I ask the question because of a recent dispute I had at Ragan.

As the readers of Corporate Writer and Editor know, I do a regular column in CWE titled, 'The C.R.A.P. Awards.' It stands for Corporate Rhetoric Awards Program, and the 'awards' go to the worst stories, writing, design and photography in the organizational press. We're never short of nominees.

Anyway, in my recent column, I was lampooning a story I found in a Canadian publication that was titled:

'Finding Love and Sharing a Passion for XYZ Corp.'

Here was the lead:

'Thanks to Cupid, XYZ Corp.'s 'family'is, sometimes, really family. With a nod to Valentine's Day, Vision asked three XYZ couples to share their stories of love.'

To make matters worse, each of the three couples profiled is pictured, and the pictures are framed with lacy red hearts—just like the ones you see on bulletin boards at pre-schools everywhere.

One of the profiles talked about how this guy Mike pursued his current wife, Michelle, by sending her flowers and candy, by e-mailing her relentlessly, and asking her out repeatedly until she gave in.

Obviously, there's a lot wrong with this story. Including the fact that people like Sherman, the IT bedwetter who still lives at home, has never had a girlfriend, and always has mysterious stains on his pants, is going to think it's okay to start stalking women in the workplace.

But the other thing wrong with this article, I wrote in the C.R.A.P. Awards, is that in this age of Corporate Diversity, articles like this are exclusionary. Here's what I wrote in my original article:

'What about Sheldon, the homosexual designer? He's been going steady for two years with Doug from legal. But just because they can't get married, they don't get their pictures in lacy red hearts? You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures in a lacy red heart? Think again!'

Well, an editor at Ragan changed 'homosexual' to 'gay,' and wiped out the part about 'You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures in a lacy red heart?. . .' altogether.

I can see a case where the 'You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures . . .' sentence might cause some trouble . . . . but what the hell is wrong with the word homosexual?

I live in the gayest area of Chicago. It's known as Boys Town. I have a lot of homosexual friends. I asked a couple of them, and they weren't offended by the word. But my editor insists that it's now considered derogatory.

I'm asking you, fellow writers and communicators, is this true? Is homosexual now on the bad list?

A note from the Corporate Communicator's Conference

Well, the big Corporate Communicators Conference in Vegas is winding down. I'm about to head to the pool and lose myself in a sea of bloody marys before heading to the sports book to bet on the Cubs against the Red Sox. If I lived in Vegas, I'd be dead inside of two months.

I was going to post some conference coverage out here, but the hard truth is that I couldn't do it any better than my pal Charles Pizzo has done, on his conference blog.

Ragan hired Pizzo to create a conference blog, and he put together an unbelievable one—interviewing speakers, posting slides from presentation, linking to other relevant content.

My God. He has put hours into this thing. If Ragan hired me to blog about the conference, I would have posted about four half-assed items in between rounds at the bar. Pizzo puts me to shame, so check it out.

I did want to share a couple of good lines, though. First, the line from this morning's keynote session with 'The Wonkette,' who Newsweek has called the top political blogger in the b-sphere.

When asked which politician would win the 'Liar Liar Pants on Fire' award, the Wonkette said this:

'Oh, Jeez. I think it's a little bit like the Special Olympics . . . you'd have to give an award to everyone.'

That's good stuff. She later went on to call all journalists whores, which was also a nice touch.

And here's the other good line. I heard it from a guy from Toyota, in my four-hour pre-conference session. We were talking about how every company has malcontents, and every company has ass kissers.

And I said what I've always heard: That there are 10 percent of employees you don't worry about communicating to, because they are never going to be happy or like the company. So you can't worry about them.

And there is another 10 percent you don't have to worry about, because they love the company. They wear company t-shirts and drink the company Kool Aid.

Communicators, I said, need to focus on the 80 percent in the middle.

And the guy from Toyota said:

'We look at that a little differently. We always say we focus on the 80 percent in the middle, and the 10 percent who like the company . . . and let HR deal with the complainers.'

It seems to me that's an even better strategy.

A Pressing Issue for Communicators

Quick . . . what is the biggest issue facing internal communicators today?

Slashed budgets? Corporate transparency? Employee engagement? That Shabonna/Oakley legislation, whatever the hell that is?

