In a random search of press releases, here are some award-winners this week:

Most unnecessary press release

Knight Energy Corp. Subsidiary Purchases Two Drilling Rigs

Longest opening paragraph I can’t translate into English

SALT LAKE CITY, July 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Cimetrix, Inc. (OTC
Bulletin Board: CMXX), a leading provider of factory automation software and solutions for the global semiconductor industry, announced today the availability of a new and innovative tool control solution — CIMControlFramework(TM). CIMControlFramework is the result of a joint development project between Cimetrix and semiconductor equipment leader, Axcelis Technologies, to define, build, and deploy a next generation tool control framework. The new software addresses the increasing demand for more efficient 300mm substrate handling and factory automation at the tool level as well as the need for more and better quality data. These objectives are currently the focal point of such semiconductor industry initiatives as 300mm Prime, Engineering Equipment Capabilities (EEC), Predictive and Preventive Maintenance (PPM) and Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). Combined with the domain expertise of the new Cluster Tool Control Practice within the Company’s Global Services department, Cimetrix now offers a complete tool control solution.

Longest quote

“We have high expectations that our agreement with Microsoft on the licensing of its IP related to digital camera calibration technology will prove to be of great use to us in developing our image-processing business,” said Masakatsu Makino, president of FAST.
“FAST is a specialist image-processing technology company that develops, manufactures and sells image-processing software, devices and systems,” Makino said. “The IP licensed from Microsoft is outstanding camera calibration technology for 3-D measurement and inspection systems utilizing 3-D measurement in production environments in which high practical precision and simple camera calibration operation processes are required. We plan to roll out distinctive image-processing products in the near future that incorporate this technology. As a company developing advanced technology to meet customer needs, we feel that Microsoft’s technology will bring many benefits.”
“As its licensing of this technology demonstrates, Microsoft is implementing a policy of providing a broad range of industries with access to its technology with the aim of contributing to the advance and growth of other industries and their technology,” Makino said. “We take our hats off to Microsoft for this admirable policy.”

Longest quote that is at least somewhat understandable

“Snipitron is a Social Research platform to promote learning, sharing and creativity among global users. It brings together web content, streaming media, well-formed documentation, and analysis into a single location that can be easily accessed and distributed as well as providing a set of tools for keeping this information organized, stored, and delivered,” said Ryan Rouland, a Principal at Snipitron LLC. “With virtually endless market verticals for Snipitron, the use of this program for collaborative sharing is endless. So many people use computers for doing research — consumers shopping for the best coat, students and authors collaborating and conducting research for a book report, PR pros who want to share files with the press, real estate brokers who want to promote listings, fitness gurus who want to share diet and training information, attorneys who want to aggregate and share confidential research and information with clients and other groups. Snipitron allows them to access files from a single point, send MLS listings to a client interested in buying a home, newsletters blasted to customers, assign projects, or share photos with friends. Anyone can use this but it was primarily geared to the professional looking to make their business lives easier and more productive.”

Quote with most unnecessary big words

“LandAmerica management in this market is innovatively improving our service capabilities while reducing reliance on fixed-cost physical locations,” said Chandler. “We will evaluate the performance of the Colorado initiative to determine its applicability to additional markets in the future. There are features of this approach that may well be appropriate for other markets and may facilitate further office consolidations over time. Our ultimate objective is to intelligently eliminate costs and improve service levels at the same time.”

Quote with most gobbledygook

“RTS is pleased to once again be an early adopter of a new milestone of
the NYSE Euronext(TM) Technology Roadmap. The LIFFE CONNECT(R) services complement our existing European Cash Markets 100 MMBA Solution and leverage the low latency, high bandwidth needs of our clients who adopt our hosting solutions for global derivatives and cash markets. With easy access points for traders in Frankfurt and London, as well as Chicago, we are able to offer our clients speed of access to market and quick deployment of their algorithmic trading solutions,” said Mirjana Zuro, Vice President Business Development.

Longest disclaimer in relation to the press release

Solera National Bank Announces Launch of Remote Deposit Capture

Best Headline

www.ChangeTheWayWeGo.com Ends Battles in the Bathroom

Best Quote

“The iPhone has done more to change the way we think about mobile interactive than any other individual device in history,” said Warren Tomlin, Chief Creative Officer of Fuel Industries. “For us to wait and see with this device would be to put us in the same league with companies who waited around for the internet to catch on.”

Best opening paragraph

HENNEPIN, Ill., July 11 /PRNewswire/ — Caution! If read in its entirety, “Why Do Drugs Cost So Much? and why are we so darn sick? (published by AuthorHouse — http://www.authorhouse.com) may cause the following side effects: surprise, anger, disbelief and even amusement.

