The US auto industry has lost the war. Not just the battle, but the war. At least, the war for supremacy in fossil-fuel vehicles. We’re not close to being remotely competitive in the arena of fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and we never will be. Legacy pensions, benefits, an uncompetitive pay scale and sheer lack of vibrant new product ideas will ultimately crush the US auto industry. Foreign cars in this country are built in with a far more cost-effective cost structure. Detroit Big Steel is sunk. Pure and simple.
Automakers want a bail out because they’re burning cash at phenomenal rates, but they have no meaningful plans for how, exactly, they’re going to turn things around. What good is a bailout if there is absolutely no opportunity for a turnaround? Detroit will never compete with foreign owned manufacturers. They simply do it better, faster, and cheaper. There is no way Detroit can shed its ugly legacy of high costs, slow market response and white-collar fat. Let’s admit that.
On the other side of the coin, there is strong, albeit idealistic, talk about creating an energy-independent America and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels. Rather than debate about the future of the Big Three, let’s look at this situation from a radical perspective. Well, as radical as capitalism, with a kick in the pants from the government. Which, in case any of us have forgotten, is representative of the people, by the people and for the people. So here’s a “peoplespeak” solution.
Henry Ford didn’t invent the horseless carriage, but he did figure out how to mass produce it and capitalize on the abundance of cheap fossil fuel. It propelled the US auto industry for seven decades, but we have hit the end of the line. Government cash infusions for US automakers will only prolong the pain. There is no K-car or minivan miracle in our future. We will throw billions out the window if we simply prop up automakers doing the same old same old.
Many of the pundits of the early 1900s scoffed at the concept of replacing the cheap, reliable, hay-fed four-legged vehicle with a weird device with a starter crank and a paucity of places where this odd vehicle (which couldn’t even keep pace with a decent horse), could find fuel. We all know how that battle ended up.
After all these decades, perhaps it’s time for radical thinking, consistent with the radical concepts of Henry Ford in his battle for the internal combustion engine or Thomas Edison in his belief that electricity might actually be a cost effective replacement for gas lamps. I’m a historian, and if you spend enough time on the Internet, you’ll see just how much resistance there was to electricity. The rhetoric of the day might make you wonder why we aren’t working by the light of gas or kerosene.
Making a change from Detroit steel to Detroit clean green would be a move of desperation and opportunity, but so have many great successes to bolster our “unrealistic” hopes. John F. Kennedy charted a course to the moon before we’d barely breached the stratosphere, and six years later, men were walking on the moon. It can be done. And perhaps it takes a government initiative – reflected by the will and spirit of the people, rather than what we’ve come to think of as a government plan – to make this happen. If the people wish it, then the government, a vehicle of the people, should be compelled to make it happen. Unlike many countries, where government is a vehicle of the elite, the US government is not an “it,” but an “us.”
Before I launch my plan, let me counter one argument you must all have: Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, two of America’s great innovators and inventors, built their businesses without government intervention. Ideally, this is the way it should happen. However, you must agree that they operated without the restrictions of union and employment obligations, expectations of management compensation, and all the other factors that are weighing down the US automakers.
The concept of small manufacturers building energy efficient autos using alternative fuels sure sounds good, but it hasn’t worked in 20 years and it will never work. Too many vested interests, and a lack of sufficient compelling financial reward has proven that simple capitalistic entrepreneurship will not succeed. This dire situation requires a radical approach.
So here’s the plan: implement a plan that virtually nationalizes the US auto industry. If everyone is talking about bailing out US automakers because they’re a “can’t fail,” we’re already talking about virtual nationalization. We’re looking at an outdated, uncompetitive industry with high costs and an unbelievably slow to market response time. So if the US were to provide billions to the auto industry to prop it up, what new value proposition would we actually have? The same old companies, doing the same old thing, and when all is said and done, they would still not be able to cost-effectively muster a cost-effective, high quality alternative to their competitors.
If the political rhetoric is correct, and the country is ready for new transportation and energy alternatives, why not use a government bailout to jump start the Big Three into becoming the world leader in new-energy vehicles? How is this so different from Henry Ford figuring out how to make the break from hay-powered nags to the era of cheap fossil fuel?
