Manage your symbolism the first time and it can at least appear natural and certainly can be iconic in a good way; do it wrong out of the gate and it becomes  parody or a charade. Such was the case with the CEOs of Detroit's Big Three a few days ago choosing to board their corporate jets to plead poverty in Congress. (Actually, they probably did not even think about it, which is just as bad.) But to then make a spectacle of themselves by suggesting on the next trip they would drive in a caravan (sorry Chrysler, small "c" in "caravan") makes them look pandering and foolish. It came across as every bit contrived and disingenuous as it was.

It is critical to manage the visual semantics in a crisis. Those first images are first impression are lasting impressions. 

Which set of statements would have been better for Wal-Mart to issue in the wake of the trampling death of the employee in Nassau County on Black Friday?

1. "The store has been closed over a medical emergency." (first statement) "Despite all of our precautions, this tragic incident occurred." (second statement)

Or...

2. "This is a tragedy and, while we work very hard to prevent something like this, we are determined to look at every possible factor in play to ensure it never happens again."

The first statement did not even acknowledge what anyone watching cable news already knew, making Wal-Mart appear out-of-touch. The second statement clearly telegraphed that the company was much more concerned about its image and litigation defenses. The second statement at least shows some compassion and horror first over the incident. 

I have worked on a lot of litigation cases. Absent the obviously stupid things you can say (Gee, we never imagined anything like this could happen..."), the notion that you can seriously compromise your case in your statement most often is over-lawyering. If anything, showing compassion early on often helps your case; taking care does not necessarily mean you are taking responsibility. 

Wal-Mart has compromised their case. By claiming they took every precaution, now anything that shows they did not is a dagger into their defense. 

I was reminded this week of something I used to hear my Dad say back 30 years ago. He was a CFO of a major international company, but he never lost sight of his street-tough common sense, nurtured on the cobblestone streets of a Depression-era Jersey City. "Numbers matter, but in any deal, 'confidence' matters a lot," he would say. "Take away 'confidence' and you just took away at least 30 percent of the value of anything."

The Dow is down 35 percent from its dizzying high of 14,000 just fifteen months ago.  

We're hearing a lot about "confidence" this week. We heard a lot last week about "liquidity" -- now a household word, but still one that lacks real meaning to most people "on Main Street." Yet, "confidence" and "liquidity" are conjoined twins, inseparable without potentially fatal risk to one or the other. Despite my obvious angst with the term "bailout," the emergency measures enacted over the last few weeks were critical shots of economic adrenaline right into the chest of the global credit markets, but they are not real "liquidity." Liquidity is when you have at least as many buyers as sellers. People only buy big stuff like houses when (apart from its obvious immediate utility), they feel confident it will be worth more when they sell it and that there will be someone(s) there to buy it. Funny, the same rationale applies to bonds and securities. 

So, yesterday I watched Secretary Paulson at a news conference lumbering through his explanation of the last few days, talking every bit like a macro-economist, with the words liquidity, stability, confidence and credit plugged in every few seconds, like McCain says "my friends," Obama says "McCain/Bush" and Palin says "Gee willikers." True, his audience was as much or more the banking sector than the public, but the paucity of "retail" messaging on this issue is troubling. 

What was lacking -- and continues to be a giant black hole in this public debate -- was a simple explanation to American consumers about what this credit crisis means to them. There is a bizarre sense of detachment at play where the public believes this is a Wall Street crisis of its own making (well, okay, they're mostly right there...) but they don't understand their role in it. To reduce this issue to the belief that $700 billion in taxpayer money (with strong hints that it may be more) is seemingly going to the outrageous severance payments of failed Wall Street executives having their oversized egos massaged at luxury spa resorts (deep breath...) is to miss the point. To fail to explain this "bailout" (sigh, now even I'm using the word) in terms people understand and feel they have a stake in, is to further erode confidence, not restore it. As long as people think their mortgage payments and now their tax dollars are going to bloated Wall Street executives, they are genetically predisposed against putting any more of their money on the table. That, my friends, gee-willikers even, is what lack of confidence and liquidity is all about.

These injections of public funds into the private sector are like spraying your roses with chemical fertilizer to bring back the green, but neglecting to spread some organic mulch around the roots.

So, to any politician within the sound of my furious typing, you can throw all the money at this you can print and it might restore short-term liquidity to the banking and credit sector, but it will not restore real, sustained, foundational liquidity until people feel confident someone has talked with them on their terms and in their interests.

Context, meaning, resonance. My words for this deal.