Thank you Preetham for your information alerting me of your book, which sounds interesting and very worthwhile to read. - Gordon

Please bring to flush your outstanding account. -- Gordon

At the moment I am very busy with regular work combined with my latest book that has just been published late January (2008). This publisher has more of a post-publication marketing effort than my earlier publishers, which then involves substantial related marketing efforts such as radio interviews and various print media interviews.

These specific post-publication marketing efforts will pass in about three weeks and in the meantime they are is providing good exposure for my research and writing, my name in this area, and my Looks book (Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined published by Amacom Books, 2008). These efforts are providing information, perspectives, and quotes/citations to reporters and writers wishing to report about my looks/physical attractiveness phenomenon topic. For example, in early January, Entrepreneur magazine interviewed for their upcoming April 2008 of Entrepreneur magazine. At the moment, I am writing a CareerBuilder article for which I was invited to write and if it is accepted for publication it will appear (be published) on the MSN/Internet Explorer opening webpage (on a rotating basis during February 2007) such that it will be there to see/read by people around the world who open their Internet Explorer to the MSN website home page.

Also, late in January, I was interviewed by a syndicated columnist who has a weekly workplace column read by 8 million people through/with the Gannett News Service and USA Today, which if she references her interview of me (with my name and my book) should be great potential exposure for a few more sales of my book. In terms of some other current post-publication marketing activity for my Looks book, unexpected/unanticipated by the publisher (AMACOM Books, or me), some international business just purchased the translation rights for Korea.

Here immediately below within this email message I have enclosed two recent newspaper articles that deal with my Looks / Physical Attractiveness Phenomenon work: (1) see the Chicago Tribune newspaper article below from this past Wednesday, January 23, 2008 and (2) see the Long Beach Press Telegram (Southern California) newspaper article below in the January 17, 2008 issue.

____________________________________________

Gordon L. Patzer, Ph.D.
Walter E. Heller College of Business Administration
Roosevelt University
430 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60605

E-Mail: gpatzer@roosevelt.edu
Office Telephone (direct line): 312-281-3254

Website #1 (Gordon Patzer): www.GordonPatzer.com
Website #2 (Looks Rule): www.LooksRule.com
======================================


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Below is a copy of a newspaper article (titled, "The politics of personality: Do you like these people? So, what does likeability really mean?") published in the Chicago, Illinois newspaper (Chicago Tribune, January 23, 2008), and written by Julia Keller. It references/cites one dimension of my looks/physical attractiveness phenomenon work along with my name and Looks book (Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined). This article written by Julie Keller (who, when I looked at the Chicago Tribune website is winner of the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing) holds the job title of "Cultural Critic" at the Chicago Tribune. Within the 25-30 paragraphs of this article about likeability, three paragraphs near the middle of the article cite my name and the Amacom Looks book.

At the top of the newspaper's first page of the Living section in the Internet online edition of the newspaper (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/) and in the Tempo section in the paper edition of the newspaper, is a promotion-introduction to the article with the title headline (1) "How likeable are these people?" along with (2) pictures of Tom Cruise, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Joakim Noah (Chicago Bulls basketball player), Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. The actual article then includes an interactive voting-survey that invites votes for the likeability (not the looks or physical attractiveness) of one preferred person in a series of categories and presents the current results for likeability votes cast -- Category 1 lists Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, or Romney, Category 2 lists Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes, Category 3 lists Martha Stewart or Rachael Ray, Category 4 lists Ryan Seacrest or Howie Mandel, and Category 5 lists Cloverfield monster or Godzilla

In the paper version, the article was positioned top center on page one of the Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, with large color photos of Tom Cruise, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Martha Steward, Barrack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joakim Noah (Chicago Bulls basketball player), Richard M. Daley (Mayor of Chicago) and Ellen DeGeneres followed with continuation of the article on page eight with black-and-white photos of Sally Field, Brian Urlacher (Chicago Bears football player), Tom Hanks, and Paris Hilton.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/

www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0123likabilityjan23,0,6971331.column


How likable are these people?
Chicago Tribune - United States
"We walk a very conflicted road" when it comes to confessing our bias toward likability, says Gordon L. Patzer...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The politics of personality

Do you like these people?

So, what does likability really mean?

Julia Keller
CULTURAL CRITIC

Chicago Tribune
January 23, 2008

At a recent debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton was told that some voters didn't find her likable. Sen. Barack Obama retorted that he found her "likable enough" -- a seemingly innocuous comment he was forced to defend in a subsequent debate in Las Vegas.