Best headline with opening paragraph

See What Happens When ‘What If’ Meets ‘Why Not’ 

SILVER SPRING, Md., July 10 /PRNewswire/ — You’ve heard the dire warning; you’ve seen the detailed PowerPoint; you’ve even bought that light bulb with the swirls, but how about some real action? Now the world’s leading scientists meet three uncompromising visionaries to put the most ambitious geo-engineering ideas to the test, tackling global climate change in DISCOVERY PROJECT EARTH premiering Friday, August 22 at 9 pm ET/PT on Discovery Channel.

So many of us think “it won’t happen to me.” Maybe it’s a survival instinct—If we admitted just how vulnerable we are in the world, we’d never leave the house.

Take Jesse Jackson. He knows how many high profile people have been burned by open mics they didn’t think were open. Yet there he was, lavaliere on his lapel, sitting in front of a camera, dissing Barack Obama.

And no, Jesse, whispering doesn’t make it any better.

Even his fellow guest on Fox News, Reed Tuckson, whom Jackson was complaining to about Obama, knew enough not to say anything back. And he has a lot less experience in front of a camera than Jesse.

It’s not just open mics we have to be careful of. Anything you say within earshot of a reporter is fair game, whether in an interview, at a trade show, on an elevator, or at the airport.

And yes, it can happen to you.

You know the old saying “actions speak louder than words?” Action: The Prime Minister of Great Britain ate an eight course dinner at the G8 summit in Japan. Words: Just before that he had issued a statement urging the world to reduce the unnecessary demand for food, and calling on the British to cut back on food waste.

Actually, it wasn’t just the Prime Minister who ate the lavish dinner—and the working lunch earlier that day with six courses. All the leaders were there, including George Bush, but Gordon Brown is taking the heat because of his untimely proclamation about food hours before stuffing himself.

Even worse, the world leaders had just held discussions about the food crisis with the heads of Ethiopia, Tanzania and Senegal— but they weren’t invited to the dinner.

Who counsels these people? It’s understandable that the Japanese Prime Minister would want to show what a gracious host he could be. And it would be rude for the leaders not to accept his hospitality. But does anyone planning these events in eight powerful countries think how this will look to the rest of the planet?

They’re talking about a food crisis while eating caviar, Kyoto beef and smoked salmon. Meanwhile millions of people are starving. Never underestimate how hypocritical politicians can be.

Every day in boardrooms and conference centers across the country, thousands of people are acting out a charade they rarely talk about. Speakers deliver PowerPoint presentations, pretending that their audiences understand and enjoy them. Meanwhile, those watching the presentations play their own parts, pretending to pay attention, to comprehend, and to care.

Maybe it’s time to finally admit what almost everyone knows: the emperor has no clothes! The majority of PowerPoint presentations are boring and unintelligible. Very seldom do they promote any kind of understanding and ultimately, learning.

Then why do so many smart people continue to play the game, knowing that for both presenters and listeners, it’s a waste of time? They do it because everyone else does it that way, it’s always been done that way, because that’s the way their company or organization expects it to be done, and especially because to change will take more time and effort.

Ban Bullet Points

The main problem with boring PowerPoint presentations is bullet points; slide after slide filled with bullets, sub-bullet points, and sub-sub-bullet points. Unfortunately, PowerPoint (and Keynote) templates encourage that mind-numbing format by leaving placeholders for titles and bullets.

According to the findings of John Sweller at the University of New South Wales, Australia, people cannot read and listen well at the same time. He calls it the cognitive load theory.

“It is effective to speak to a diagram or chart, because it presents information in a different form,” Sweller told the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007. “But it is not effective to speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented.”

Ditch the Data Dump

Richard Mayer, an educational psychology professor and researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reports similar findings. Our working memory (or short-term memory), the part of the mind focused on a presentation, briefly holds information while working to integrate it into long-term memory. But working memory is limited and can only absorb information in small chunks.

Unfortunately, the average PowerPoint presentation dumps huge amounts of data in a short period of time, assuming that once that information is sent, the listener will receive and remember it intact. But delivering a presentation that way is like sending a fire hose full of water to an audience that has the capacity to drink only drops at a time.

Create Three Presentations in One

So how do we make our presentations more interesting, understandable and effective? First, think of your PowerPoint as an audiovisual aid, not an audiovisual crutch. The slides aren’t there for your benefit, to help you remember your presentation. Instead, they should help guide the audience by supporting visually what you are saying orally.

Ideally, a presentation will have three different parts. First are the slides that the audience sees, containing visuals and as few words as possible. These slides should never be able to stand alone. If they do, there’s no reason for you to be there. Instead, just mail it in.

The second part is the notes that only you will see. This is where you list the points you want to make and supporting information, the stuff that used to be in your bullet points. You can have the notes in front of you while you deliver the presentation.

Third is the written handout you give to the audience. This can include the main points as well as more in-depth information and back-up data that is too detailed and complicated to include in your presentation.

