome would force a major
concession on the NCAA and possibly lead
to further revenue-sharing across the
board in the years ahead. At the very least,
a plaintiffs’ win will breach the hitherto
sacrosanct barrier against compensating
athletes. Once breached, things could
happen fast, as when free agency realigned
the balance of power in professional sports
overnight, creating successive generations
of multi-millionaire utility infielders. If
certified, the O’Bannon class would include
thousands of claimants, including many star
professionals, and exposure in the billions.
Equally to the point, what happens if the
defense ultimately prevails? The answer
lies not just in the impact of this one case,
but in the climate of public opinion that
surrounds it. Win or lose, O’Bannon and his
co-plaintiffs have given the NCAA’s critics a
powerfully invigorated voice. The Internet
swelled that voice to a din. Joe Nocera
has gone on full-scale attack in a series of
articles. Gregg Easterbrook is writing a
book.
Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim
Delany has predicted the case will wind
up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the
defendants have already flinched a mite.
Most recently, the NCAA severed ties to
EA while Collegiate Licensing asked the
judge to strike all allegations pertaining to
products other than video games and game
broadcasts. Especially if the case settles, the
NCAA will need to shore up its fortifications
against future claims that go beyond video
marketing – product endorsements by
athletes, for example, or competitive salary
deals that were unthinkable a few years ago
but are now deemed inevitable by critics
like Nocera.
Settlement may not be an option for the
defense if we believe O’Bannon himself,
who avers he’s not interested in a financial
award but rather in “systemic change” he
intends to pursue to the end. Meanwhile,
recent court decisions can’t be encouraging
to the defense. In late July, for example, EA
was dealt a blow when the Ninth Circuit
affirmed that the use of the likenesses was
not shielded by the First Amendment. The
athletes’ lawyer said that that defense “was
one of their strongest,” so he’s now moving
for summary judgment in the underlying
case.
When, in May, the Third Circuit said in a
case brought by former Rutgers University
quarterback Ryan Hart that the defendant’s
First Amendment rights do pertain
but could be trumped by the plaintiff’s
intellectual property rights, the court was
implicitly affirming that the athletes actually
have such rights. It’s a point that likely
resonates with the vast majority of college
sports fans.
To be sure, the proverbial genie is out of
the bottle in terms of public opinion, to a
far greater extent than in past instances
when the NCAA came under fire. On the one
hand, scandals like Penn State have fueled
perceptions that college sports in general
are morally dysfunctional, while published
articles are marshaling long lists of players
and the specific injustices and abuses
they’ve purportedly suffered.
“Certainly, in its day-to-day business, from
enforcement to apparel sales, it seems that
of late the NCAA cannot do anything right,”

8. Weekly
14 15
L
says Timothy Liam Epstein, a partner at
SmithAmundsen LLC and Chair of that
firm’s Sports Law Practice Group. As an
example, Epstein notes the most recent
controversy involving the now-disabled
function on the NCAA online shop allowing
customers to purchase a numbered, but not
named, jersey of Heisman Trophy winner
Johnny Manziel.
On the other hand, as NCAA critics have
strenuously argued, the public need not be
swayed by schools crying poverty or by the
argument that amateur status is necessary
to maintain some sort of parity between
programs – not when some colleges already
pay their coaches millions while others can
barely afford bus tickets for their recruiters.
The argument that the public appreciates
amateur status, and that that has a lot to do
with why they watch college sports in the
first place, has more validity than NCAA
critics allow. Only 27% of respondents to a
Marist poll believe college athletes deserve
to be paid beyond their scholarships. Yet
it’s a limited argument. More than anything
else, the public appreciates fairness and
equitability. They are quite aware, thank
you, that college sports is big business; that
some folks enjoy lavish profits because of
the unpaid labor of others. If they resent
overpaid professional athletes, that too
is a question of equitability. People want
athletes to get what they deserve: no more,
no less.
The NCAA’s problem is that its historic
position has been compromised such that
an ongoing groundswell of public opinion
will likely encourage future litigation. It’s
one more example of how, in our society,
some change can only be brought about by
ambitious lawyers.
In this instance, there may also be powerful
agents of change once those lawyers clear
the path – namely, the schools themselves,
some of which have reportedly questioned
whether they even need the NCAA. “Many
of the bylaws that frustrate the wealthiest
schools are based on the NCAA’s legislating
competitive fairness – from what food
schools can provide to student-athletes, to
the amount of scholarships allowable on
rosters,” says Epstein.
