Electronic communications (r)evolution
Something weird has happened to e-mail. People have stopped answering it. Or it takes them a week to reply. And it’s not just one or two people anymore. I have to follow up on about half the e-mails I send now, when just six months ago I received responses from most within 24-36 hours.
Electronic communications methods are evolving quickly – and some say away from e-mail. In fact, e-mail bankruptcy, a desperate act in which the overwhelmed e-mail account owner highlights his or her entire inbox and presses the delete key, is becoming commonplace. People are increasingly protective of their e-mail addresses and many have figured out how to set up e-mail rules and filters to screen out unwanted – and unsolicited – messages. (Great video commentary on e-mail bankruptcy and what to do about it from French entrepreneur Loic LeMeur here.)
This e-mail tune-out is happening across realms: business and personal. In business, it’s across industries. Editors who used to respond to us almost immediately need to be nudged two and three times for the barest acknowledgment. For a current (annual) research project, I’ve even resorted to (gasp) phoning some of the sources to get some response to my time-sensitive requests. When I do get an e-mail reply, it tends to be extremely short. Like a text message. Or a tweet (Twitter communiqué – 140 character limit). I’ve also noticed a steady uptick in the number of actionable messages received via Facebook and LinkedIn.
Because things are changing so rapidly, we must stay on top of what messaging is relevant to our clients’ target markets and the best way to get it in their way. Every tactic has to be reassessed every time, especially if the last time we executed it was more than six months ago. We must be curious and experiment. How many of you Twitter? Use Skype or OoVoo? Belong to a forum? Are aware of the next generation of social networking sites? (I’ll help here: Brain gym and brain training site Headstrongbrain.com currently in beta, is one such site.)
As if keeping up is not enough, we also need to remember to inform clients as to the degree of flux the entire communications industry is in (and is likely to stay in) and educate them about the new communications channels and choices out there. It’s more work for us, of course, but will pay off big in the end – also known as Web 3.0.
Don’t assume lazy means loyal when customers stick around
Sally Saville Hodge
I’m the kind of customer that businesses love: I never seem to be able to find the time to seek out a better deal. So I stick around. For a while, at least.
Please don’t think less of me for it. I don’t think I’m alone in this. I have a lot of stuff on my plate and the last thing I want to do is get on the phone and wrangle with customer service folks for a better deal. But I’m not the loyal customer they may think I am. I’m just a lazy one. And it’s loyal customers that ultimately make or break a brand.
All I’m hurting, I know, is my own pocketbook. But still. At its root is a deep-seated irritation with those companies that can’t see all the implications of the “your next best customer is the one you already have” credo. That means you make them happy. You study your relationship with them. And you anticipate their needs. Anticipate is, of course, the operative word.
Why do I have to go to them to beg for a better deal? Why are the bargains geared to new customers? Do they expect me to have loyalty to them when they don’t have any to me?
The whole customer relationship thing is a two-sided coin, of course. In “The Bad Table,” Seth Godin comments on its other side. As a new patron to a hot new restaurant, he and his group were given the worst seats in the house even though the place was only a third full. So, he asks, who gets your best effort? The newbie who might be converted into a loyal follower? Or customers who have already attained that status?
Marketers are challenged to master the balancing act between the dual mandates for volume (short-term growth) and quality (the kinds of loyal customers that drive sustained growth). By and large, I don’t think they do a terrific job at it.
Here’s the deal. Ultimately, as Godin puts it: “You can’t have a bad table.”
Indeed.
What’s to love about hating Sarah Marshall
Judi Schindler
In Chicago, you can’t help running into billboards that say “I am so over you, Sarah Marshall,” or “My mom always hated you, Sarah Marshall,” or cruelest of all, “You do look fat in those jeans, Sarah Marshall.”
So I bit. I went to www.ihatesarahmarshall.com to see what new promotional strategy was in play. What I found was a very engaging social marketing campaign for the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall, starring Jason Segal (who plays Marshall on How I Met Your Mother) and Kristen Bell (best known for the title role in Veronica Mars).