Stop Making “Slideuments”

The only way to improve PowerPoint presentations is to stop creating what Garr Reynolds, author of Presentation Zen, calls a “slideument,” a combination slide and document. To save time, people want to plan their presentation so it can serve as both projected visuals and stand-alone handouts. That way they can kill two birds with one stone. But as Reynolds says, the only thing “killed” is effective communication. You end up with a bad slide and a bad document.

It’s difficult to fight this disfunctional culture of PowerPoint. It’s engrained in our workplaces, our churches, our schools. But I sense the movement for change picking up steam. You have a choice: continue to feed the problem with PowerPoints that don’t do anything but bore the audience; or work to change the way things have always been done by creating presentations that engage, enlighten and entertain.

If the upcoming Presidential election were about who is the best public speaker, Barack Obama would win by a landslide. But we aren’t that superficial; that isn’t how we determine who will run our country for the next four years. Or is it?

The way candidates come across during their presentations directly effects their likability and credibility, which in turn influences whether or not they appeal to the public.

We all know the impact of the first Nixon/Kennedy debate in 1960. Much has been written about how Richard Nixon, who refused makeup, looked pale and sickly. During cut-aways, he wiped sweat from his face. Meanwhile, a tanned, handsome John Kennedy appeared cool and calm. People who heard the confrontation on the radio believed Nixon had won. But those who watched it on TV overwhelmingly favored JFK.

In this election, the contrast seems almost as vivid when the candidates read their speeches from a TelePrompter. Obama retains his natural eloquence and charisma. John McCain comes across as wooden, phony and unfriendly.

Ironically, in person, and often in interviews and speeches where he’s expressing himself extemporaneously, McCain is as charming as Obama. He’s funny and self-effacing, authentic, friendly and engaged. But then give him a script he has to read word for word and watch that natural charisma disappear.

This is true of most people who try to read speeches, whether with or without a TelePrompter. They are so concerned about the words they are reading, they lose the timing, pausing, and conversational character of regular speech. Also gone are their natural gestures, eye contact and facial expressions.

One side note: Often, the speaker isn’t the only one at fault. Being able to come across conversationally is directly related to how a speech is written. If the writer drops contractions (saying “do not” instead of “don’t”), uses big words and long sentences, even the best speakers will have a difficult time being natural.

People can learn to read a speech effectively — Obama has — but it’s very difficult. Like any skill, one has to work at it seriously and consistently. I’m sure McCain has been coached on how to read better, but I doubt that in the last months of a grueling campaign he’s going to have the time or inclination to improve.

The best thing McCain’s staff could do to help their candidate win is give him an outline or bullet points and let him speak spontaneously. Of course that’s risky. The stakes are high. With no script to fall back on, he’s more likely to make a mistake and say something damaging. But with a script, he’s more likely to lose the the election.

The media often tend to overplay the death of one of their own, but in the case of Tim Russert I feel the numerous tributes and coverage over the last six days have been entirely justified.

There was something special and different about Russert as a journalist and as a “TV personality.” As someone who hated phonies in politics or anywhere else, he was as real as they come. He had not one shred of arrogance. Neither the power of his pulpit on Meet the Press nor his celebrity status ever went to his head. He never forgot his roots or what it was like before he was rich and famous.

It’s common for viewers to think they “know” people they see on TV. After all, these are people coming into the intimacy of their living rooms or bedrooms. But I believe Tim Russert was so real and approachable, viewers really did know him even though they never met him. How else to explain the thousands of everyday folks who came to Washington to honor him, some driving hundred of miles to get there?

Beside those regular people streaming past his casket or going to his memorial service were the most powerful figures in politics who also admired and respected Russert (even though they’d occasionally been skewered by him). They knew he was smart and tough, but also a genuinely nice guy.

I’ve worked with a lot of people in broadcasting who are just “readers.” They come into the newsroom, get their script from the producer, deliver the news and go home. Russert was the opposite. He spent all week preparing for his one-hour program. He knew politics. He loved politics. He wanted the rest of us to understand and appreciate it as much as he did.

I can’t imagine watching this election year unfold without Tim Russert to guide us and provide insight on what’s happening and what will happen. How sad he didn’t get to finish covering this, his favorite election. How lucky we were to experience him as long as we did.

A new twist on food contamination lawsuits: the meat company is suing the victims.

When one elderly woman died, and 17 others became ill after eating meatballs in 2006 at a Lutheran church social in Minnesota, Nebraska Beef was sued for providing beef tainted with deadly E. coli bacteria. Pretty ordinary stuff. You expect the two sides to talk and reach an out-of-court settlement.

But Nebraska Beef has taken the very extraordinary action of suing Salem Lutheran Church, contending that the 20 volunteer church ladies who prepared the food were negligent. The church’s lawyer effectively fired back by putting a very human face on her client: “These are really lovely ladies. They have collectively, oh, 500 years of cooking experience between them. These women have been cooking years and years and years without incident.”