“Perhaps the largest conferences will
realize that they no longer need the NCAA to
successfully function,” he adds. “They could
break off into a new association, possibly
adding significant staffing to conference
offices to handle logistical functions
currently performed at the NCAA National
Office.”
At least the schools don’t need to be
NCAA mouthpieces. They can, as a
communications strategy, underscore that
they do not share the plantation mentality,
a term that’s been used to describe NCAA
policy and practice.
In this effort, there’s no need to pick an
injudicious public fight. To the contrary, the
schools can seize on every opportunity that
the NCAA itself provides. For example, NCAA
president Mark Emmert has already allowed
colleges to offer four-year scholarships that
in effect end the current abuse by which
coaches can summarily cut athletes from the
$27%BELIEVE COLLEGE
ATHLETES
DESERVE TO BE
PAID BEYOND THEIR
SCHOLARSHIPS
roster on an annual basis. There are many
ways for schools to differentiate themselves.
It’s not about perquisites; it’s about basic
terms of engagement that directly affect
college and professional careers. Jim Delany
– while no supporter of paying the athletes –
talks about limits on the time athletes spend
on sports, for example, as well as lifetime
educational support for athletes who drop
out or go pro early, but decide to return to
college. Simply by vigorously supporting
such ideas or by proposing alternatives,
schools take leadership positions that won’t
be lost on the recruits they so aggressively
scout.
It’s a potentially transformative opportunity
for which colleges throughout the country
can thank Ed O’Bannon.

9. Weekly
16 17
Richard Levick
Originally Published on forbes.com
It’s one of our major healthcare issues.
According to modest estimates, around three-
quarters of prescription medication in the U.S.
are generics. Some reports put that number at
84%, with predictions as high as 87% for the
near future. Meanwhile, research firm IMS
Health found that, in 2012, money spent on
prescription drugs decreased by 1%. It was
the first such drop since IMS started tracking
numbers in 1957.
That the proliferation of generics has
driven down total costs is hardly surprising
but the implications remain significant.
Both health insurers and the government
obviously understand that generics serve
their fundamental cost control agendas. Since
the insurers are worried about their ability
to manage the cost of new customers under
Obamacare, they now have even more incentive
to encourage the use of generics.
It’s a boon for generic drug companies…well,
sort of. While one part of the marketplace,
including the government, is hell bent on lower
cost, concerns in and out of government over
the safety of generic drugs increase alongside
their popularity. In fact, 43% of those polled last
year by the Consumer Reports National Research
Center have persistent misgivings.
Enter the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Earlier this month, it was reported that the
FDA will issue a rule by September allowing
generic drug companies to make changes in
their labeling. Right now, only brand-name drug
companies can update their safety information
without FDA approval if they learn of a problem.
Generic companies cannot make such additions
unless the FDA orders them to or the brand-
name manufacturer has already done so.
But once the FDA Rule becomes law, the generic
drug makers will run the same risks as the
brand-name drug companies. They would
face unprecedented liability if their warnings
or other label information don’t pass muster,
and if their products injure consumers. Not
surprisingly, consumer advocates were quite
vocal in their support for the FDA’s proposed
rule.
The FDA’s move comes on the heels of multiple
recent Supreme Court decisions barring lawsuits
against generic drug makers. The Court’s
position is that, if the generic companies must by
law use the same labels as the brand companies,
they cannot then be sued for failure to warn,
as long their labels have the exact same safety
information as the brands. Critics of these
decisions question the logic of allowing one
company to be sued, and indemnifying another,
for marketing the same product. But the FDA
Rule could simply change the governing law and
thereby moot the preemption of failure-to-warn
claims upheld by SCOTUS.
On the other side of the argument, observers
like Joseph Thomas, a partner at Ulmer & Berne,
defend the disparity, pointing to differences in
“knowledge base” that give the brand companies
a decisive leg up in terms of R&D. Ostensibly, Big
Pharma bears more responsibility and more risk
because it has the resources to know more. Since
Big Pharma has market exclusivity before patent
expiration, their higher margins significantly
offset the cost of resources necessary to pay for
that greater responsibility.
“Many generic companies also do not have
the personnel today necessary to fully analyze
the risk profile of a pharmaceutical product,”
Thomas advises us. “The system was designed
that way with the intention that generic
companies could get products to market and
keep them on the market inexpensively.
