Crayton Webb: In the world of communications, public relations, and reputation, our guest here on Reputation Matters today, Jane Randel has done it all, started in an agency, went to an international fashion brand where she did corporate communications and corporate social responsibility, started her own nonprofit, which now has an international footprint, and has had two entrepreneurial ventures as a consultant. Joining us from New Jersey, coming to Dallas, Jane Randel, thank you so much for joining us on Reputation Matters.

Jane Randel: Thank you for having me. You make me sound so cool.

Crayton: You are.

Jane: I like that. You should just do my introductions all the time, just follow me around introducing me.

Crayton: Full disclosure, I’ve been a big fan for a long time and thankfully a friend and you are so authentic. You are so real, but also so accomplished. We actually, as you will remember, met for the first time at the White House of all places.

Jane: I do, I do.

Crayton: A little over 10 years ago, you were still with Liz Claiborne, I believe, and were hosting a summit at the White House on domestic violence and sexual assault. I was a backbencher and lucky even to be in the room, but I just remember watching you and your humble yet larger than life presence that made everybody feel welcome, but also reassured us that this woman is doing amazing things and has done amazing things. So, let’s start with your career in comms and public relations. You started in agency life. What led you there?

Jane: I didn’t know what else to do really. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. I was never someone who said, “Oh, when I grew up, I want to be X.” I did a career day. I knew I didn’t want to do. I thought I wanted to be in advertising and did a lot of informational interviews all around that, but realized that really wasn’t what I wanted to do either. I had met someone at a career fair. She brought me into Hill & Knowlton, which was a big PR firm, gave me a writing test, et cetera, and brought me in a few times. She was one of the best HR people I’ve ever seen. She brought me in a few times before she found the right fit, which I give her a lot of credit for.

Crayton: Hiring or getting hired is getting married after three dates.

Jane: Correct, but not everybody’s good at it. Then I got there and two weeks later the person hired me left. I mean you all have had those.

Crayton: Yes.

Jane: But I stayed there for about two and a half years.

Crayton: In New York?

Jane: In New York. It was really formative because we were a group and this is what people are missing now when the remote work, et cetera, young people in particular. There were a group of 12 assistant account executives or young account executives, and we all hung out. We did stuff together. We had so much fun. It was this ready-made social circle, and I worked on brands like Coppertone and Mary Kay Cosmetics and all sorts of fashion beauty brands. Then somebody handed me and I saw an ad for Liz Claiborne. So, it was like a newspaper ad, by the way. So, I went in and met with the woman who is a friend. Now she wasn’t a friend then and she told me the job. The job was to do beauty PR, which made sense, because that’s what I’d been doing.

Crayton: This is like to get placements in Cosmo or Town & Country, beauty magazines.

Jane: And local, don’t forget local. So, a lot of local papers, which many don’t exist anymore, and mat releases, remember those?

Crayton: Oh, sure. They still do those.

Jane: I’m sure. They still get tons of coverage, I’m sure.

Crayton: Yes.

Jane: Except the outlets have shrunk. So, she brought me in and she said, “This is what we need you to do, fragrance PR.” I looked at her. I really think this is why she hired me knowing her, but I really have never asked her. I’m not sure. I don’t think she’d even remember at this point. I said, “God, that’s hard,” right? Because it doesn’t change. If you work at Mary Kay, there’s new products, new R&D, there’s new colors every season. The problem with press for Mary Kay and Cosmo is that unfortunately, it was Mary Kay. People didn’t understand how great the product was, but Liz Claiborne at the time still had a little bit of cachet, but I got the job. So, I started. The other thing actually is that there were five people, and I was the first agency person they’d hire. It was very homegrown. My boss started as an intern there, and they did something that I thought was so smart. It wasn’t planned. Whoever answered the phone did the interview.

Crayton: That’s amazing.

Jane: It’s amazing. So, I was 24.

Crayton: Didn’t matter how senior or junior you were.

Jane: Nope. No. So, I’m sitting there doing interviews with my chairman.

Crayton: Holy cow. It sounds like The Hunger Games.

Jane: It was really, but it was an excellent way to learn because we were on the same floor. She said it’s very high profile, which is true. Actually, a story is my dad was in textiles for many years and knew a lot of designers because he was in textiles. So, he was selling them fabric and he would say, “Do you know this person at whatever, one of the sub-brands of Liz Claiborne?” I’d be like, “No, but I know the president.” Because we had very different entry points.

Crayton: You had amazing access to the C-suite.

Jane: You had to.

Crayton: Do you remember the first piece of advice that you gave, whether it was at Liz Claiborne or at an agency, the first piece of advice you gave to a client that they either took or didn’t take?

Jane: Do you?

Crayton: No. Most of the time I remember when people didn’t take my advice.

Jane: Right. Mary Kay was our client and all the beauty magazines were based in New York. That is why people who did not understand Mary Kay-

Crayton: Which is based in Dallas, Texas.

Jane: Based in Dallas, Texas, and was direct marketing, they poo-pooed it. It wasn’t sold to Bloomingdale’s.

Crayton: Turned their nose up.

Jane: Correct. So, we would bring some of the Mary Kay executives in the communications area and others into New York. We do desk side briefings with press and bring them up. I probably said, “Tone down your makeup a little bit,” because beauty editors didn’t really wear a lot of makeup or they were doing the very natural look, but they really didn’t wear a lot of makeup. So, I think even toned down, they were so surprised by how little makeup these people were. It was just this really, “I told you.” But it was such an interesting way to share Mary Kay, because when you get to see it firsthand and meet people and touch the products, you realize that it’s really good product.