The Web site purports to be a MySpace/Facebook site for Peter Bretter, a 26-year-old television composer. It lists his “Likes” (Muppets, Broadway Musicals) and “Dislikes” (Sarah Marshall Fan Club, people who mispronounce Dracula) and daily blogs since February 28, which chronicle his breakup with Sarah Marshall.
My favorite blog entries are camcorder videos that show Peter disintegrating from self-delusion to drunken despair. Daily entries keep viewers coming back for more.
I am not alone in taking notice of the campaign. The Slash Film blog had a posting a couple of days ago that calls the campaign “genius.” The NBC affiliate in Dallas ran a segment. And blogger Shandy King thought it was a novel way to promote a movie.
This kind of “teaser” campaign is actually not new. I remember Folgers Coffee’s introduction to Chicago decades ago, supported by billboards and newspapers ads for at least a month boasting “I will bring a mountain to Chicago – Captain Folger.”
What is new is the very targeted and integrated approach to reaching the 20-something marketplace. The billboards are concentrated on bus shelters and train platforms, which are heavily used by this demographic. Personal Web pages and blogs are still primarily “young” media. And the youthful language/humor helps create buzz among the target market.
The Sarah Marshall campaign reminds us that every marketing program geared to populations under the age of 40 (40 being the new 30) should have a strong Web component. Furthermore, it never hurts to entertain as well as inform. The use of humor can increase the number of people you reach exponentially, as your message gets passed along from one potential customer to another. Then the whole thing takes on a life of its own when you attract coverage from newspapers, TV and talk radio, not to mention blogs like this.
Fed up with email? Customers are, too
In Email Insider’s most recent blog entry, “Helping People Become Better Email Users,” Chad White describes his experience at the OMMA (Online Media, Marketing and Advertising) Expo at the Email Experience Council’s booth where he suggested a visitor subscribe to their free weekly newsletter. The visitor’s reply? “Whoa, another email newsletter? I get too much email as it is.”
It’s something to think about the next time you help plan an email campaign or launch a newsletter for a client. Assuming their target market even reads email anymore. If they’re younger than 25, chances are they don’t. They’re communicating real time via IM, Facebook or Twitter. Heck, even executives Twitter now. But I digress.
In his post, White gave several suggestions to help assuage people’s frustrations with email. They’re good. I created @Action folders for both my work and personal email accounts and emptied my Inbox. My Inbox hasn’t been 100 percent empty since 1995. It looks and feels sort of weird, but I like it. I’m fairly confident, however, that most email recipients are somewhat less process oriented and organized than he or I. Which means my client’s e-newsletters are splashing down into a sea of communications numbering in the hundreds, maybe thousands. Lost among thousands of little email voices pleading with recipients to “Read me! Pay attention! Take action!” No small wonder so much email gets deleted or ignored. Who can take the guilt?
To preserve this communications outlet among those still engaged with it, we marketers have to use it wisely. Make sure the email you send to your target audience is relevant, engaging and if at all possible, personalized. The technology exists, and there are partners out there ready to help you. It’s not cheap. But consider the cost of a poorly targeted email campaign that causes the recipient to view your brand as irrelevant or annoying. Some things are better left unsent.
Skype lives up to its hype
Anyone who knows me understands that I’m a tech head and early adopter. My most recent technological foray: Skype, a program that allows you to make free calls (and video calls) over the Internet (when both parties use the program). This is accomplished by “voice-over-IP” or VOIP technology. (VIOP enables sound to be transmitted over the Internet, similar to a phone line.)
I use the term early adopter loosely; a friend prodded me to get with it so we could video chat. So I went and bought (another) headset and Web cam, and downloaded the software and installed it on my computer. It took a few minutes to get the Skype video calling working (the video part’s a little tricky), but once everything was operational, it was pretty amazing. (I still have to get Skype competitor ooVoo’s stuff working (not their fault); once I do, we’ll do a bake-off between the two.)
Video chatting is a much more personal and dynamic experience than a straight audio call because you have the additional layer of information received by being able to see people’s expressions when they talk. It’s not like being in the same room; it’s more like being on TV together.