“Creating a circumstance in which generic
companies must hire scientists to evaluate
incomplete data and speculate about labeling
changes is not in anyone’s interest,” adds
Thomas, who has represented the generic
drug industry’s trade association, the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA).
Yet there’s a critical subtext here, which is
all about public expectations. Predictably, as
the generic industry expands, there will be
something of a sea change in public attitude, of
which the aforementioned Consumer Reports
survey result is just one harbinger. Until now,
for example, the generic companies have been
cast in an appealing hero’s role, the plucky
underdogs who offer the public financially
critical alternatives to Big Pharma.
As healthcare industry growth patterns persist,
it will be hard for the generics to maintain that
role. Now they are Big Pharma, as the FDA’s
proposed Rule implicitly confirms, and as the
plaintiffs allegedly injured by generic drugs
would likely agree. Meanwhile, consumer
safety advocates are no longer just physicians
or professors. They’re anyone who happens to
own a computer and wants to warn his or her
Facebook communities that a particular drug,
branded or generic, might be dangerous.
Indeed, if there were ever an industry that needs
a social media strategy, here’s one for sure –
and they need it now, before the discussion
period on the new FDA rule begins. They need
to know what’s being said online, and they need
to vigorously respond. They must tell a story
that’s about safety as well as value, even as the
denizens of the social media begin to focus on
specific companies and specific drugs.
They must grapple, as they haven’t had to in
the past, with a lingering instinctual doubt
embedded in the consciousness of the consumer
public – that a brand drug is at some level safer
than a generic, especially when there’s a life-
critical medical problem. The power of a safety
buy dies hard.
In any event, the generic drug companies should
act and plan under the assumption that they
will be regulated. For starters, they need to view
the regulators in the same way as Big Pharma
does: as partners, not just pains in the neck.
The vanilla public statement issued by Ralph
Neas, GPhA’s President and CEO, seems a first
safe step: “Our members have a long history
of working closely with FDA to ensure that
Americans have access to safe affordable generic
medicines, and we look forward to working with
FDA on this important issue.”
Generic Drug Makers Will Soon
Face The Regulatory Music
L

10. Weekly
18
BLOGS worth following
Thought leaders
Amber Naslund
brasstackthinking.com
Amber Naslund is a coauthor of The Now Revolution. The book
discusses the impact of the social web and how businesses need
to “adapt to the new era of instantaneous business."
Brian Halligan
hubspot.com/company/management/brian-halligan
HubSpot CEO and Founder.
Chris Brogan
chrisbrogan.com
Chris Brogan is an American author, journalist, marketing con-
sultant, and frequent speaker about social media marketing.
David Meerman Scott
davidmeermanscott.com
David Meerman Scott is an American online marketing strate-
gist, and author of several books on marketing, most notably
The New Rules of Marketing and PR with over 250,000 copies in
print in more than 25 languages.
Guy Kawasaki
guykawasaki.com
Guy Kawasaki is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, bestselling
author, and Apple Fellow. He was one of the Apple employees
originally responsible for marketing the Macintosh in 1984.
Jay Baer
jaybaer.com
Jay Baer is coauthor of, “The Now Revolution: 7 Shifts to Make
Your Business Faster, Smarter and More Social."
Rachel Botsman
rachelbotsman.com
Rachel Botsman is a social innovator who writes, consults and
speaks on the power of collaboration and sharing through net-
work technologies.
Seth Godin
sethgodin.typepad.com
Seth Godin is an American entrepreneur, author and public
speaker. Godin popularized the topic of permission marketing.
Industry blogs
Holmes Report
holmesreport.com
A source of news, knowledge, and career information for public
relations professionals.
PR Week
prweekus.com
PRWeek is a vital part of the PR and communications industries
in the US, providing timely news, reviews, profiles, techniques,
and ground-breaking research.
PR Daily News
prdaily.com
PR Daily provides public relations professionals, social media
specialists and marketing communicators with a daily news
feed.
BUSINESS Related
FastCompany
fastcompany.com
Fast Company is the world’s leading progressive business media
brand, with a unique editorial focus on business, design, and
technology.
Forbes
forbes.com
Forbes is a leading source for reliable business news and finan-
cial information for the Worlds vvbusiness leaders.
Mashable
mashable.com
Social Media news blog covering cool new websites and social
networks.
COMMUNICATING
TRUST