Crayton: But a great reminder to know your audience. You always have to know who you’re talking to-

Jane: Correct.

Crayton: … and how do you relate to them. How long were you at Liz Claiborne?

Jane: Liz Claiborne, 22 years.

Crayton: Continued to move up the ladder.

Jane: Correct.

Crayton: End up being vice president of corporate communications. So, what was the scope?

Jane: Senior vice president.

Crayton: Because that’s important. What was the scope? What was your charge?

Jane: When?

Crayton: Once you got up to the senior vice president, what was the big picture scope?

Jane: Everything.

Crayton: But not beauty press at that point.

Jane: No, no, no. So, they separated the roles into Senior VP of Corp Comm and the Senior VP of Fashion PR.

Crayton: Got it.

Jane: So I stopped doing fashion PR a long time before.

Crayton: So this was about corporate reputation-

Jane: Correct.

Crayton: … corporate communications.

Jane: And as well as many others who’ve ever been in corp com, you’re the kitchen sink, right? Somebody calls, they don’t know what to do with it, they hand it to you. So, that’s why I said everything, lived through two CEO changes, two name changes. It was very interesting. The reason I stayed, honestly, was because my job changed. If I had stayed doing the same thing, I know a few people who are in the same office doing the same job for years. That’s just boring. But I mean, as early as two years after I got there, I was sitting in the White House with President Clinton because of the sweatshop issues. Then back with President Clinton or Biden or Obama, you name them, all of them around domestic violence stuff. So, it was always interesting and always different.

Crayton: So we can’t let that pass. Sweatshops, Liz Claiborne was to its surprise accused of hiring manufacturers overseas that had a sweatshop environment.

Jane: That used underage women.

Crayton: As I understand it, Liz Claiborne was perhaps one of the first US-based fashion companies to begin manufacturing overseas. Tell us the story.

Jane: Yeah, no, that’s true. So, I mean, way before me, Liz Claiborne revolutionized a lot in the fashion industry and they were the first or one of the first to contract with factories overseas. The four original partners were very socially minded and they believed wanted to be and believed they were in the best factories possible. That was always the way. My now business partner, then general counsel of Liz Claiborne, this was around 1993 or early 1994, midsummer 1994 had already started to create a code of conduct actually for the factories overseas when this happened. So, that was interesting. She was a little prescient. She knew it was going to happen and-

Crayton: Saw the risk.

Jane: She did. She did. So, when we got a call, we were surprised, but a call from someone saying that we were going to be on the Senate floor, we were surprised. It’s funny, I can point most of the things that I learned about reputations and surprising I was there for 22 years, I learned from being at Liz Claiborne, because in this case, for example, instead of pushing back and saying, “Not my problem, it’s just a factory, I don’t own it,” the chairman, the head of sourcing, the general counsel invited in the person that was holding up the sweater and wanted to understand because we didn’t want to have sweatshops and we didn’t understand how these different factories work. Sometimes they have two sets of books, like all sorts of stuff.

Crayton: Go back for a second though. You said we got a call that it was going to be on the Senate floor. What do you mean?

Jane: We get a call from then… I believe it was Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, his office, not him on a Friday when my boss at the time didn’t work.

Crayton: On Fridays.

Jane: Everything bad happened on a Friday, no matter what. Everything bad happened on a Friday and this was at 9:00 AM and your sweater is going to be held up on the Senate floor, testifying with this activist and a young woman from Honduras or El Salvador, I think, that she works in a sweatshop and they use underage workers.

Crayton: It’s got a Liz Claiborne. It’s one of your sweaters.

Jane: It’s our sweater.

Crayton: You’re the poster child.

Jane: Correct, correct.

Crayton: So what did you do?

Jane: Honestly, I remember everything. I’m sure I called Robbie, who is my now partner, general counsel.

Crayton: General counsel.

Jane: I’m sure that’s who I called first. Then we got the head of sourcing who I knew and got people together. This is what I’m saying, we invited people in. I don’t even remember what our response was. Correct.

Crayton: Yeah, because it was an immediate response, I’m sure.

Jane: Right, we had to do something, but I don’t remember what it was. What I remember is this notion of bringing the people that criticize you and to understand why, not every time, but it was how we handled work with PETA for years. There are a few things that we did that inadvertently offended different groups and we would bring them in and understand and learn-

Crayton: Activists or NGOs, right?

Jane: Yes.

Crayton: Issue-based organizations.

Jane: Issue-based organizations. It is what I took away. Bring your critic in, understand. PETA would come in every… We’d meet with them once a year. I wouldn’t do everything they said, but if they didn’t want us to do fur, it’s fine. It was like this much of our business, if at all. They didn’t want us to source merino wool from Australia because of how they treat the sheep. That’s not where we were sourcing it from. So, it was okay.

Crayton: Was that controversial at the time? Was that unusual, forgive the analogy, to bring the fox in the hen house and say, “Tell us where you’re coming from”? Was that revolutionary or controversial internally?

Jane: The first time, I think so, yes. I think that was unusual.

Crayton: First time?

Jane: Yeah, sure. I don’t want to make everything we just capitulated. This was well beyond PETA being like activists throwing red paint on fur. This is when they realized they were better off with a corporate strategy that meant talking to people just for PETA, but I’ll give you a perfect example that I forgot about. When Burma became Myanmar, we had students and others from Burma come and say, “Please don’t source there.” They didn’t want us to support that government. We stopped.

Crayton: Wow.

Jane: We stopped. That was because they came forward, they came. I think they did press, if I recall, here’s who’s sourcing there, these bad people, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then we brought them in and said, “We just want to be educated.” It doesn’t mean we’re going to change anything. Plenty of times we didn’t, but we wanted to understand and make sure that we knew what we were talking about.