As I was chatting with my friend, I couldn’t help think about potential applications – and implications –for business. Video conferencing technology has been around for years, but it’s expensive and cumbersome. To initiate a video conference with Skype (or ooVoo) requires each individual’s computer to be set up with the software, along with a headset (or microphone and speakers) and Web cam. And then, with very little effort, marketers could arrange a moderated panel discussion of experts from offices around the world and invite clients to attend. The panel discussion of experts from offices around the world and invite clients to attend. The session could also be recorded and then posted on their Web site as a Podcast or V-cast.
Curious? I hope so. Want to try it? Good. Go get an inexpensive headset and Web cam. Can’t find anyone to try it with? Email me at hbouchez at hodgeschindler.com and I’ll give you my Skype ID.
Fun with typos
Sally Saville Hodge
Back in the days when I was a journalist, at one publication we maintained a “wall of shame” where we gleefully tacked the worst press releases, pitch letters and other sorts of fan mail. It was littered with pieces where the lead was buried at the end, new entrants to the “world’s longest release” category, and, well, let’s call them “unfortunate” typos.
That was way before the Web made it so much easier to share the wealth. Our friends over at The Bad Pitch Blog led the way on this front, and recently have taken typo ridicule to a totally new level.
They recently called out a most egregious typo, spotted on a Monster.com job post for a VP, of er, well, you sort of have to see it to believe it. TBPB invites you to leave your best, one-line response to the job description. Don’t wait to play; the winner(s) will be announced soon and receive fame and some swag.
To play, go here. May the best, uh, candidate, win.
And the battle twixt technocrats and luddites rages
Sally Saville Hodge
One of the never-ending discussions in both the PR/marketing blog world and in related traditional media focuses on who gets it and who doesn’t when it comes to social media strategies. By now, it’s become obvious. Only a chosen few apparently get it.
The most recent salvo, picked up by the media and bloggers alike, was issued in the form of a recent survey of senior level corporate marketers by TNS media intelligence and Cymfony, a marketing influence analytics firm. Agencies – marketing, advertising and PR – are all behind the eight-ball, was the consensus: They lack practical experience and tend to try to shoehorn traditional tactics into social media space.
To me, this study shows some flaws. For starters, only 70-some senior level corporate marketers were included in the survey, and those apparently with Fortune 500-level firms like Hewlett Packard, Hyundai and Johnson & Johnson. That’s not a huge base. Moreover, to my mind, such players have the financial flexibility and the human capital that smaller businesses don’t of being able to take the risk of experimenting.
And for all their talk, yes, big businesses are shifting more of their budgets to social media, but the lion’s share is still directed toward traditional channels. To be sure, a study last year (subscription required) by Ad Age of major advertisers’ spending showed the most growth in non-measured media (including some forms of digital communication, like paid search). But nearly 60 percent of their ad spend still goes to TV, print and some forms of Internet advertising.
Bottom line, though, is that I find this ongoing conversation both troublesome and irritating.
On one hand, the smug superiority of many of the social media specialists is irksome. (One tells ClickZ’s Mike Grehan that she believes traditional PR shops are “on their way out.”) Do they think they invented this next best thing? Do they truly think the once and future interests and needs of all audiences are met solely through this one channel? Please.
But I also understand the disdain they feel for some — too many? – of the traditional shops that don’t even try to grow some modicum of understanding of the power some of these new vehicles have to grow a brand. Call it inertia. Call it lazy. Call it incurious. Or something else.
Personally, I put it down to something else. Like the “order taker” mentality that is way too prevalent, both among agencies and professionals on the client side. If clients and employers aren’t pushing for it, why should PR and marketing professionals move themselves to advance along the learning curve? Other factors: Fear of failure. Risk aversion. Discomfort with change.
I agree with what the senior level marketers seemed to be telling TNS and Cymfony. Those of us whose clients and bosses aren’t pushing us to test these new waters should at least be trying them on our own accounts and measuring how they’re working. That way, we’re in a much better position to recommend some of these strategies that might augment what’s being done on the traditional side.
