The newly minted “America Wants You” campaign is very reminiscent of WWII’s campaign “Uncle Sam Wants You,” — of some 70+ years ago. This time around it is a corporate call to arms – rather than a military one.

It is a call for a unified effort to rectify a catastrophic situation for the 800,000 veterans who are presently unemployed, 30 percent of them between the ages 18 to 34, a much higher per capita rate than the general population.  It is also a call for Corporate America to sit up and take note that this situation will be exacerbated, as the draw down from Afghanistan continues.

The situation is abysmal.  There is no question that our vets are owed and it’s not about “the other guy” doing something about it.  It’s not a partisan issue. It is an American issue, with everyone doing his/her part.

Happily there are several programs, both private and public, whether state or federal, that are taking shape to shake up Corporate America. But whereas some programs are moving forward quietly and diligently to tackle the issue, one in particular, the PR campaign “America Wants You,” is making more noise than others, largely because they have enlisted actor Chris O’Donnell of NCIS: Los Angeles and Batman fame.  In a video released this week, O’Donnell implores those who “sit in corner offices” to think about the 800,000 unemployed veterans first, when making hiring decisions.

A private sector initiative, this campaign is led by three retired private-sector executives from Los Angeles who have partnered with CareerBuilder and Southwestern Energy for the effort.  America Wants You, CEO John Pike, a veteran who is a former president of Paramount Network Television, says it is time for corporations to do their part.  The non-partisan organization apparently puts their money where their “mouth” is and took out a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal to reach its target audience.

It will not be easy for Corporate America to step up to this challenge, one that is becoming more clamorous daily. For one thing, the transition from military to corporate life cannot possibly be an easy road for any vet.  For another, some of the youngest veterans simply have never been a part of the workforce, for many joined the military right out of high school with the hope that the military will offer training that might be needed in the workforce.  And for those who may still serve in the National Guard and Reserves, it might even be more difficult, for employers will be wary of hiring them, cautious that these could be deployed again at any given time.

Still, all these arguments fall short, when one considers the underlying issue, which needs to remain steadfast — we owe them.

Many programs advocating for veteran employment offer grants, private or public, as compensation for training or hiring a vet.  In some cases, a state even offers to pay the wages of an employed vet for six months as an incentive to the employer.  Federal programs offer tax credits or other benefits.

But it should not be about benefits.  It should be about “giving back” to those men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way to protect us.  It therefore becomes a moral obligation.

After all, it is the American way, and it needs to prevail.

Public Relations, although a century old as a discipline, and one in which businesses spend billions of dollars each year, has been, to date, a most misunderstood and often maligned profession, largely because the public at large is not clear on what public relations actually is, what practitioners actually do and who actually benefits from its services and how.

And that is why I delighted in the fact that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) engendered a dialogue and debate about what is PR by launching a new campaign to re-define Public Relations last November.

In my blog dated November 22, titled “Re-Defining PR in the 21^st Century,” I commented on the timeliness of the re-definition campaign, considering that the last definition was written by PRSA back in 1982 and that, in the ensuing 30 years, a seismic evolution has taken place in the industry.  What was largely perceived at its start a century ago as a media relations-based discipline, has evolved to include responsibilities for a complex mix of online and offline stakeholders’ engagement, reputation management, corporate social responsibilities, thought leadership and digital marketing services, among a slew of other communication avenues.

Clearly the 30-year old definition that reads, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” sounds a bit lame today. To be fair, PRSA has made two attempts at defining public relations in the past 10 years.  But nothing happened past the willingness to try…

So the latest good news is that, after soliciting suggestions from the public, along with public relations professionals, academics and students on its website: prdefinition.prsa.org, using a crowd-sourcing model, followed by an evaluation of over 1,000 submissions along with online comments and blog posts, PRSA will announce a winner on February 27^th.  All get to vote for the three final definition choices when you Click here to cast your vote, now open from Feb. 13 through Feb. 26.

Whether aptly timed for Awards Season or the timeliness was just happenstance, PR professionals are just as eager to see what will be the final definitive definition as any awards program.

And the “nominations” are:

• Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
• Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
• Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

What is missing here? Personally, I don’t get this “mutually beneficial relationship” line, which is found in two of the three finalists definition.  Nor do I get the third one with its “mutual understanding” part.  Nor am I too big a fan of leading a de facto definition with “management function of researching, etc.”  However, I do think that “strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics” has merit and is on target.

Look, defining an entire industry is no easy undertaking, especially when it’s one as wide-ranging and often imprecise as that of public relations.  But I would focus on the fact that we are counselors first and foremost — and that our profession is responsible for helping businesses navigate the many avenues of communication that can prove treacherous, protecting a company’s reputation, brands and assets from negative commentary or perceptions; for leading communication strategies that embrace new and expanded audiences; for evaluating economic factors that can impact a company’s business and executing plans to outthink the competition; and for staying ahead of the curve in this digital age.

Actually, it may take a paragraph…

Well, there goes the neighborhood. No, not actually the neighborhood, but maybe the brand identity, as we know it.

The actual news about Starbucks’s intention to serve alcohol – beer, wine and hard liquor, made the media rounds just a week ago, but it was out there well before that. The rumor mill of its launch had been trickling out in tidbits, ever since the chain first served alcohol in a “soft” trial run, back in October 2010 at a single Seattle store. It has been serving wine and beer in limited Oregon and Seattle stores for the last two months.

But now there are plans afoot that the Seattle-based company will sell beer and wine in as many as 25 locations by the end of this year, to include stores in Chicago, Atlanta and Southern California, among the selected locations.  It should prove good business.
The rationale behind this move is clear: U.S. Starbucks stores get 70% of business before 2 p.m. Clearly the company wants to maximize its real estate space and labor costs, after the early crowd thins out.

Apparently Starbucks executives have struggled for the last few years, trying to decide how to expand their brand. They finally found their answer: alcohol. According to Clarice Turner, senior vice president of U.S. operations, the company isn’t considering the concept for the whole chain. We’ll see… The good news is that at the stores that serve alcohol, there will also be fruit-and- cheese plate and focaccia with olive oil. Yumm…

Look, no one can fault them for wanting to add brand extensions. With 10,700 Starbucks cafes in the U.S. and about 6,200 internationally, building organically through brand extensions, makes sense. They are following suit with such other companies as the Dunkin’ Donuts chain and McDonald’s, that have introduced non-breakfast foods to attract people during slower times.

Although coffee and Starbucks have just about become synonymous, globally, I do have to admit that the real essence of the brand remains constant – the Starbucks experience – a lifestyle. Time will tell whether the rapid spread of the new concept will obliterate the brand as we know it –or morph into a new one..

The jury is still out…