Judy, I know the contract was signed a year ago, but the rules have changed. No one has to honor contracts they signed that long ago. The government will bail them out. Otherwise, we'd be expecting all those borrowers, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, AIG and the auto companies to honor their contracts as well. And that would not be in keeping with the Socialist Republic of the United States.

What so many people fail to see is that for these kinds of events, contracts were signed at least a year ago and whether the event goes forward or not, the bank is on the hook for paying for meeting space, food and beverage, hotel spaces, etc. You can't just cancel a big event and get all the money back. You can scale it back some, but if you just cancel, you're still going to have to spend a bunch of money on which you get NO return. It's ugly, but that's the nature of the business. The hotels have to protect their interests and shareholders too.

It's not as simple as people seem to think.

Anonymous just mentioned the comments to the Ragan story about the Wells Fargo ad. Here's the link to it.

http://tinyurl.com/bbrs8v

Ragan.com stories are locked down to Ragan Select members only after they have appeared on the Web site for two, sometimes three days. I convinced Ragan.com's managing editor, Roula Amire, to let me unlock it.

Wish you posters would've chimed in on Ragan's recent Wells Fargo/Vegas retreat story.

The common sentiment among the commenters back then was that Wells was basically Satan for planning to reward its multi-million dollar producers in Vegas after it accepted CPP money.

Maybe the truth is finally getting through: Not every bank was "bailed out." Plenty didn't want a dime, but took the money rather than endure a Purple Herman from regulators.

Barney Frank quite obviously knows that. He's just banking, if you will, on the fact that most of the public does not.

When all else fails, look at the facts. What a concept!

We might not even be in this mess if some legislators read the bills they've passed over the years that got us here.

But ole Barne finds it easier to write a letter and send it around to the media. Frank is a textbook case for term limits.

This sort of media/political piling on is an example of the "ready, shoot,aim!" reaction and coverage of this economic mess.

I agree with the other thoughts about taking the shot at TMZ, but other than that their PR team took the high road.

How many taxpayer dollars were used for the inauguration? How many corporate CEOs who also happen to be donors to the Democrats and recipients of coming stimulus dollars few to the celebration on corporate jets?

We know the inauguration was the most expensive ever, and many corporate dollars and government dollars funded the event. We were told it was all justified for the higher cause of "being a part of history." Still, what makes those excesses morally right and the customary use of corporate entertainment as a means to conduct business wrong?

I agree. We've got people being puritanical when it's convenient and high-minded in defense of drunken parties when it's for the greater good. These are the same people who think $1,000 per plate dinners to Save Darfur are honorable (even though the majority of the money is filtered by event planners), while a corporate golf outing to woo clients is evil.

How you grade the company statement, depends on who it was written for. If it was intended to only touch Northern Trust's core market and some well-paid network TV types, it was okay. If it was also intended to mollify the outraged politicians in Washington, DC and/or the majority of taxpayers who put up the $1.5 billion dollars, it was not very good.

Pretty good, overall. Could have been a bit tighter.

There are plenty of hard facts here, that's for sure. But they are presented in such a pedantic, John Houseman kind of tone that they make the reader work hard to get through them. There needs to be some acknowledgement of what the public is reacting to. To me, the response needed to address the driving force behind the public's eagerness to skewer the banks: Fear. The real PR debacle was "Here we little people are, fearful that we're going to be unemployed tomorrow, and these guys are spending federal bail-out money on parties!" So, present the facts, definitely. But address the emotion, too.

Or just say "Nah, nah, na-nah nah" and move on.

The content of this response is good.I don't see facts as spin.

My only quibbles are that it's too long and could have had more impact if the facts had been presented in point form.

A personal note: I see a rising Puritanical attitude toward any business activity that is seen as fun to those who have not worked a marketing event. As a non golfer and no fan of spectator sports, it is a penance to attend such marketing events that really do generate business. As the saying goes: you have to spend money to make money.

Just because this was well done - and I agree with you that it was - does not mean there's a "lack of spin." It just means this response seemed logical to you and did not offend you, but if anything, this certainly presents a solid case and a unique point of view and attempts to persuade. I don't like the term for the very reason it was raised here, but "spin" as you define it may seem to mean attempt to deceive, and in the absense of spin you assume that you have only facts, or more likely points you agree with that are facts to you.

That said, I regard "spin" as any attempt to persuade, be it from a moral high ground or as an attempt to deceive. I think in this case, the spin was with a high degree of integrity and (yuk, but I have to use the new over-used buzzword) transparency. What communicators need to consider right now, in the era of the apologize-for-breathing-if-you-are-a-money-grubbing-capitalist, is a sound strategy is to make your case unapologetically, and if your behavior was completely rationale and in the best interest of your firm, the public, and within all laws and standards of ethics, say so.