Crayton: But now, when you did make a change with Burma or Myanmar, how or if at all did you decide to leverage that? There’d be a lot of organizations that were like, “Look at us. We are leaving Myanmar.” No.

Jane: We didn’t. We tended to be pretty quiet about that stuff. You can’t be quiet about anything, I mean, whether you want to or not. I was chatting with somebody, I’m trying to remember who it was. She was telling me that her CEO asked her, he wanted to tweet about Israel Hamas. She’s like, “No, no, no, please don’t.” So I mean, that’s a big thing. I’m sure you’re counseling your clients about when to speak, when not to speak. Even what was during COVID has evolved, people have gone backwards. I mean, when I was growing up in PR, it was like anything political, you just didn’t touch.

Crayton: Well, now of course you see companies that is just quite the opposite. Nike in my mind was one of the first, Colin Kaepernick, and they said, “Listen, we understand there’s certain segments of the country that won’t buy our products now, but our employees, our stockholders and stakeholders expect us to do this and we’re going to do it.”

Jane: Okay, but now explain Bud Light. I mean it’s very rare and you know this, asking consumers not to buy products.

Crayton: A ban or a boycott.

Jane: Boycott, that was the word. It’s very rare that boycotts work. It’s rare.

Crayton: Because people buy what they want to buy.

Jane: They buy what they want to buy. I mean, I can tell you all things about reputation and people say, “I’m only going to buy from companies that do whatever.” If you put two shirts next to each other that are exactly the same and one was made ethically and one was you don’t know, but the price of this one is lower.

Crayton: They’re going to go with the lower price.

Jane: They’re going to go with lower price and that’s okay or at least that was then. I haven’t done that research recently, but that was then. I suspect it’s still true. But Bud Light is a fascinating case study, right?

Crayton: Absolutely.

Jane: It will be a case study.

Crayton: It’s a great case study in this day and age of the power of social media.

Jane: Correct.

Crayton: Even to me, the watershed change really came with George Floyd.

Jane: Yes.

Crayton: It used to be that you belong in the conversation. George Floyd, the expectation was everybody belonged in the conversation, but no matter what you said, you got yourself in trouble.

Jane: It’s interesting. We had a small client at the time who brought us in after that. What happened was that people knew they had to say something and everybody’s knee-jerk reaction is to say something, but they didn’t have anything behind it. That’s when you get in trouble.

Crayton: Sure, or we saw folks go over their skis. They reacted.

Jane: Yeah, exactly.

Crayton: They went all in, but they had some constituents that were more conservative and more concerned about going too far because it didn’t seem that that’s who they really were. There’s an authenticity.

Jane: Right. Well, this particular company was like four white guys who made some big statement and then realized that they can make a statement but they went too far to your point. But that’s okay. They learned.

Crayton: Let’s go back to Liz Claiborne. So, you introduced this notion of corporate social responsibility before CSR was even something that people were even talking about. I mean, this whole notion of CSR and the concept is really only about 20 years old, maybe not even that, but you decided that it made good sense for Liz Claiborne to be involved in helping solve some of America’s one in particular most difficult-

Jane: And the world because the sweatshop issue was really the first foray.

Crayton: No question.

Jane: It was about working conditions in factories overseas.

Crayton: And decided that this is part of who we are, but wasn’t necessarily going to be part of a PR campaign to say, “Look at us, look at us, look at us.” That is when you introduced domestic violence and that particular issue into Liz Claiborne. How did that come about?

Jane: I wasn’t at the company. I joined the company the year after they launched it. It came about because our then chairman Jerry Chazen, who died a couple of years ago, and who after we all left, Liz Claiborne, three of us, Robbie included, and Jerry had a donor-advised fund. They had carved out about $5 million from the Liz Claiborne Foundation for us to just do work on domestic violence. So, we worked with Jerry 10+ more years until he passed away. He was amazing, amazing philanthropist. But this was an issue that he and his wife cared about. So, it’s a longer story than you have time for, but they had started with three issues. This was originally before I got there, working moms, gardens in Atlanta, and domestic violence. By the end, they looked at each one and how it worked. Domestic violence was the one that was the most successful at the time. But it’s interesting, they worked with Barbara Krueger, who was a big artist, and she used to do these big messages on giant… This was Get Out. I mean, it was terrible. It was totally the wrong message. It was definitely the wrong message. They were working with somebody at the time, an agency. I mean, I think they were working with DV experts at the time, but it was interesting. We learned.

Crayton: Yeah, meaning Get Out was the call to action for a victim when the question really should be, “Why should she have to or why should he have to?”

Jane: Well, no, the question was the most dangerous time, as you know, is when someone initially leaves their abusive partner. Because if it’s about power and control, they’re now taking that control away. So, leaving may be option, but don’t just leave. You need to have a plan. You need to have help. So, that’s where it was like-

Crayton: Getting out. It’s not that simple.

Jane: It’s not that simple.

Crayton: Of course, the statistics are, and correct me if I’m wrong, one in three women will be a victim of financial, verbal, sexual, emotional or physical violence at the hands of a partner and one in seven men, I believe.
Jane: Something like that.

Crayton: Okay. So, in your role, what did you do to marry this sense of corporate social responsibility, reputation for Liz Claiborne, and then activism or involvement in domestic violence prevention?