Maybe whatever energy source we select will never be as cheap as the early days of fossil fuel. But do we still believe the US is the world leader in developing new, creative, cost-effective alternatives for the future? If we don’t believe that, we should give up right now. But then, who would the Chinese and Indians have to emulate? If we believe we are still world leaders in innovation and creativity, then let’s step up to the plate and make the jump from the four-legged hay-burner to the horseless carriage. This fundamental change in business would be risky, but it would also jump start a level of creativity and energy not seen since we made the commitment to put a man on the moon.
We can do this. Our country, spurred by a can-do attitude and an infusion of money, went from bi-wing canvas-clad airplanes with propellers to rockets on the moon in 25 years. Think about that: 25 years. If our belief in American leadership and ingenuity is accurate, let’s encourage these $46 per hour line workers who are proud of their creativity and expertise to show what they’re made of. Let’s not fire the white collar designers and engineers because there’s no future in designing fossil fuel vehicles. Let’s challenge them to rapidly develop a new generation of vehicles, with new power sources and new capabilities, at attractive price points. Let’s pressure gas stations to switch from offering bales of hay for the horses to instant battery chargers or bio-fuel dispensers or whatever. We’re heading toward a big government cash bailout anyway, so let’s make it count.
We’ll deal with the consequences later. We’ll figure out how to return these companies to independence, free from government control, and to being attractive free market investments. But right now, throwing good money after bad makes absolutely no sense. We will just prop up the same old operations, and sooner or later, they will collapse and the taxpayers will be out so much money American may never recover.
So, let’s be radical. It’s not a perfect plan, but can you think of any better way to meld populist agenda with economic reality?
While my livelihood is earned working as an investor outreach and financial communications consultant serving small public companies, including community banks, I truly enjoy spending time conducting fundamental research on equities and locating undervalued companies. As value investors know, there is nothing more rewarding than finding a truly underappreciated company. It just so happens today that many underappreciated companies are in the banking industry.
If you were to do a screen of community banks trading under book value with positive earnings two years ago, you would likely find just a handful of companies. More likely than not, these were probably companies with float constraints, non-SEC reporting, or any number of other concerns. When you pull an identical screen today, you will locate dozens of community banks with positive earnings and trading below book value. Does this mean most community banks are undervalued? Maybe. But it is also highly likely that the continued housing and related economic crisis (and margin compression due to interest rate adjustments) will continue to severely impact bank earnings and asset quality.
The community banks hurting the most seem to be ones that invested heavily in mortgage backed securities, made loans in markets they did not serve through traditional banking means, and/or had terrible luck in operating in real estate markets that bubbled and crashed beyond imagination (well, some predicted it).
With the above statement out of the way, I can say with full confidence that there are many high quality community banks that have been dragged through the mud along with their higher risk taking counterparts or larger regional banking competitors.
I’ve located a few community banks through fundamental screens and by way of more extensive research that have the following characteristics:
a) Trading at or below book value (or at a 52-week low)
b) Making money (strange thing these days, eh?)
c) Made loans only in markets they know and understand
d) “Well-capitalized” by regulatory standards
Eagle Bancorp (EGBN), Benchmark Bankshares (BMBN), Centrix Bank (CXBT), First California Financial Group (FCAL), Old Second Bancorp (OSBC), Stonegate Bank (SGBK) represent a few community banks that caught my attention this week.
I can’t claim to pick winners all the time, but I do know that many quality banks (like the ones I mention above) run by experienced and conservative bankers have been hemorrhaging in the stock markets and may deserve a really close look by savvy value investors with a long-term investment horizon.
Eagle Bancorp is particularly interesting because the company meets all of the above criteria and yet also operates in a very efficient manner as demonstrated by their low efficiency ratio. Typically, community banks in a growth phase have very high efficiency ratios (meaning overhead is high) as their costs balloon with the opening of new branches and even through acquisitions. This demonstrates management’s ability to operate their bank network in a lean manner and still produce earnings growth.
Benchmark Bankshares intrigues me for a different set of reasons. I have watched as many community banks, especially under the $500 million of assets “benchmark” have decided to cease filing with the SEC. This appear to be a growing trend, as small community banks can be overwhelmed just dealing with the FDIC and state bank regulators – which audit and control banks anyways. Essentially, some find SEC reporting too burdensome and costly (upwards of $500,000 per year). Benchmark no longer files with the SEC, however, earnings are growing (buffeted by a reduction in SEC reporting expenses) and the company currently pays a healthy dividend to shareholders.
