△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

AIG should have stood up for itself in PR disaster

Back in the late 1980s I worked in the communications practice at a global HR consulting firm. One of my clients was the design group of an auto manufacturer. For one reason or another, the employees of the design group had participated in a retirement plan separate from the rest of the company, but were now being folded into the company-wide plan. The biggest fear in announcing the change was that the best designers would leave. “They’re constantly being offered jobs at competitors,” I was told, “and we just can’t afford to lose them.” Our job was to show this critical group that they would actually come out ahead as a result of the change.

I’ve encountered this situation countless times since then, usually from companies going through layoffs. Sure, they have to cut X number of jobs, but you can be sure the top performers aren’t being laid off—in fact, most of the time they’re offered incentives to stay and suffer through the bad times. The worst-case scenario for an organization in this situation is for the top performers leave and go to work for the competition.

Shel HoltzThis issue has been spinning around in my mind since I started reading about the outrage expressed over a retreat sponsored by AIG, to the tune of more than $400,000 at a California resort—the St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort in Orange County—after the company was bailed out by a multi-billion-dollar government takeover. The first report I heard called it a “junket,” and I was as outraged as anyone else as I imagined fatcat executives in 90-minute meetings before hitting the links. However, I later learned that it was, in fact, the event serving as reward/recognition for the top sales producer in the company’s life insurance unit.

Even accounts that accurately represented the nature of the retreat said that, in such circumstances, the reward should have been canceled. One colleague commented that everyone in the company has to share the pain. A report I read quoted an employee recognition specialist who suggested that AIG should, instead, offer seminars on how to manage 401(k) plans during a down market. I can just imagine the conversation at home:

“Honey, you know that California beach resort we were promised if I achieved sales that exceeded goal by 50%? Well, I blew that number away but now they’re telling me that we don’t get the vacation, but guess what? We get to go to a 401(k) seminar instead!”

Yeah, that’ll keep ‘em on the payroll.

The same report suggested that a day of community service followed by a picnic with sack races should suffice. Another post said that the fact that these salespeople still had a job was reward enough.

The problem is, the elite among a sales team don’t need the job. The very best employees can always find work; they’re probably getting calls from headhunters on a regular basis as it is, regardless of the state of the economy. That’s why organizations routinely offer special incentive packages to this small group in order to retain them when they are just as inclined to get the hell out of this depressing place and go to work somewhere where they’ll be appreciated. They’re probably getting a couple calls every week from headhunters as it is.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but the reality is simple. Sales people get paid a combination of base and incentive pay. That incentive often includes some kind of trip to reward the highest producers. The trip is dangled before them: “Exceed your target by at least X% and you’ll be sailing with your fellow top performers on a seven night Hawaiian cruise.” It’s one of the things that gets these people up in the morning.

Let’s be clear: At AIG, these were not the people who put the company into the position that led to the bailout. In fact, if anything, they’re the ones who kept things from being worse than they were. They’re the ones who can help the company claw its way out of the hole its leaders have dug. 

In the wake of the backlash over the revelation of the trip to California, AIG has canceled another trip for top performers from other business units. While that’s what nearly everybody thinks AIG should do, it’s a long-term mistake. AIG needs its top salespeople now more than ever. Yes, $400,000 sounds outrageous, but how much revenue did this elite sales group generate? $25 million? $50 million? $100 million? $400,000 starts to sound like chump change compared to what they contributed—sales that might never have been produced if they were working for the competition. It’s easy to imagine what a company has when its best employees leave: mediocre employees who produce mediocre results.

AIG’s mistake was not in hosting the event despite the magnitude of the bailout, but in failing to recognize how the public would react and communicate proactively why this was an important investment in the company’s future. Not everybody would have agreed, but the shock and outrage would have been dampened as the company transparently disclosed its plans and the rationale underlying them.

Comments
  • 1.Hmm, afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Shel. I worked in financial services for years and often defended the remuneration and reward schemes offered to salesmen on exactly the basis you do: this is the job they've chosen to do and it's open to anyone.

    But in this case their employer is in debt to the American taxpayer to the tune of what looks like it will become over 100 billion dollars, so surely in these kind of circumtances they have an accountability to set an example and show the public that they are being sensible with their money.

    Particularly taking into account what the current government lending is going to mean for tax-rates and investments in public services over the next few years (which applies here in the UK too). And the public and political pressure failing to cancel the plans would have put on any legitimite government plans to shore up the other comanies that will inevitably get into major trouble.

    I don't see how an average taxpayer would view insurance salesmen as performing an essential public service that deserves to be rewarded in this way. So while I don't think AIG gain a lot in PR terms from their decision, I think public confidence in the government's plans for putting out the current economic firestorm would have taken a terrible public relations blow if they hadn't.

    Al Shaw | October 2008 | Bristol, UK

  • 2.Shel, thanks so much for this post. I would like to ask you to explore to what extent the fact that gold has not backed U.S. debt for some time is really the crux of this emergency. I think the greed since the end of the Clinton administration may have created a truly impossible situation for all of us today.

    I am just a regular peruser of the news (NYT, etc.)and a higher ed/nonprofit communications professional. I do occasionally speak to the man-woman on the street, so to speak, say, coin dealers and people who buy gold jewelry to sell or reuse. I did this yesterday in a small town near me where such folks have businesses because the wealthy live nearby.