Jane: So I was so fortunate because now everyone is all about metrics and how many impressions and what is this clicks and all that other stuff. Not only did we not really have that at the time, that’s not where the company was focused. We used to do certain reports and things, but that just wasn’t where it was focused. So, I had so much autonomy really from very early on with what became Love is Not Abuse. That was our signature program. We learned a lot along the way. We knew that it was very important and it remains true for companies, although it’s a little bit different now, the price of entry is that you have to treat your employees well and do good in the community and in the world. You don’t have to be Patagonia, but you have to have a purpose and keep to it. That was less of the case at the time.

Crayton: Yeah, it’s table stakes now.

Jane: Now you have to do it. So, we inherently do that. It was helpful when other issues would come up to provide the halo effect of I’ve heard… We didn’t advertise Love is Not Abuse. We only did PR. So, if you did a broad survey, no would know what it is, but they probably knew we did something for women. They often would think breast cancer because it’s a women’s company and that gives you a little tiny bit of inoculation. All you wanted is someone to give you pause, give you the benefit of the doubt for just a second.

Crayton: We call it building goodwill in the bank of public trust.

Jane: Exactly. Well, that’s exactly right. You just want to say, “I know that they do X, Y, or Z. What is that about?” Now, I don’t want to name companies, but there are other companies that did a lot of work. There were companies that couldn’t advertise their product because of legal reasons, did a lot of work in the DV space and others. I remember initially before I got to know them being very suspect, right? Because I was like, “You’re only doing this because you can’t do X, Y, or Z.” That really wasn’t the case but that was the beginning of-

Crayton: Meaning they had ulterior profit motives only.

Jane: Yeah, and they couldn’t advertise their main product because it wasn’t allowed.

Crayton: From your perspective, your efforts at Liz Claiborne, you actually created or helped co-create the nation’s first teen dating violence prevention curriculum, right? I mean, we’ve all had chief marketing officers say, “Why can’t we focus on something more positive?” Here at Liz, you focused on a prevention. For what you had hoped to achieve, either from a reputation perspective or actually solving the issue, do you feel like it worked?

Jane: That’s a good question. I think people who needed to know knew, people in Washington, peers who are also doing the work. So, the focus on teen dating violence was very strategic. Because if you think about women by most of our product and most of men’s clothes and the aging consumer, most likely their moms or grandmothers or aunts or someone else. No one can say, “No, I don’t want to learn about what’s going on with my kid.” We had research. We always did research, always, always, always. My dear friend, Anne Glauber, who co-founded No More with me, was my PR lead at the time. She was really big into research and data. It was always important to do because it said why we needed to do it and the research showed that kids were dealing with these issues. Parents didn’t know. The curriculum was great. I still have one. It was a great curriculum we worked with. It was really good. It would still be relevant.

Crayton: To some degrees, it’s still very relevant.

Jane: Sure, and more people do it now. We also worked to get laws passed in 13 states about that you mandated the teaching, I can imagine now, mandated teaching it, but no one put money behind it. So, you can mandate all you want, but if you don’t fund it, it’s irrelevant. Again, it was nascent, all the web and whatever stuff. I mean, no, that’s not true. It was apps, but it wasn’t the same. We created an app for teen dating violence that it was so cool. It was giving parents a taste of what it was like. So, you would download the app. You’d put in your email and your cell phone and the app would call you and leave progressively more-

Crayton: Assertive, aggressive.

Jane: Yes, aggressive is a better word. Messages and send emails and texts constantly.

Crayton: So like simulating what a teen might go through in an unhealthy relationship. Wow.

Jane: It was so cool.

Crayton: Powerful.

Jane: Really powerful. I love apps. People have to download them. Apps are great, but if you don’t download, it’s irrelevant. So, we did a lot of really cool things. The teen angle, it was only a PR initiative. There was never advertising behind it. So, the most we did ever was get a message on a tag on the Liz Claiborne clothing. That was a struggle. So, we had to continually do things that would be newsworthy, and that’s why research all the time and teens and just constantly for parents because parents didn’t know what to do. So, stuff for teens in schools, but then what do parents do? So there was always a new angle.

Crayton: So what advice would you give now to a comms executive focused on reputation and trying to leverage corporate social responsibility in a world now where being a good corporate citizen, either the way you treat your employees or how you manufacture or harvest or how you’re engaging philanthropically, giving back is table stakes? It’s just like we already discussed. It’s just expected. There’s not the halo or the surprise as it was before. What’s the lesson now 20 years later?

Jane: Well, it’s interesting. We always had support from the top of the organization. The chairman was very supportive of domestic violence as an issue, we’ll just say, and got directly involved in the sweatshop stuff immediately. The next CEO, I don’t think it was me, but he credits me with convincing him that he wanted to cut the program. I convinced him, that whole thing. We got him to leave a voicemail for the entire company during October, domestic violence awareness month. What’s funny is that people were freaking out because they’re like, “Why is the CEO leaving me a mess?” It didn’t occur to me.

Crayton: Yeah, powerful.

Jane: I mean, I got him to do the vagina monologue.

Crayton: Wow.

Jane: I had to say it’s well-supported. He didn’t have to do it, but I had to say vagina many times to him, many times. It was uncomfortable.

Crayton: Not a word that’s been uttered yet on Reputation Matters.

Jane: I know.

Crayton: So you’re a first.

Jane: I apologize.

Crayton: No, don’t apologize.

Jane: So my point is we had support from the top, then I had another CEO. He was on it from the beginning. So, the word authentic gets thrown around so much and overused and I hate it, but you do need to have true support from the top. What you don’t want to do is create a program. Here’s a great employee engagement program, and people roll their eyes. I’m always nervous working on an ESG report that you put out and you talk about all that you do for your employees. Well, not that many people read ESG reports. It’s a secret. Maybe the investment community, maybe people like you and me and employees. I mean, understandably, there aren’t a lot of people that read them. So, you can’t put something out for your employees where they’re going to be like, “What?”