Centrix, Stonegate, and First California are all small business focused banks. This means limited to zero exposure to residential mortgages, particularly risky loans which have caused many of their competitors' undue grief. Small businesses need credit right now in order to operate, perhaps more so than ever. Healthy banks without tarnished balance sheets should benefit from this.
I can’t claim to pick winners all the time, but I do know that many quality banks (like the ones I mention) run by experienced and conservative bankers have been hemorrhaging in the stock markets and may deserve a really close look by savvy value investors with a long-term investment horizon.
By Jacob Eisen
Disclosure: The author does not own stock or provide consulting services currently to any of the companies mentioned in this article.
I’ve about had my fill of hearing the words depression, recession, crisis and crash. So I’m looking for a new way to characterize the situation we now face. The good in what we’re going through now is that maybe, just maybe, this is the grand finale of more than a decade of neglecting what real value is, and what real values are. We’re in a crisis (both risk and opportunity), but there is nothing beneficial about describing it in negative, defeatist terms. So as opposed to the Great Depression, let’s call this the beginning of The Great Reality Check – a time when we finally adjust our values and our perceptions to acknowledge what constitutes value creation and growth.
Every day, real companies with real management teams and real employees are producing real products and services, and creating real value. With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it’s sometimes tough to keep that in mind. Absolutely, things are ugly around the world. But this offers the chance for us to readjust our priorities, clear our heads, and finally get back to figuring out what creates long term value in business and the markets.
I remember in the 1980s scratching my head and wondering how anyone could see the value in junk bonds, or how the prospect of high returns on paper with so little real value appealed to so many so-called intelligent investors. Yet the country forged ahead. Good people ran good businesses and good people worked for and invested in those businesses.
I wondered in the late 1990s how Internet and technology companies with ludicrous business models, impossible revenue projections and no timetable for becoming cash flow or earnings positive could attract billions of dollars in financing and soaring projections from analysts whose financial and economic degrees said they knew better. A lot of people lost a lot of money, but we kept on plugging.
I was perplexed as the 21st century made its rocky debut that, in the face of the horrible realities of terrorism and the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, that a coven of individuals could be so reckless and greedy in their behavior, harming shareholders, employees, and shaking the country’s confidence in corporate America. Yet real companies continued to generate real value.
Perhaps a bit desperate to find a bright spot, we set unrealistic expectations that, for the first time in history, we would have an endless housing bull market and the dream that everyone who got financing deserved it. We imagined there was long-term value from investing in a mountain of poor loans that should never have been made. Yet again, we happily drank the Kool Aid. Our eight cylinder economy is running on five and making loud, grating noises. Seems like a good time to take it to the garage for a long-neglected overhaul.
This is the time for us all to assess what constitutes real value creation – things like revenues, margins, cash flow, return on invested capital, smart management, and sound business strategies. Yes, everybody’s numbers are ugly and they will be for at least a few quarters. The good news is so much gas is out of the balloon that there’s very little pressure to justify current valuations.
It’s not too early for companies and their executives who believe they are viable and have solid long-term prospects to start communicating that information to the investing public. A ton of cash is sitting on the sidelines, and it will be coming back into the market at some point unless someone has figured out how to make cash in a dresser drawer generate double-digit returns.
I’d really like to believe that after more than a decade of seeing the disastrous results from deluding ourselves into buying products, concepts, companies and markets with make-believe value, we’ve learned our lessons and we won’t do it again. Which means real companies with a real investment opportunity stand a reasonable chance of being listened to. To folks like us, whose goal is to help real corporations share honest, meaningful, forward-looking communications with investors and employees, that would be a refreshing change.
Tad Gage
Many in the industry have long bristled when hearing that sell-side (brokerage-sponsored) equity research is somehow better than company-sponsored research because corporations haven’t traditionally paid for it. This is a misnomer. Not to be entirely cynical: it has served important functions such as providing grist for broker discussions with clients and in-depth analyses of covered companies’ prospects, competitive position and investment appeals.
But the bottom line is that the fees related to capital raising and financing have historically covered the cost of doing analysis and maintaining research departments. Research was a perk to covered companies, and a sales tool for retail and institutional stock brokers. To anyone who argues that brokerage research was more credible than quality company-sponsored research need only look at the late 1990s when “all star” analysts were endorsing the outrageous financial models of Internet and technology companies destined to fail, and further bolstering these companies with enthusiastic “buy” recommendations and fantastic price targets. In 2000, First Call found fewer than 1% of analyst ratings were “sell.”
