Jury Impact in Bloomberg and The New York Times

Jury Impact is once again in the news, with Chris St. Hilaire quoted in Thursday editions of Bloomberg and The New York Times.

Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article Selecting Jury for Bonds Is Hard in Giants Country.

Chris St. Hilaire, president of Jury Impact, a jury consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said that finding a juror without a predisposition toward Bonds would be a challenge.

“Finding someone who doesn’t have an opinion about Barry Bonds is like finding a cowboy who doesn’t have an opinion about a horse,” he said, adding that the ideal juror is likely to be a casual fan who has heard of Bonds, but does not know much about him or the charges against him.

“You’d think that the perfect juror would be someone who loves baseball, but I think the worst juror for them would be a hard-core fan,” he said of what the defense might be looking for. “You want someone who can be swayed by the evidence, not by their agenda.”

And an excerpt from Bloomberg's piece Bonds Jurors Face Ban on Texting, Tweeting About U.S. Trial Under Proposal:

In what jury consultant Chris St. Hilaire called an unusual addition to such questionnaires, prospective jurors would agree in writing to an order forbidding them from communicating via social media, the Internet, “or any other form of electronic communication for any purpose whatsoever,” according to a filing yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.

“I haven’t seen it used before and it’s a recognition of the new world we live in now,” St. Hilaire, president of Costa Mesa, California-based Jury Impact, said in a telephone interview. Lawyers in the case “are trying to be specific because they know how influential social media is now.”

Keep It Simple

We once monitored a trial where the jurors returned a verdict in 32 minutes. They would have been faster, the foreman explained later, but they wanted to eat lunch before they started deliberating.

Jurors attributed the speedy defense verdict to attorneys who presented a simple, easily comprehensible story that was consistent from beginning to end of the 14-day trial.

Contrast that with the federal criminal trial of former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich, where deliberations alone took 14 days – and ended with a jury deadlocked on 23 of the 24 counts.

Jurors’ comments to the media reveal that the prosecutor’s case collapsed under the weight of its own complexity. “The majority of us felt it was confusing,” juror Eric Sarnello said. “It was all over the place.”

Consider what jurors were given to work with: more than a month’s worth of prosecution witnesses and 100 pages of jury instructions. Even more stunning is what they weren’t given, perhaps the most basic courtroom tool available: a timeline. This oversight forced jurors to spend hours of their deliberations doing what prosecutors should have done for them, piece together the dates and charges from 2001 to Blagojevich’s arrest in 2008.

Our case research has demonstrated that the side who presents the simpler story has the advantage. We suggest making sure before you go to trial that you can tell a compelling story in 30 seconds – basically, an “elevator pitch” for your case. If the other side can’t do this, so much the better.

While the Blagojevich jurors were 11-1 in favor of conviction on the other 23 counts – perhaps compelling evidence that the prosecution’s case was at least in some ways better than the defense’s – the fact is that when the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the need to streamline should be elevated as well. When this case is retried, prosecutors would be well-advised to remember that focus and restraint are paramount to helping jurors understand what a case is all about.

They would also be prudent to consider that the defense did exactly what it was supposed to do: create doubt through a straightfoward contention that the government had failed to prove its case, all without calling a single witness. “Zip,” is how Blagojevich’s lawyer described their defense.

It’s hard to make it much simpler than that.

Toyota's Troubles

In our automotive research experience, we’ve learned that just as Volvo is associated with “safety” and Mercedes-Benz with “luxury,” the Toyota brand carries incredibly strong connotations with “reliability.” Furthermore, many consumers agree Toyota’s sterling reputation for trouble-free ownership is worth a premium over other more “stylish” or performance-oriented brands.

Now, Toyota’s reputation for dependability is under siege. And from our perspective, the company mas made some crucial mistakes in addressing consumer anxiety.

In Jury Impact President Chris St. Hilaire’s upcoming book, The 27 Powers of Persuasion, three chapters specifically apply to Toyota’s current situation:

*Go on the Offensive
*Take Responsibility—It Will Be Assigned Anyway
*Release Bad News—All of It—Quickly

One of the most essential elements of any messaging campaign is going on the offensive. Whether presenting at trial, selling a product, or addressing public relations nightmares, we always stress to our clients the importance of going on the offensive. Toyota, on the other hand, seemed until recently to be taking a reactive approach to criticisms.

In September 2009, after concerns surfaced about accelerators sticking under floor mats, causing four deaths, Toyota recalled 3.8 million autos (this followed a 55,000-vehicle recall in 2007 for the same issue).

The first apology from CEO Akio Toyoda, when he reassured the public “we guarantee [our customers’] safety,” was on January 29 of this year. That four-month delay is hardly going on the offensive.

From a PR perspective, Toyota has seemed content trying to isolate its issues to a few specific models and fighting fires only as they flare up. Specifically, since the floor mat and sticky accelerator issues surfaced, a Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h recall has been issued related to faulty brakes, and reports are now surfacing about steering problems with Corollas. Making matters worse, Toyota now admits it was fully aware of these braking problems yet chose not to issue a fix or recall.

This failure to act (including an early refusal to fix accelerators already at the dealership because, according to its U.S. Safety spokesperson, “Toyota continues selling models involved in the recall, expecting that they work fine because they are new and the throttles don't seem to begin sticking until the vehicle ages”) has led to yet another PR-horror show as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation. Toyota’s piecemeal approach to revealing problems it was well aware of has drawn out what could have been one really bad news week into a months-long cascade of bad press.