"Folks were giving Hillary a hard time about likability," Obama explained, "and my intention was to say, 'I think you're plenty likable.'"

Likable, schmikable. Isn't the nation at war? Don't we face a potential recession, a moribund housing market, illegal immigration, international terrorism and a ballooning trade deficit? What's all the fuss over likability?

"It seems like such a lightweight word, doesn't it?" muses Gail Blanke, author and columnist for Real Simple magazine. "I wish we could think of a different word."

Indeed, it's not a steely character trait destined to end up on the side of a British battleship, such as "Indefatigable" or "Indomitable." It's a cuddly word. A perky word. Yet it describes a quality embedded in all kinds of realms, from politics to sports to Hollywood to business to the classroom to the workplace. New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez racks up superstar statistics -- but fans don't flock to him the way they do to teammate Derek Jeter. Tom Hanks, yes; Tom Cruise, no. Among billionaires, Warren Buffett is likable; Bill Gates, not so much.

No matter what you think of their politics, Republican candidate Mitt Romney is generally regarded as unlikable, while rival Mike Huckabee has been tagged as "likable." And there doesn't seem to be much either one of them can do about it.

Likability: It's a word that sounds more apropos to a checklist for "American Idol" contestants than for presidential candidates -- yet it seems to be exerting a major influence this primary season.

"It is said that voters value 'I like' above IQ," notes Robert Schmuhl, an American studies professor at the University of Notre Dame who writes often about politics. "What voters are trying to do is measure themselves and the connection they might have with someone who's running for the nation's highest office. 'Likability' is one dimension. Another is a sense of human fellowship."

If the likability game were as simple as some pretend it is, he adds, the most likable candidate would always win. But check your history. "It's not hard and fast," Schmuhl says. "You can point to a few exceptions, such as the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 over Hubert Humphrey. And Nixon's re-election in 1972. Some figures are able to transcend likability." How did Nixon do it? "He was perceived as a tough operator in a tough time."

Physical appearance

Likability has long been a part of presidential politics, Schmuhl says. "There were many stories about Andrew Jackson. In military campaigns, he'd be out in the wilderness with his troops, eating acorns. With Jackson, we had the first president with a nickname: 'Old Hickory.' A nickname reduces the distance between a person of his stature and the nation at large."

Yet while likability may figure largely in voters' decisions, we don't much like to admit it.

"We walk a very conflicted road" when it comes to confessing our bias toward likability, says Gordon L. Patzer. The Roosevelt University professor of business administration and author of the book "Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined" (Amacom, 2008), says a great deal of likability is based on a pleasing physical appearance -- but we are reluctant to say so. "From birth, we're told not to place a high value on things regarded as 'superficial.' That message comes to us all the time." And thus the millions of men who have claimed, over the years, that they buy Playboy for the articles.

Candidates are forced to go along with the noble fiction that likability is somehow beneath their consideration, Patzer adds. "We don't like vanity. We don't like people who are too focused on their image."

Looks and likability are definitely interwoven, Patzer adds; a multitude of surveys proves that we like people who look good to us. "And we do more things for people we like. If a person is higher in physical attractiveness, we want that person in our office or as a friend." Unfair as it may be, Patzer notes, likability can trump talent or work ethic when it comes to success in the workplace. "It overpowers a lot of other factors."

Given the significance of likability, can a presidential candidate -- or somebody running for president of the senior class -- make herself more likable? Or is likability an inherent genetic trait, like blue eyes or curly hair?

Blanke, who has worked as an executive coach and life coach, has good news for the unlikable: You're not doomed.

"Being likable is all about connecting with people," she declares.

"Some people are born with likability -- but you can learn it, definitely." For presidential candidates, she advises four steps: "You have to get that it's not about you. You can't teach or preach. You have to let your passion show. And you have to assume they're going to love you -- without being arrogant.

"I believe that charisma is nothing more or less than passion demonstrated," she adds. "It's not about being polished. You can be too polished -- Hillary falls into that camp."

Now that we're naming names, what does she think of Obama? "He gives us the impression that he believes we can do anything. We want to be as good as he thinks we are."

How about Mike Huckabee? "Very likable. Even willing to make a fool out of himself."

Fred Thompson? "Grumpy. Defensive."

The beer test

There is no disputing President Bush's likability; he twice won the White House. His appeal often was embodied in a simple question: Which of the contenders -- Bush or Al Gore (2000) or Sen. John Kerry (2004) -- would you rather have a beer with?

The beer test was just the likability test in disguise. And Bush beat 'em both.