The 2003 Global Settlement of Conflicts of Interest between Research and Investment Banking was designed to create a “Chinese Wall” between equity research and investment banking business. Although this may have given sell-side analysts more freedom and helped restore credibility, it has, not surprisingly, mortally wounded sell-side equity research. Since investment bankers can no longer guarantee positive coverage or even coverage at all to their clients, equity research is a cost center, ripe for downsizing. First on the block: coverage of companies least likely to generate significant investment banking dollars.
John M. Dutton, president of Dutton Associates, notes: “With the number of brokerage analysts cut by over 50% since 2001, sell-side coverage firms gravitated to where they can make money and to stocks that already have liquidity, ignoring the micro- and many small-cap companies. Many of us have had long careers in senior management positions in the brokerage industry with major firms. We all believe in the value of good research, widely distributed, as necessary to the functioning of the equity markets.”
A 2008 article in the Financial Analysts Journal, Buy-Side vs. Sell-Side Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts, co-authored by three Harvard Business School professors noted: “By limiting the investment banking benefits from sell-side research, an (unintended) consequence of the Global Settlement has been to reduce sell-side research budgets at leading investment banks and to encourage the growth of buy-side research.”
Sell-side firms continue to reduce their coverage of industries, trimming the number of covered companies and limiting coverage to only the largest of the large capitalization firms. Another trend discouraging research is the number of brokerage firms placing significant limitations on what their investment advisors can recommend to clients (market cap and minimum stock price restrictions, daily trading volume, focus on managed accounts versus individual stock picking). This reduced need for research goes hand-in-hand with the economic decision to continue reducing research.
Bottom line: this trend has severely limited opportunities for smaller corporations to receive coverage or to have an independently constructed business/financial model available to investors. Less information is bad for investors and bad for companies.
As the article in Financial Analysts Journal noted, some research has gravitated to buy side investors – institutional investors and money managers. For a number of years the buy side has shown decreasing interest and confidence in sell-side equity research, instead producing internal research that reflects and supports their particular investment strategies. In many buy side firms, individuals play the dual role of support-providing analyst and profit-generating portfolio manager. The research is entirely proprietary – never shared outside the firm.
Some excellent capital-raising firms specializing in small cap companies still produce research. However, as with buy side firms, distribution of this research is limited: clients, broker networks and possibly other affiliates. The same holds true for the handful of companies that create models and analytics to sell to money managers and institutional investors – only subscribers receive it, and the subscription price is not cost-effective for individual investors or smaller money managers and investment advisory firms.
None of this buy-side research or information is distributed to widely used investor services like Bloomberg, Zacks, etc. for their users to access. Nor is it posted on the web. Nor are full reports and updates accessible for downloading from a website.
Today’s equity investment research scene is highly fragmented and exceptionally limited. A decade ago it was realistic for a solid-performing small cap company to reasonably expect full or at least partial coverage from four, possibly five analysts. Today, most small- and micro-cap companies are lucky to have one.
Dutton Associates gives any and every corporation access to independent modeling and analytics, broad distribution to investor websites, and easy availability of all reports and updates. True, the covered companies pay for this research. However, Dutton’s reputation and the continuing value of its research and models depend entirely on its quality and accuracy. Dutton’s analysts adhere to the highest industry standards set for research and analytics of any kind, playing by the same rules as every other top-rated analyst.
We like the fact that Dutton is not afraid to turn down a prospective client if its initial review indicates significant flaws in the company’s business model or operations. According to the firm, Dutton turns down about 30% of the companies that approach it for coverage. Its experienced analysts have to be credible to provide value to investors, who also are the ones making the final decision about whether or not they agree with the research and model being offered – no different than it has ever been with equity research.
Dutton explains: “The issuer paid industry in 2004 was addressed by the Chartered Financial Analysts Institute and the National Investor Relations Institute in their Standards piece published in December of that year. What we and the CFAI have done with the standards was create a platform that could address this very significant market segment – small and micro cap – and have an economic underpinning that allowed good firms and analysts to generate revenues to pay their costs.