Crayton: You don’t do that.

Jane: That’s just nonsense because your employees are your greatest ambassadors. I don’t think people use their employees enough. I don’t think they engage their employees enough. Robbie and I were doing work for a startup that was an EdTech company.

Crayton: Robbie is?

Jane: I’m sorry, Robbie is my business partner, Robbie Karp, Karp Randel.

Crayton: Robbie Karp, former GC of Liz Claiborne.

Jane: Sorry, sorry.

Crayton: No, no, no. Consultant with Karp Randel.

Jane: Correct. Now it was my business partner. We were doing work for EdTech company and it was small startup. We always had a process and you have to talk to people. I don’t believe you can come in as a consultant and say, “Here’s what you should do.” You have to talk to people and understand where people are at and people want to be heard. At the very least, people want to be heard. So, we brought this group together and we asked them why they were there. It was basically the whole office because it wasn’t a big thing and it was fine. It was this lovely meeting. Afterwards, one of the people walked into the CEO and said, “Now I remember what…” Because they were all grinding to get this thing out or fix it. He goes, “Now I remember why I love working here,” remembering why he got there and the process and all of that. So, it’s just so important to bring people together to give them a voice and let people feel that they’re heard. We had a client who we did that with. We talked to lots of different people. Their feelings weren’t really the right way to go. It wasn’t where the client contact wanted to go and we didn’t promise them we would, but because they were able to express themselves, we didn’t get pushback.

Crayton: After Liz Claiborne became Kate Spade, you went on and started your own nonprofit organization, No More.

Jane: Yes. I was very fortunate because I was at Liz Claiborne. Liz Claiborne supported me, which is huge because it’s time and money, and supported the organization. So, No More started when I was still at Liz Claiborne and they were very supportive of it.

Crayton: This was meant to be a national organization, almost like the pink ribbon-

Jane: Correct.

Crayton: … around domestic violence and sexual assault awareness.

Jane: It’s meant to unify the domestic violence and sexual assault fields, bring people together, be something that everybody could use. It remains a blue circle symbol and show the rising tides raise all ships approach. We worked with people in the field to make sure it’s something they wanted to do. We brought in experts from advertising other creative places and talked to them to learn what their thoughts were about it. We wanted to hear from real people, like how they responded to the word domestic violence. What does it mean? We had whatever, did research on the symbol, did research on together we can end… Actually, now it’s together we can end domestic and sexual violence and did all this work and launched in 2013 at the White House and have been growing it since. It’s been an interesting process. We had a tough time with big organizations. They put little symbols, but it was harder for them to understand. It was harder for them to not feel competitive.

Crayton: Right, that you were getting in their space.

Jane: Correct. Look, not a lot of dollars went to domestic violence and sexual assault. They just didn’t. Corporations didn’t like the issue.

Crayton: Still don’t.

Jane: Still don’t. So, I understood. But to me, as a marketing mind, I was like, “Yes, but this gives you an opportunity,” but they didn’t see it that way.

Crayton: But yet you were successful in negotiating with the NFL to get two commercials, two public service announcements both produced and aired for free during two different Super Bowls. How does one accomplish that?
Jane: The NFL, when they had an issue with the player in 2014.

Crayton: Ray Rice.

Jane: Ray Rice.

Crayton: For those of you who don’t remember-

Jane: Ray Rice was caught on camera knocking his wife unconscious. Certainly, it was terrible behavior, but the NFL did not get in trouble for his behavior. They got in trouble because they gave him a two game suspension versus a much harsher penalties for what people saw as much less crime.

Crayton: Yeah, because if you were caught with drugs.

Jane: It was like six games-

Crayton: Six games.

Jane: … I believe.

Crayton: So the domestic violence prevention field just went nuts.

Jane: Nuts, nuts. I was very fortunate. I had had contact with them trying to get No More engaged, get them to engage in No More 18 months before. They remembered me and I had just left Liz Claiborne. It was a very fortuitous timing. I had just left Liz Claiborne. So, I went in and have been very fortunate along with three other people, Tony Porter from A Call to Men, Rita Smith, a longtime advocate, and Beth Richie who’s a professor to advise them on domestic and sexual violence for years at this point. The way No More was created, we called it an open source campaign. The idea was that we had a big toolkit.
We still have a big toolkit. Anybody can download it and create their own No More campaign. You could do Sunwest PR says, “No more.” Whatever it is, anybody can do a No More campaign. So, it was always very open and we wanted people to use it, which is how the grassroots organizations really grabbed onto it because it gave them tools and things. What we had hoped is that the larger organization would do the same thing. One did.

Crayton: Adopt it.

Jane: Correct. One did, which was the Joyful Heart Foundation. This is what people remember. They remember these PSAs with Mariska Hargitay and many of her friends, celebrities coming on and saying, “No more,” whatever. They had an ad agency, some brilliant person, Rachel Howell, who was at an ad agency and created the ads. So, we had those. The NFL, because it was about domestic and sexual violence, they needed an organization that did both, that covered both. The only one was No More. Now I was already an advisor, so I was very mindful of getting preferential treatment. So, I think I had somebody else pitch it or I mentioned it and they talked it. So, with Joyful Heart, they recreated these PSAs with football players, which was amazing. One of their creative guys, I’ll call him out too, Sam Howard, he happens now to be on the No More Board, worked with them on it and really got those PSAs made. They aired during games in that 2014-2015 season.

Crayton: Wow.

Jane: The PSA for the Super Bowl, I think, was their idea. I think it was their idea. But Sam worked with, and I’m sure others, but worked with… I believe it was Gray Advertising, and created this commercial called Pizza, I think we called it. That was amazing.