This stresses the importance of releasing bad news—all of it—quickly. Toyota’s reactive, after-the-fact strategy for addressing problems puts the company at a disadvantage for several reasons: 1) It is spending too much time responding to new criticisms to get ahead of the bad news, 2) waiting for the attacks to come in before addressing known issues makes the company seem defensive instead of preemptive, and 3) there is a growing perception Toyota is are not proactively monitoring vehicle safety, and only addressing things for which it is “caught in the act.”

By waiting too long to go on the offensive, being slow to address new concerns, and failing to put all of the bad news on the table at once, Toyota has allowed the media to control the message, resulting in public relations nightmare and a piling-on effect.

In a February 9 Washington Post op-ed, Toyoda explained what the company is doing to prevent issues like these from arising in the future, specifically a "top-to-bottom review" of Toyota's global operations. That’s great news, but a bit late. This apology, in which he concedes Toyota needs to investigate consumer complaints more quickly, comes after months of failing to investigate consumer complaints more quickly.

However, the company should be credited for finally taking responsibility. Some would say it’s a bold move, but based on our experience, responsibility will be assigned anyway—so if you’re aware of problems, it’s always better to admit mistakes as early as possible.

Which brings us to another crucial element to a successful communication campaign: presenting a cohesive, consistent message. Instead of creating new messages for each new problem, from early on Toyota could have been playing to longstanding predispositions about its product quality and presented a broad message to address the safety and reliability of the larger brand.

Consumers don’t care which models have steering issues, which are prone to floor mats jamming under the gas pedal, the parts supplier responsible for faulty pedals, or the intricacies of the dealership and factory fixes—they just want to be reassured the car they’re driving is safe. And that’s the big picture message that seems to only be coming out now in recent mea culpas, press releases, and television ads.

Considering Toyota lost $21 billion in market share in just one week, these blunders clearly aren’t minor. Instead, they highlight the consequences of failing to go on the offensive with a cohesive, consistent message. However, they will have fresh opportunities to apply these messaging principles, as CNN reports the lawsuits have already started in earnest.

We hope that Honda, which just issued a major recall related to airbags, will learn from Toyota’s missteps.

-Todd Fairbanks

Okay...

From The Smoking Gun, we learn of one Montana resident's particular--and quite graphic--aversion to serving on a jury. This desire to avoid his civic duties prompted him to whip up a signed affidavit explaining to the court just exactly what he would rather do with his time than sit in a jury box.



Says TSG:

Slye's caustic affidavit, which he prepared with help from his wife Jennifer, can be found below. The document, of course, did not sit well with court officials and led a judge to threaten to jail Slye. But after being summoned to court, Slye apologized for the affidavit and avoided being cited on a criminal failure to appear rap. And he also was excused from serving on a jury.

Success!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE (AND THE UNEDITED AFFIDAVIT)...

ARTICLE: Turbulence Blamed for Paralyzing Woman in Continental Flight

In a frightening story from the Brownsville Monitor, a woman was paralyzed when her Houston-to-McAllen, TX plane encountered turbulence during the (very short) flight.

The woman, 47, was using the plane's bathroom when the aircraft encountered turbulence and descendent [sic] rapidly, throwing her against the ceiling, said Dr. Trey Fulp, an orthopedic spine surgeon treating her at McAllen Medical Center.

He said the woman suffered a fractured neck and was scheduled to undergo surgery on it Monday.

Doctors spent 6 hours operating on her back after the plane landed.

The back injury left her paralyzed from the chest down, Fulp said.

Although some patients recover from this sort of injury, it's unclear whether she will ever be able to walk again, Fulp said.

"Anytime you're dealing with a paraplegic, only time's going to tell," Fulp said.

He did not release the woman's name, citing privacy concerns, but he said she is a local resident.

As of Monday morning, the woman was on a ventilator. He said she is alert, talking and has been visited by family members, but she remains very scared.

...

The lawsuit is pretty much inevitable, but a personal-responsibility-oriented Texas jury would likely find this interesting:

Clark said the flight left Houston late at night after being delayed. The seatbelt signs were illuminated when the plane experienced "sudden turbulence," she said.

ARTICLE: More Workers File Lawsuits Over Popcorn Flavoring

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Dozens of plant workers who claim their health was damaged by exposure to a chemical used to give a buttery flavor to microwave popcorn have filed lawsuits in Cincinnati against makers of the flavoring.

At least 43 workers have filed lawsuits that claim their lungs were damaged by inhaling fumes from the chemical. Some work at a local plant of Givaudan (ZHIV'-uh-dahn) Flavors Corp. of Cincinnati, which supplies the flavoring to food manufacturers. Many others are from a plant in Marion, Ohio, owned by ConAgra Foods, which is based in Omaha, Neb.

Last month, a jury awarded $7.5 million to Ronald Kuiper of Sioux City and against Givaudan. The verdict came a day after the man died.

Kuiper filed suit in 2006 against four companies that made popcorn flavoring used at the American Pop Corn Co., where he worked. The Sioux City company wasn't named in the lawsuit and the other cases were resolved earlier.

As if that wasn't scary enough, last year a man settled a lawsuit (favorably) against a popcorn maker after contracting "popcorn lung." But he wasn't a worker at a large popcorn factory--he was a consumer making microwave popcorn!

Yikes.

Language Matters

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, 53% of Americans believe "capitalism" is better than "socialism."

The telephone survey also revealed that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty seven percent couldn't take a stand if they were buried ankle-deep in concre--ERRR...were not sure which is better.

Here are some demographic details:

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.

But here's the most interesting part:

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets. (emphasis added)

See how a slightly different language choice can have a significantly different result? Although I disagree with their conclusion ("free-market economy" just sounds better than "capitalism," which has had decades of negative connotations heaped upon it), this is a clear example of what we always preach to our clients:

Language matters.