Hence Obama, right after explaining why he called Clinton "likable enough," added in the Las Vegas debate, "It's not going to be an issue of, you know, who's got the nicest smile or, you know, who's going to be fun to have a beer with. It's going to be who can provide the leadership that makes sure the country is moving forward."

Sure, fine. But a lot of people watching the debate must have wondered: I wonder if he's free later for a beer?

jikeller@tribune.com

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Below is a copy of a newspaper article (titled, "Beauty's in eye of the hiring boss") published in the Long Beach, California, newspaper (Long Beach Press Telegram, January 17, 2008), and written by Dawn Anfuso. It references/cites one dimension of my looks/physical attractiveness phenomenon work along with my name and Looks book (Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined). Because of a shared newspaper news service, this exact article written by the same staff writer was published in at least numerous additional newspapers in southern California. According to that newspaper's statistics, this article was their #1 emailed article published in that newspaper that day (and was the #7th most frequently read article).

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7989799?source=most_emailed

• Most Emailed

1. Beauty's in eye of the hiring boss
2. Killing: A brother's revenge?
3. Cancer shadows L.B. teacher's future
4. Rockets & monkeys!
5. Shipping slows on the ports
6. Sims helps out DeRozan
7. Bar fights on rise at Shore
8. Apartment rents jump as home prices plunge
9. Two held in Cabrillo student's shooting
10. Little Fish's "Pick of the Vine" delivers brilliant one-acts

• Most viewed

1. Two held in officer-involved shooting
2. Bar fights on rise at Shore
3. Killing: A brother's revenge?
4. Ex-L.B. cop says he didn't know of thefts
5. Local crime briefs
6. Eastbound 105 shut down
7. Beauty's in eye of the hiring boss
8. Shipping slows on the ports
9. Thursday's Letters
10. Thomas Elias: Are casino measures moot?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Beauty's in eye of the hiring boss

Article Launched: 01/16/2008 07:34:44 PM PST
Published: Long Beach (California) Press Telegram newspaper, January 17, 2008

During an episode of "House" the other night, a young, female intern asked Dr. House, "Why did you hire me?" The irreverent, pill-popping doctor's straight-faced response was, "Because you're exceptionally good looking."

As unsettling as that is to hear, it's unfortunately true much of the time, although people may not realize they base their decisions about people based on their looks - or at least don't so readily admit to it.

"Almost from the moment of birth, each of us is judged - silently, unconsciously and nearly instantly - on the basis of our height (or lack of it), our weight and bulk, the shape and symmetry of our facial features, the length and style of our hair, our mode of dress, our grooming - everything that goes into the mix of qualities known as `physical attractiveness,"' says Gordon L. Patzer, an expert on the subject.

In his book, "Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined," Patzer describes ways in which physical appearance affect career success.

For example, according to Patzer, scientific studies show that exceptionally good-looking people are more likely to get hired for just about any position when competing against average-looking candidates with the same qualifications. "Even seasoned HR pros who sincerely believe they are able to ignore such superficialities as an applicant's (physical appearance)" fall prey to it.

Patzer also says research shows that physically attractive men and women tend to have higher-level and higher-paying positions than their less attractive counterparts - with earnings of between 7.5 percent and 15 percent more.

Height affects pay as well, according to Patzer. Citing one study, he claims every inch more than average a man is earns him an annual paycheck bonus of $789. Tall men also enjoy more promotions than shorter men, says Patzer.

Although beauty can be an advantage, it also can work against women when they seek jobs associated with masculine qualities. A Rice University study found that beautiful women never win out for jobs like driving a tow truck when they are competing against less attractive women (and all women lose out to men).

And if the hiring manager is a woman, the more attractive female candidate will also lose out against less attractive ones for jobs that require face-to-face contact with clients. Male employers, however, tend to decide the other way.

"Although people in the workplace are often judged by their looks, which generally benefits people of higher physical attractiveness, people are not defenseless," says Patzer.

Small actions, he says, can make a big difference. "Physical changes with significant consequences can involve improvements related to grooming, hair style, eyewear, cosmetics, and the proper fit of clothes, as well as physical fitness. At the same time, improvements in interpersonal styles, personality, self-esteem or self confidence, and even status in the form of qualifications such as additional education achievements, actually increase a person's physical attractiveness."

Dawn Anfuso is a South Bay-based business writer and former Managing Editor of Workforce magazine. If you have workplace or job-search questions, e-mail Dawn at dawnanfuso@yahoo.com. Writers will remain anonymous.

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7989799?source=most_emailed


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++