Crayton: I remember.

Jane: It was based on a true story. The story is that you see clearly a disheveled house and someone is calling 911 and they’re acting like they’re asking for a pizza. The dispatcher’s like, “Ma’am, you have the wrong number.” She’s like, “Large. Yes, pepperoni.” He realizes that she can’t speak. He said, “Are you in danger?” Yes. They have this whole conversation until he realizes it’s domestic violence. It’s still, I believe, ranks in the top 10 Super Bowl commercials.
Crayton: That aired in the Super Bowl.

Jane: The second one was meant more to address sexual assault and was around texting and things. It was good. It just wasn’t as powerful.

Crayton: Now you have your own consultancy, Karp Randel, which we’ve mentioned, and you give advice to big brands about how to marry their social impact initiatives with their reputation and corporate communications and the NFL as a client. What’s it been like to advise the NFL with so many ups and downs from a reputation perspective?
Jane: It’s been great honestly. Every person I’ve met, and I’m sure you’ve had this experience, the company that is the most reviled, the people you interact with are great people. We worked with Uber, worked with the NFL, brands that people love to hate, but the people I worked with in the social responsibility area. I’ll tell you, every player I met, every executive I met, they’re really good people, really committed people, but it’s a very complex organization. That’s all I’m going to say. It’s a very complex organization.

Crayton: Do they listen? Do you feel like they take your advice most of the time, half the time?

Jane: Yes, they do take advice, but I am the sole businessperson. The other three advisors are from the field.

Crayton: The domestic violence sexual assault field.

Jane: Correct. Sorry. I do find myself saying with some regularity, their business is football, right? Yes, there’s a lot of things we’d love them to do. Their business is football. It’s not an excuse. I’m not trying to say that it just is. You have to go within those parameters. Because I remember when it first happened and I was involved, someone came to me and said, “They should spend $500 million on domestic violence.”

Crayton: Yeah. It’s arbitrary.

Jane: I was like, “Really, half a billion dollars on domestic violence?”

Crayton: How will you measure-

Jane: To do what?

Crayton: … that was the right amount?

Jane: It was ridiculous. Who would do it? No company would ever do that.

Crayton: Yeah. Well, almost as a get out of jail card.

Jane: It was just silly.

Crayton: How long do you protect your reputation for $500 million?

Jane: It wasn’t over 10 years. It was so silly.

Crayton: Yeah.

Jane: Yeah. Look, people love to hate the NFL. It’s a big magnet. They definitely do a lot of really good things. I’ll say they do a lot of amazing things and they’re afraid to tout it because it just puts a bigger target on their back. So, that’s unfortunate.

Crayton: But it sounds like you have a sense of pragmatism when you give them advice. You can see through their lens of what’s realistic and what’s not. This is important in giving reputation advice that you can’t die on every hill and fall on every sword for the cause, otherwise you’ll get nothing done.

Jane: What Robbie and I always say about Karp Randel, people say, “What’s a differentiator? What do you offer?” Well, we’ve been inside. I mean, it’s definitely like you, right? You’ve been inside a corporation. You understand how business works, right? You’re not coming in pie in the sky saying X, Y, and Z. This is what you should do. You get business. You understand business goals and business constraints, and that’s important. Then you speak nonprofit because it is a different language. If you’ve ever connected a nonprofit to a corporation, you can watch the wheels go like this, go backwards, go opposite, because it’s not intentional. I mean, you should see nonprofits working with tech companies. Tech companies like fast, fast, fast, fast, fast. They want decisions really quick. Sometimes nonprofits don’t work that way. I will say it just always made me laugh. It was very tense, big crisis when we first started working with them as consult. I had my own pass. I would just go in and out of the NFL.

Crayton: Wow.

Jane: I remember everyone’s like, “I can’t keep up with all these emails.” I was like, “Really? It’s like an earnings day.” It’s just a really different pace.

Crayton: Pace. Your experience having again been in the agency, but in the corporate world, but in the nonprofit world that really essentially being an entrepreneur and doing a startup, now you’ve got a fantastic new business, CommsCollectiv, where-

Jane: I do.

Crayton: … you offer fractional.

Jane: Fractional. So, the concept of fractional executives is not a new one, fractional interim sometimes, but it’s a piece of somebody. It’s not a new concept. People have used it for CMOs, COOs, CFOs. Sorry, should I spell it all out. For chief financial officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, smaller companies, or just someone who, “I need the finances, but I don’t want to pay for a full-time CFO. I don’t need that.” So they bring somebody in. There was tons doing it in marketing, but there is nothing really that strictly focuses on communications. I am very fortunate and I can’t remember if you ever came, but I’m part of this group called The Seminar. I got to stay by the skin of my teeth because I chaired the organization the year I left Liz Claiborne. It’s just the most amazing group of people. It changed my life, changed the trajectory of my life, hands down. It’s all comm people from the biggest companies, foundations, universities, and agencies that you can imagine. It’s one time a year we come together and do big thought leadership, whatever. But that is what helped me understand and gave the basis for CommsCollectiv and this idea because a lot of these people, I mean you know this as well, the communications industry has a lot of churn. Come in, you come out, whatever. So, we know a lot of people and they know people. There’s four partners, one of whom worked in the recruiting field for 35 years. So, she’s our ringer. The other four of us have been CCOs at big public companies. So, none of us do comms anymore.

Crayton: Right. Well, you always do comms.