Nope . . . none of the above. If what I heard at the recent Corporate Communicators Conference is true, then one of the biggest issues facing communicators today is . . . . the lack of quality toilet paper in the workplace.

You think I'm kidding? Not once, not twice, but three times the subject came up at the conference, in three different sessions.

First, in my four-hour pre-conference session on Integrating Print and Online, the great and wonderful Steve N. and Monique, from Motorola, were talking about how they started this great new interactive tool where employees could communicate directly with a Motorola senior leader.

While the tool is a great success, Steve N. did admit that, 'With all the strategic questions, we still get complaints that the toilet paper is too rough, too.'

The next day during her kickoff keynote session, the even greater and more wonderful Laurie Meyer, vice president of communications at Walgreen, Inc., was talking about an interactive tool where employees can contact the CEO of Walgreen and ask him any question on their mind.

'And he sees all of the questions . . . even the complaints about the toilet paper,' Meyer told the crowd.

Then, later that day, at the luncheon keynote, Arunas Chesonis, the CEO of PAETEC, gave a stirring speech about the power of communication, and said he's willing to correspond directly with any employee via e-mail—'Even though sometimes, when they complain to me that there is only one roll of toilet paper in the stalls of the bathrooms, I want to scream at them that all you have to do is reach your hand under the first roll to get to the second roll!' he said.

So there you have it. A crisis that could be wiping out an organization's credibility with its employees. As communicators, I think we need to roll out strategies to deal with this perception—real or imagined—that there is not enough quality toilet paper in corporate America.

Because all the stock options in the world can't make up for low-quality toilet paper. Toilet paper is, after all, one of the things that separates us from the animal world.

I like blogs. I like doing one, love that I can be more irreverent and informal out here, and I especially love the instant reaction from readers—either agreeing with me or calling me an idiot.

But just because I like the concept, that doesn't mean I'm sold on the idea that these can ever work inside a corporation, to improve internal communication.

And after attending the recent Corporate Communicator's Conference in Las Vegas last week, I'm more dubious than ever. My good friend and mentor Shel Holtz will probably want to castrate me and post pictures of my testicles on his blog for saying this, but I just don't see how most organizations can take this free-wheeling, powerful technology and harness it for the corporate world.

I talk about this at length in my front page Ragan Reportcolumn, but I want to bring it up out here, too, because I think it's important to the profession.

I called my column:

A popular tool that nobody is using
Blogs dominated Ragan's Corporate Communicator's Conference—despite the fact that very few communicators are using them for internal communication

Here's an excerpt from the column:

For now, internal blogs seem to be more of a pipe dream than anything else. The one opportunity to use blogs internally that you hear the most buzz about is the concept of an 'Executive Blog.' And when you think of what the blog has to offer, a CEO blog would seem to make perfect sense.

Wouldn't it be just terrific if a CEO communicated daily, or sometimes even several times a day, to employees in a relaxed, informal, non-corporate blog, encouraging comments and questions from all employees and entering into a free exchange of ideas with the entire workplace? Of course it would!

Wouldn't it also be great if icy cold gin and pinot noir flowed freely from the company water coolers, and they served steakhouse-quality meats for cheap in the company cafeteria? Of course it would! But neither set of circumstances is bound to happen anytime soon.

That's the thing many people seem to be forgetting, in their rush to embrace the new technology. No matter how powerful it is, blogs can't change the message. They can't force buttoned-up, tight-assed CEOs to suddenly start communicating well.

This is a particularly sore spot for me, because I see hundreds, if not thousands, of attempts at executive communication every year. I see their columns. I watch their Town Halls. I read their quotes in the employee vehicles.

And here's the thing: The overwhelming majority of executives suck at communication. And they don't just sort of suck. They don't just suck a little. They really suck. They could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose, they suck so bad. And giving these people the opportunity to communicate more with the workplace isn't always a good idea.

Or, as one CCC conference attendee told me:

'I wake up at night in a cold sweat, worrying that my chief executive is going to want to start blogging. Given his track record, with that kind of platform he could very easily bring about the ruin of the entire organization.'