“We worked with the CFAI to make the proposed standards equivalent to NASD Rule 2711 governing research post the 2002 settlement. You will find this to be the case where a few of us closely follow these standards. Additionally, my belief was that to be effective, the quality of analysts had to equal those on the brokerage platform. As you can see from our analysts’ bios, all most all of our analysts were senior analysts at the major brokerage firms, many former Directors of Research, All American, etc., prior to joining Dutton.”
Dutton’s company research is broadly available at www.duttonassociates.com, where investors can download reports and research updates on any of Dutton’s clients. Ratings and updates are sent to thousands of Internet investor and news sites. This is impossible with any other research generated by the sell side or buy side. Capital Insight Partners believes this caliber of paid-for research provides a great service to investors and companies, particularly in these times when any kind of substantive and widely-available research is in scarce supply.
Dutton’s internal analysis shows returns of its covered companies averages +9.3% after 60 days of coverage, outperforming the Russell 2000 by nearly 4 times, and 30% after 1 year, outperforming the Russell by 2 times. Volume increased 380% after 1 year on average, excluding maximum and minimum values. Investors pay attention, and for a good reason.
Dutton measures the effectiveness of its research by several things, namely relative performance and impact on trading. The chart linked below tracks those of Dutton’s many covered companies over $100 million of market cap as to the price performance and trading changes:
http://www.cap-insight.com/white-papers/dutton.bmp
“I think this speaks for itself,” says Dutton. “I look at our distribution – Bloomberg Professional, First Call, FactSet, Capital IQ and the utilization of our research via these channels. If our research was not of significant use to their customers, we would not have had over 6,100 institutions and brokerage firms use our research last year.”
You have probably heard this line a million times; however, nothing can be further from the truth.
The basics of an IPO work like this. A company hires an investment banking firm to serve as lead underwriter of the stock offering. A prospectus is put together to be approved by the SEC and FINRA. Next, the underwriter enlists the help of other brokerage firms, each receiving a commission upon the sale of stock to its customer. The underwriters technically purchase the shares from the company at a discounted price and then resell the shares to its customers, pocketing the difference.
What you may not have heard is that brokerage firms are encouraged to continue participation in the aftermarket if they want to be included in the initial sale and receive commissions. This ensures that people buy and sell the stock for sometime while the initial group of buyers can get out of the stock and make a swift profit. Without this aftermarket support, the stock crumbles, which can happen more often that you think in IPO stocks.
Sometimes the newly public company may be strong, gaining legitimate support; however, this manufactured support drives the stock in its early stages. There is no guarantee that this support will continue on after a few months, if at all.
David Feldman
The Reverse Merger Blog
www.reversemergerblog.com
Anthony Burke Boylan
Your investors, current and future, don’t get their news from just one source anymore.
Individual and institutional investors now get their financial and market information from many sources: traditional and non-traditional, old and new – reliable and not so reliable. These new media sources represent great opportunity, but more than ever a company needs to carefully consider how and where it distributes its news, and be vigilant about monitoring the variety of news and information sources made possible by the Internet.
This is where a media-savvy consultant – someone with day-in, day-out interactions with the rapidly changing communications landscape – becomes an invaluable resource. With all the communications outlets and opportunities available, it’s not enough to put out a release and hope it finds the right channels – if that effort ever was enough. You need a comprehensive strategy that reaches a broad range of investors, sophisticated and otherwise, through different channels.
A successful media strategy involves a combination of direct communication with your most active and interested investors, outreach to traditional media channels, and a cohesive strategy to get your story on the web so that it can be found by even a casual or novice surfer.
Traditional business and financial media, from newspapers to broadcasters to news wire services, once served as the authoritative outlets for news about corporations. They were expected by their audiences to be fair, if not completely objective, and their facts and reporting were assumed to be credible. Media and communications have changed radically. Formal media outlets have diminished. Virtually anyone who can post on the Internet, on the right site and armed with a few facts, can at least appear to be an expert. You need to make sure you are blunting any and all misinformation being circulated in channels that not only are unregulated, but often hard to monitor.
This can include ill-informed but well-intentioned bloggers or contributors posting on boards and chat rooms. Many are self-styled experts who have decided a negative and contrarian opinion is their ticket to notoriety. These can range from people who just don’t understand the issue, but pretend they do, to people with a self-serving agenda, to someone who is downright malicious because of a previous employment or consumer relationship with the business.