Jane: It’s true. We’re not strict comms people anymore. We came together and said, “We think that there’s a side hustle for everybody. We think there’s a market to place seasoned, smart, experienced comms people in a fractional role.” The difference between fractional and consultant is that I am a consultant and I would sit outside and I say, “Crayton, we should do this.” We talk and figure it out. Then you go on and I may help you implement it-

Crayton: But you’re an outsider.

Jane: … but I’m an outsider. This person is inside. So, it could be for family leave. It could be for helping to set up an internal communications department. It could be just as an advisor for someone who’s new in the job. There’s lots of different ways that you can use it. So, yeah, I mean, we had someone write a speech for a CEO of a big company. There’s lots of different ways it can be used. I’m in constant biz dev mode, which is interesting and not always that fun. I mean we set up the consultancy on social responsibility. It’s the two of us, and you work and you get clients. This is a bit different, right? We didn’t really have to market Karp Randel. It was all word of mouth. This is too, but we also are looking at middle market companies, because that’s where we think we have a sweet spot, especially the PE and VC world, but trying to crack into venture capital when you’re not there, not that easy to do. So, that’s what we’re doing now.

Crayton: So of all the things you’ve done and the varied background and all the wins or setbacks, what’s the number one piece of advice you would give to someone who’s charged with protecting or rebuilding a brand reputation?

Jane: It has to be true to the brand. It has to be true to the brand, to the people. It really needs to come from the top truly. That is so critical because it does trickle down and people can see if it’s lip service from the CEO or from the C-suite. It is so important. It’s hard to ask people to believe in something that you don’t believe in yourself. I think that you need to do the work. Here’s my thing. You need to do the work to make sure whatever it is that you’re proposing is real and true to the company and who it is and who it serves and who make up its employee base. Five years after No More was founded, we were having lots of issues with the field, domestic violence, sexual assault field. We had someone come in and do a two-day reevaluation, strategic evaluation of No More. You participated.

Crayton: Yes.

Jane: The first day people spent crapping on No More and what it wasn’t and what it do.

Crayton: I don’t remember doing that.

Jane: No, you didn’t. A lot of people did. You left me a message that I have not deleted. You were just saying, “That must’ve been really hard. You handled it well.” It was just the sweetest message in the world, and I’ve never deleted it.

Crayton: Oh wow. I’m so glad.

Jane: By the way, for podcasters, I never told him that before.

Crayton: You haven’t deleted it before.

Jane: That’s genuinely the first time you ever heard that.

Crayton: That makes my day. I remember being there and I remember not being surprised or appalled, but just like, “Gosh, folks. I mean, if we can find smart people who care deeply, who are willing to use their resources, whether it’s their mind and time or their personal finances or corporate finances to go help make a difference in this cause, let’s embrace it. We need all the help we can get.”

Jane: Right, I just remember it was one of those things where you… Remember if you ever went to camp or at college and people weren’t getting along, you had to have one of those meetings. Not to be mean, but it’s one of those “No offense but…”

Crayton: Yeah, no offense but…

Jane: It never is no offense. You’re like, “I’m ready. I’m going to be offended.”

Crayton: Don’t take this the wrong way.

Jane: No, my favorite is I wasn’t going to say it, but I just have to. No, no, you don’t.

Crayton: You don’t. No, you don’t.

Jane: There’s no rule.

Crayton: Because it’s not about me, it’s about you. It’s about wanting to get this off your chest. It has nothing to do-

Jane: Tell someone else. You don’t have to tell me.

Crayton: … with what’s actually helping me. Yeah.

Jane: That’s one of my favorites.

Crayton: All right. So, we do a lightning round at the end of every-

Jane: Yeah.

Crayton: So some of these are fun. Some of these are just for you. First of all, I have to ask you, do you still own any pieces from Liz Claiborne?

Jane: Yes.

Crayton: Okay. What do you have?

Jane: You don’t have to believe this because I’ve never worn it. We had a suede fringe jacket, like a ’70s suede fringe jacket. I don’t really recall even wearing it ever, but I kept it and I have it.

Crayton: Fantastic. Okay. Sticking with fashion, what is the favorite piece that you have in your closet?

Jane: Honestly, jeans, which is weird to say, but I have different ones for different occasions. You wear darker ones if you’re dressing up and more comfy ones if you’re flying and it goes with everything. If you put a black blazer and a T-shirt and jeans, these days you’re dressed. So, jeans, most versatile.

Crayton: I know you love to work out. What’s the favorite thing you do in your workout?

Jane: End it.

Crayton: It’s over.

Jane: It’s over. I have worked with a trainer for many years, but I also do the virtual class that I’ve done also for many years. I like pushups.

Crayton: Okay, awesome. Good. Okay. So, into the world of sports, your favorite, can you say your favorite NFL team?

Jane: Sure. I don’t work for them. I’m a fair-weather Giants fan, which means it’s been bad weather for a while now.

Crayton: I was going to say Eli Manning was quarterback last time things went well.

Jane: Okay, so for the long time, it was anybody but the Patriots because they were in so many Super Bowls. Anybody but the Patriots. Now I root for the Chiefs.

Crayton: Yeah. There’s a lot of Texans who do too, because the Hunt family, of course, is from Texas. You do know the Chiefs originally were the Dallas Texans. Did you know that?

Jane: I didn’t know that.

Crayton: Yeah, yeah, they sure were. This is back when Lamar Hunt, who founded the Super Bowl, founded the American Football League. They didn’t want to take him on and he started his own team.

Jane: So interesting.

Crayton: So now I know you work with other sports franchises including NASCAR.

Jane: Less so.

Crayton: Okay. Your favorite professional athlete?

Jane: Louis Hamilton. I’m a big Formula One fan. My husband and I are huge Formula One fans. If any of your listeners want to take us to a race in a very nice VIP way, we would love to go. We’re there. No, huge Formula One fans. I also like Lando Norris, both.