    In short, I think Paulson is pulling back and sounding arrogant to me; Bernanke is muzzled (perhaps that is a kind way of describing this) and the incremental "changes" reported in the WSJ everyone with any knowledge of world trade or economics knows are not sufficient.

    I intuitively trust for example Howard Simons who was quoted this morning in a WSJ article (Bianca Research, Chicago) that these fixes are window dressing. I think exploring the issue further from Boston-New York-D.C. is a good idea.

    I have a gut feeling the gold issue is crucial to long term recovery. Please ask Barney Frank for an interview. Let's hear it from a guy we in Mass. have historically trusted and until the high holidays, was deeply in the Congressional fray.

    Meanwhile, and as I write, so many people will lose their homes and jobs; the folks who are rich and got out a long time ago are lounging on the veranda of their expansive homes in Greenwich and in the West.Thanks, Shel, as always. Note the AMA Boston blog is now a tab in my web site.

    Bev

    Bev | October 2008 | Belmont, Mass. (Boston)

  • 3.I agree with you in principle, Al, but how is it irresponsible or sending the wrong signal to ensure that the employees who are best positioned to get the company out of debt and repay the taxpayer stay with the company? The fact that this is difficult for people to understand speaks volumes about the company's (and industry's) need to explain itself.

    Shel Holtz | October 2008

  • 4.Hi Shel, I guess I'm finding it difficult to collerate the recovery of the economic mess we're all in with lavish reward incentives for life insurance salesmen, irrespective of how proportionate they are to what they could get elsewhere. And I have two who are among my oldest friends.

    Incentives like these don't necessarily motivate the right kind of behaviours from salespeople, and though this part of the media story has been oversimplified, one of the reasons we're in the mess is because of a lack of governance on the incentive schemes of salespeople/dealmakers. This is a time for restraint.

    I agree that the way to motivate these guys is to have them publicly recognised by their peers, and rewarded accordingly, but I don't think that necessarily has to equate to what was being planned here. If they do play a truly heroic role, I'm sure the AIG press team will be able to find international, national or local ways to ensure that gets recognised.

    In terms of persuading the U.S. public that hosting the event for these guys is in the best interests of the economy, and a good use of their taxes, I don't think even Mr Rove would take that one on ;-)

    Al Shaw | October 2008 | Bristol, UK

  • 5.I think the perception of "lavish" is part of the PR problem. How many employees were rewarded, and what is the value of the total expense per employee? Remember, this is PART of their total compensation. Base plus incentive is a standard sales formula, so if they don't get part of the income they've earned, they'll go work for someone who honors their commitments. This is something AIG should have addressed proactively: "The cost per employee was about $10,000, and is part of their total compensation."

    You may be right about changing the reward structure, but you'd better not do that without communicating it first to your employees rather than yanking the rug out from under them! Otherwise, you'll lose the trust of employees and whatever credibility you might have had. With lower trust and lower employee engagement, you'll produce worse results and have a harder time getting out of the trouble you're in.

    Shel Holtz | October 2008

  • 6.I agree with all of that, Shel. And I also agree that in a sales environment you need a particular type of reward package. But what I'm saying is that in times like these the tone and presentation of the reward is important, particularly when the employer is in debt to the taxpayer to the tune of $100 billion. It sends a signal.

    You might maintain the trust and credibility of the sales guys by honouring the commitment, but what does that matter if they're greeted by customers who are enraged by what AIG are spending their taxes on. I don't think that's a PR failure; I think that's about being tuned into what is and isn't appropriate at the particular time, even if in this case the money involved is small change for these guys.

    Al Shaw | October 2008 | UK

  • 7.I do appreciate and understand your point of view, Al. To me, it all comes down to one thing: You lose your best performers, who can always find another job no matter how bad the economy is, and you're in worse trouble than you were before. People don't have to like what you're explaining to them in order to understand it.

    Shel Holtz | October 2008

  • 8.Sorry Shel, I'm afraid I just disagree with this premise. To me, that would be a way of rationalising hedge fund managers' bonuses running to tens of millions of dollars; or Richard Fuld being 'awarded' nearly $500m as the company he led went bankrupt. It could be argued that those packages are the price you need to pay to recruit and retain people into those kind of roles, but does that make it right.

    Maybe I'm just being a typically European pinko ;-)

    Anyway, I also wanted to say thanks for drawing our attention to coveritlive. Just when I naively thought I was reasonably up to date with micro blogging, here we have live blogging! It's exhausting keeping up sometimes. But it looks like a terrific way of involving employees in events as they're happening.

    Al Shaw | October 2008 | Bristol, UK

  • 9.I understand, Al, but these were front-line life insurance salespeople. If the auto manufacturer gets bailed out by the government, do you take away commissions and incentives from the salesman at the showroom and leave him only with his base salary?

    Shel Holtz | October 2008

  • 10.Shel -

    As I posted today in the FIR room on Friendfeed, this is what I think AIG should have done. Company leadership could have reached out to the top performers and explained that the promised resort package created a PR risk that not only would hurt AIG's image today but could hurt the sales of those top performers in future years. AIG could then offer those top performers a comparable cash bonus, which they could spend however they chose, including at a resort. This rewards the top performers, minimizes the PR risk, and explains it in a way that appeals to the self-interest of the sales team.

    Kris Gallagher | October 2008 | DePaul University

Comment Form

« Back