Am I missing the boat on this? I understand the power of blogs. I think they are changing traditional media structures in the external world. I think they are changing the nature of the Internet.

But how much of an effect can even this kind of powerful technology have on most corporations? I wonder.

Eating and drinking and learning

I had dinner with my mentor, Shel Holtz, on Monday night. Every time I'm out with Shel—dinner, JazzFest, a Grateful Dead concert, whatever—I always learn at least one new thing.

This time was nothing new. Talking about the Internet, Shel gave me an interesting perspective:

'There are actually three different Internets, now, when you think about it,' he said. 'There's the research Internet, where you go to find stuff out, or accomplish something like book a flight.

'But now there is also a second Internet—the web of blogs and other personal expressions and opinions.

'And the third Internet is the multimedia Internet, including podcasts and such,' he finished.

When you think about it, if he's right (and he's rarely wrong about these kinds of things), it's going to really change how we communicate. For example, I teach writing for the Web seminars. And each of those three Internets is going to require a different style of writing.

The kind of writing I do out here in my blog assumes that people are actually going to read it, word for word, like they would a print piece. That is exactly the opposite of what I teach in my seminars, when I tell people to write for scanners and skimmers, using lists and bold words to call attention to important details.

Would you guys agree with Shel's assessment? Do you think the Internet is evolving into a three-headed monster, and we need to develop communication styles and strategies for each head?

On a different note, I won't be blogging for a couple of days, because I have great news!

My son and I are going to Neverland!!

Yes, that's right. We're finally going to Michael Jackson's Fun World For Children. My son has been bothering me for a year to go . . . but, since I am a responsible parent, I wasn't about to take him until this pornography/pedophilia thing got sorted out.

But my son and I were watching the news in breathless anticipation the day the verdict was announced, and when we heard 'innocent' we leaped with joy!!!

'Michael is innocent!!' my little boy screamed. 'Now I can go to Neverland!!'

'You sure can, son!!' I screamed back. 'Now that he has been proven innocent, it is all systems go for a trip to Fun City!!'

In a smart public relations move, Jackson is even allowing parents to go with their kids! Oh, Happy Day!! I can sit and sift through Michael's private collection of porn while the kids and Uncle Michael play the spanking game! I can sun myself on the terrace while Michael and the Lost Boys play 'Nudie Fish' in the pool!

Thank God it turned out that Michael is innocent . . . I don't know what I would have told my little guy if it turned out he was weird, and that Neverland was never going to happen.

I've been accused of being a sissy!

Two posts ago, I raised the question of whether or not blogs would ever find a home in corporate America.

A fabulous discussion erupted, with more than 40 people weighing in with their opinions. At the end, as it was winding down, I commented about how much I enjoyed the discussion, and agreed with what people were saying.

I got this e-mail from a 'fan':

'Bedwetter!! Sissy pants!! Waffling little wuss boy! How can you 'agree with everyone' when there were different opinions out there, you afraid-to-take-a-stand loser?'

I want to go on the record as saying I've never been afraid to take a stand. It's just that I was able to see the common arguments in the debate.

1. First, everyone agreed that blogs are a wonderful piece of technology that could serve many different purposes inside an organization. If anyone would have said, 'Blogs will never work inside any organization,' I would have taken a stand on their stupid heads and stomped them into the ground with their own stupidity . . . because blogs are already being used to great purpose in some companies, like IBM.

2. Second, everyone agreed that blogs are just another tool, another channel, and that we have to find the right place to use them. Blog Champion Shel Holtz is the first one to say that blogs need to be a part of a bigger strategy—and that you shouldn't try to do one just because you think the technology is cool.

3. Third, everyone agreed that at some organizations, they will probably never take hold. The culture will just never allow it.

4. Fourth, everyone agreed that if you have the right executive, an executive blog could work. Am I wrong about this? Is there someone out there saying that if you get a CEO who is personable and charismatic, who is willing to commit to a blog, and can write it in his own voice and deal with the interaction, that it wouldn't be a good thing? Of course not! My point is that those CEOs are hard to come by, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

To me, the whole debate wasn't black and white. It wasn't us versus them. It was a good discussion about blogs inside organizations.

So I am not, for the record, a bedwetting, sissified, waffling little loser. Am I?