What they all have in common is that their voices would have been only one in the crowd before the Internet revolutionized communication in an egalitarian fashion that benefits society by allowing the occasional day trader the same online voice as that of a successful hedge fund manager. In fact, sometimes the most uninformed voices are heard the most clearly because they yell the loudest through their use of Internet tools and by perpetuating myths and stereotypes already held by the public.
And new media now shapes what newspapers write and broadcast stations put on the air. The research involved sometimes is no more than getting reactions from the “blogosphere’’ as if they have discovered a source the average person doesn’t have.
The further from general knowledge a subject is, the more likely the traditional media is to use so-called Internet experts. If your voice is one of the ones available to a legitimate outlet from MSNBC to the New York Times to your local community paper, your story stands a better chance of being told to your satisfaction.
Take the current banking situation. There is a deafening clatter of misinformation being spread. Why else would depositors run on IndyMac AFTER it was taken over by the FDIC? Is there one financial rule average consumers hear more often than that their FDIC deposits are insured? And could there be a safer moment to have your money in a bank than in the day immediately after an FDIC seizure?
Sure, you assume investors in small and micro cap companies to be better informed. But that isn’t always the case. Investors who strive to be informed on your company still face obstacles. They might get three different stories from three different sources. Many of these sources are questionable. You might feel confident a reporter from a major news outlet, even when quoting anonymously, actually is using a credible source. Can you be sure a blogger quoting an anonymous source isn’t making it up? There are no traditional ground rules in the new media. Even outright defamation, libel or slander can be impossible to enforce when the identities are shielded.
But even if the Wall Street Journal picked up every release you put out, handled the information in a journalistically responsible manner and quoted industry experts who spoke positively about your company -- that still wouldn’t be enough. While many established news outlets definitely carry authority and credibility, the sheer volume of alternative information outlets have diminished the importance and impact of traditional media.
Now your investors, and the people who shape their opinions, need your message to be spread across every available platform. It is ironic that these often are the same platforms that “ill-informed but well-intentioned bloggers and contributors” stake out.
Here are the three basic components to make sure your message is heard clearly and in a consistent manner that keeps it relevant to your mission:
Direct communication with investors, media, and analysts:
The primary communications responsibility of a public company still is to keep open lines of dialogue with current and potential investors, as well as the analysts and opinion leaders who help shape perceptions and advise others on investment opportunities. The new media can be a powerful tool in accomplishing this goal, but it requires an expert consultant to guide a company through the maze of options.
Some of the tools that always have worked in this area still do: conference calls, newsletters, earnings summaries and direct or e-mail correspondence. But there are new tools, as well, and those are covered below.
Outreach to established media:
No communication strategy is complete without reaching out to the traditional and trusted gatekeepers of news. Whether it’s The Wall Street Journal, respected industry publications, CNN.com or very specific web sites that deal with your business, recognized and respected experts still have a significant role in shaping well-informed opinions, and will for the foreseeable future.
The media might seek out your story – but this usually occurs when it’s particularly poor or exceptional. A “good news” story has never been quite as appealing as a juicy “bad news” story. In most cases you have to get your story to them, especially so you have a role in shaping how it’s told.
Convincing a publication, financial website, Internet media outlet or a respected online advisor that your story is a compelling one worth telling takes time, expertise and a knowledge of the media landscape.
Various news outlets maintain different standards of newsworthiness. A media expert can guide you through this obstacle course helping to tailor your communications with each outlet and advise you on the potential for difficult issues and questions and how best to address them.
Internet and Keyword SEO:
There are, of course, new tools that help you with this task. Conference calls and executive audio and video presentations can be streamed online where investors can find them. Releases to investors and analysts can be distributed through new media tools and not merely through traditional news wire services. PRWeb, for example, allows your information to reach every corner of the Internet and be seen by anyone who researches your company, products or services.
Simple software allows you to set up blogs or similar communication tools so that your company web site is among the first places people go for information on your company and your sector.
And a consistent effort to use keywords (optimized for search engines) ensures your information will be among the most frequently viewed web hits. This means you can speak as loudly – or louder – than all of the other voices that stand as potential distractions.
The end result is not that you have to change the message you are sending. It is that you have to work more diligently to make sure your message is received by everyone who should hear it, and that they hear it in the way you intend.
While new media does present new opportunities to communicate, it also means new obligations and more comprehensive strategies to take advantage of those opportunities. Companies that don’t employ a strategy to meet all of these opportunities risk allowing someone else to define them.