Crayton: I was going to ask you who your favorite actor is so you could tee up the movie that you’re working on.

Jane: Sure. No More is really fortunate. No More is way smaller than people realize it is, staff wise and budgetarily, which we’re working to change, but we always have an oversized reach. We were very fortunate to partner with Justin Baldoni, who some people may know from Jane the Virgin. He had a big role on that, great show. It was a telenovela, so it was very popular in Latin America, et cetera. Great guy founded this studio, Wayfair Studios, and it’s really all about purpose. There’s a phenomenon book called It Ends With Us by Colleen Hoover that he’s making into a movie that will come out on August 9th. They worked with No More from the very beginning, from script development on to… Justin was amazing to really make sure they got it right and to help people understand that the core of many violent relationships, there’s love. So, people always say, “Why didn’t she leave?” He really wants to change that question. We all want to change that question. It’s a terrible question.

Crayton: Why should she have to?

Jane: That’s so much better way than I said it. But why doesn’t she leave? She’s afraid. She doesn’t have the money. She has nowhere to go. She thinks the kids-

Crayton: He’ll take the kids.

Jane: He’ll take the kids. There’s a million different reasons, but people forget about love. You didn’t start with an abuser because you wouldn’t have kept going if he-

Crayton: You wouldn’t have married them.

Jane: … hit you on the first date. So, I think that is something that this movie conveys really well because that it makes it hard.

Crayton: Well, it demonstrates how complicated.

Jane: Complex, complicated. Yes, it’s a very hard issue.

Crayton: Thank you for taking that on.

Jane: Yeah, no, it’s awesome.

Crayton: Okay, we’re going to downshift. All right. Favorite subject in school?

Jane: Social studies.

Crayton: What’d you major in college?

Jane: East Asian studies.

Crayton: What is your favorite holiday?

Jane: Thanksgiving, I think, Thanksgiving food.

Crayton: Yeah. Favorite hobby?

Jane: So I started knitting during COVID and then I am terrible knitter for the record. Then I stopped for a while and I restarted something and then it was bad. So, I pulled it out and for some reason I’ve been terrified to restart it again, but I really like knitting. I like knitting.

Crayton: Good for you. Okay. Favorite guilty pleasure?

Jane: Oh, watching streaming services.

Crayton: Is there a show in particular that you wanted to share?

Jane: No, I do not watch reality TV other than The Great British Bake Off, which is one of my favorite shows ever.

Crayton: Real Housewives of New Jersey?

Jane: No, I don’t watch that nonsense, I have to say. People love it. I know so many people who love-
Crayton: And smart people.

Jane: So really smart people who love it. Then it’s like mind mush. But no, I really like, and as does my husband, we watch together a lot. I like English procedurals very much.

Crayton: Your favorite consumer brand?

Jane: I think it’s Amazon only because it’s always my go-to. I mean, it’s just ridiculous how often I’ll be like, “I need this. I’m going to Amazon.” It’s a convenience.

Crayton: Favorite movie?

Jane: My mother’s favorite movie was Singin’ in the Rain, which is a great movie.

Crayton: It is.

Jane: Nobody knows it. You mentioned Carrie Grant at one point.

Crayton: For those of you who weren’t listening, it was in context of the lens because I usually ask our producer if when I’m on camera he can use his Carrie Grant lens to help me look better.

Jane: So there’s a great movie that I highly recommend called The Awful Truth with Carrie Grant and Irene Dunn. It’s really fun and slapstick in a way, but it’s really good.

Crayton: Carrie Grant plays Carrie Grant, right?

Jane: Pretty much.

Crayton: Plays himself.

Jane: Doesn’t he always?

Crayton: Doesn’t he always? Exactly.

Jane: Trading Places because it’s been on lately. Trading Places is a great movie.

Crayton: Okay, and also loosely based on a true story, right?

Jane: It is?

Crayton: Yes, it is. The two old codgers tried to corner the orange juice market. That’s another true story with some football connections. I won’t name the names. There’s a book called The Big Rich that tells the true story. I know that it’s actually-

Jane: Okay, that’s really interesting.

Crayton: … also a Dallas, Texas story. Okay. Favorite day of the week?

Jane: Friday.

Crayton: Your hidden talent or superpower?

Jane: None.

Crayton: Oh, you’re too humble.

Jane: My hidden talent or superpower? I’m a really good nagger.

Crayton: Does it work? You got three boys and a husband.

Jane: No. I’ll tell you my superpower. My superpower, and I’ve learned from people and is what I try and instill in my children, is to never be afraid to ask the question. I don’t quote Wayne Gretzky a lot, but you do miss 100% of the goals you don’t shoot, right? So I firmly believe in reaching out and asking the question. All they can say is no, right?

Crayton: If you don’t ask, you already got a no.

Jane: Right. So, that’s another good one. Is that your own?

Crayton: No, that’s my wife’s.

Jane: Oh, good for you. I knew she was smart, but yeah. I think my superpower is not being afraid to ask the question.

Crayton: Last, if you could pick one person alive or dead to have dinner with, who would you pick?

Jane: That is a horrible question.

Crayton: Well, it can be alive.

Jane: No, I know. I’m trying to think.

Crayton: Horrible because you don’t want to have to narrow it to one?

Jane: Barack Obama.

Crayton: Yeah. Jane Randel, I mean, there’s just no other word for it. You’re just so impressive and you are inspiring. Every time I’m around you, I learn something new. I’m inspired to be better. Thank you so much for coming.

Jane: Thank you. I really had so much fun.