It’s hard to imagine what Nebraska Beef expects to gain from its actions. Certainly, public relations wise, the company can’t benefit from blaming 20 little old church ladies for killing one of their friends, even if it does win the lawsuit. No matter what, the meat supplier comes across as a bully.

And winning seems like a big stretch. Unless there is undeniable proof that the volunteers were at fault — and so far there isn’t — it’s difficult to imagine a jury punishing a group of grandmothers for trying to raise money for their church.

Either I’m missing something or Nebraska Beef is making a huge blunder.

After years of telling others how to do their best in media interviews, I had a chance recently to “put my money where my mouth is.” A local TV station wanted to interview me about my critique of Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s presentation skills. The experience pretty much reinforced many of the things I’ve been telling my clients.

As is typical, they called at the last minute, wanting me to come down to the station within the hour rather than them coming to me. I hurried up — and then cooled my heels in the lobby waiting for someone to get me. When the reporter finally came, he didn’t even introduce himself. I guess he figured because he was on TV, everyone knew him. I didn’t.

We went through the newsroom (not much changed from the newsroom I worked in 20 years ago), back to where the videographer was setting up the camera and lights. I chatted with the reporter for about five minutes and then, without any warning, we were taping. That didn’t throw me, but could easily have rattled someone less experienced.

I tell my clients that a TV interview is a sprint. It’s over before you know it, so you can’t wait to get “warmed up.” You have to be ready to go full force from the very beginning. My race lasted about three minutes.

I also advise my clients to go into the interview armed with a couple of clear, concise, colorful soundbites to use in their answers. I figured I should take my own advice, so I started my first answer with this: “If the election were about who is the best speaker, Obama would win hands down.” Sure enough, he used it in the finished story.

I spent 15 years as a reporter and anchor, asking the questions. But answering them with the lights and camera on you is a whole different, and in some cases, much more daunting task. Like many challenges in life, it’s all about getting practice and experience.

PR pros have preached for years about the power of an apology. Example after example has proven that if you or your organization makes a mistake, saying “I’m sorry” goes a long way toward helping people forgive you, and causes the media to move on to the next story.

Now, the apology idea is getting new support from the health care industry. Lawyers have long advised doctors and hospitals to “deny and defend” when confronted with malpractice accusations, saying any hint of guilt or regret invites law suits. But now a few medical centers are going against common practices, and the results seem to show it’s working in their favor.

The New York Times says the University of Michigan Health System was one of the first to experiment with telling patients honestly about errors, sincerely apologizing, and offering fair compensation. Since starting the new policy, claims and lawsuits dropped to 83 in August 2007, down from 262 in August 2001.

Since the University of Illinois started the policy two years ago, the number of malpractice filings has dropped by half. In 37 cases where the hospital acknowledged a preventable error and apologized, only one patient filed a suit.

This supports what many have said about lawsuits in business as well. When people are honest and take responsibility for their mistakes, they help defuse the anger in the offended parties. When they don’t admit error or try to blame others, people are more intent on getting their “pound of flesh.”

The Jack in the Box story of 1993 is a good example of the fall out from passing the buck. 300 people became ill after eating E. coli infected hamburger at the company’s restaurants. A ten-year-old boy died. Company management waited almost a week before admitting its responsibility for the poisonings and expressing empathy to the victims. Even then, the Jack in the Box president blamed the company’s meat supplier. Crisis and litigation experts say their lawsuits from victims, shareholders, and franchisees went on longer and settled for more money because Jack in the Box tried to shift blame.

Bob Sutton, in his blog, cites other supporting research from business psychologists. Their results suggest that managers and leaders who take responsibility when things go wrong and communicate how they’ll change their actions as a result have better reputations that those who try to point fingers. Even more interesting, there’s also evidence their companies do better over the long term.

None of this evidence will change the mind of those stubborn CEOs and executives who just can’t admit they did something wrong. But for anyone on the fence, it’s hard to deny the power of those two little words.

I couldn’t be happier for him. Mr. Arrogance himself was revealed to be the uncaring bully that he is.

Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, received an email from a desperate Countrywide customer asking for an adjustment to his mortgage terms. Mr. Sympathy, who pulled down $10.8 million dollars while his company lost $704 million, thought he was forwarding the email to a subordinate.

Commenting on the plea from the beleaguered homeowner, he called it “unbelievable” and “disgusting.” But instead of hitting “forward,” Mozilo hit “reply” so his comments went back to the sender.

The homeowner wasted no time in posting the email exchange on loansafe.org. The company issued a lame statement expressing regret over any misunderstanding caused by Mr. Mozilo’s inadvertent response.

Oh, I don’t think there was any misunderstanding at all.