There are experts out there who are willing to share, especially when there might be an opportunity to partner on business in the future. We’ve found them and tap into them regularly, and never once has anyone with my shop been called a Luddite (even if some of us might deserve it)!
And for heaven’s sake. Anyone who doesn’t have “familiarity with social media and search” as a prerequisite for new hires needs to wake up. These folks are out there, too. Bill Sledzik, who teaches PR at Kent State writes about making his students blog – or they fail. “You won’t grasp the ‘zen’ of Web 2.0 until you become one with the medium,” he writes.
As much as some wish they would, the new communications channels are not going away. In fact some are expanding on a monthly basis. Instead of resisting and lamenting halcyon days gone by, marketers need to stop whining, hold their nose and jump into the deep end of the social media pool.
Getting the viral marketing thing
In addition to contributing to Diabloguer, I also maintain my own personal blog, where I wax poetic about all things bass guitar and being a 40-something female in the era of Demi and Desperate Housewives.
The sole purpose of my blog is to chronicle what is floating my boat or sinking my ship that day. According to Sitemeter, I only get about 25 to 50 visits a day so advertisers are not beating a path to my doorstep, trust me. And I’m in no danger of becoming the next Wonkette. In fact, I’m pretty sure the only people who peep it regularly are my friends – and that’s perfectly fine with me.
Once in a while, however, I am surprised by who reads. For example, last night I wrote and published a post titled “Low Bandwidth Blues,” in which I lamented my slow home Internet connection and complained about Comcast.
This morning I received an e-mail notification that Mark C., a representative from Comcast’s executive offices, had commented on my post. He apologized for my inconvenience and said that if I sent him my account number he’d do his best to help rectify the problem.
Hmmm. It seems some marketers have caught on to how to leverage this blogging thing. Since January, I’ve received responses from the marketing and/or PR departments of at least three companies whose products I’ve blogged about, including natural makeup maker Mineral Fusion and video/chat provider Oovoo.com. Did it make me feel better about the brands? More engaged? Cared about?
You bet.
Of course, I published Mark’s comment. You see, I’m not opposed to saying nice things about Comcast. Comcast just had to give me something nice to talk about. More to the point, not only did I comment back on my own blog, but I’m also writing about my experience over here, essentially giving Comcast another shot of (badly needed) love. And Mineral Fusion and Oovoo.com got another well-deserved buss on the cheek as well.
So now, those who read my blog know what my experiences have been with all three brands. Similarly, readers of this blog will learn a bit more, with positive takeaways. Some of them will share with their friends. And then their friends also may pass the word on. You get the picture.
That’s the kind of power social media represents – and what marketers are buzzing about. Viral marketing: it’s a powerful way to build a brand.
PR’s world: bad writing, bad pitching and PO’d journalists
Sally Saville Hodge
One of my more mortifying moments since hanging up my PR shingle 20 years ago:
I was having lunch with a former colleague who was the editor of a local business publication when he pulled out a news release, liberally doused with red ink, that had been sent out by my firm.
“I was really surprised, Sal, to see this coming from you,” he said. And he proceeded to itemize why: A variety of typos had, er, slipped through – including our phone number and in the spelling of the name of our business. There were grammatical errors. The run-on sentences took my breath away.
As these things went, he told me kindly, this was not one of the worst press releases he’d ever seen. He (as I in my journalism days) could cite example upon example of purely dreadful crap issued in the guise of “public relations.” Ten-page releases chock-full of irrelevant information (like where a business owner’s oldest son had graduated from college). Pieces that were only marginally veiled sales sheets. Releases where you might find the point if you had the patience to read through to the last page (most journalists don’t).
Mortified, I still thanked my friend, telling him that I was just as surprised as he was, as this was the first time I was seeing the release myself. Yes, the account executive had broken my cardinal rule that I see everything before it is distributed. And, yes, she would have been fired immediately upon my return to the office had she not resigned as soon as I confronted her.
The drek produced by many shops is only one reason why journalists and PR practitioners have a love/hate relationship. The fact is that we need each other, even though many with the media hate to admit it. But too many agencies and their people work in a way that makes it harder for those of us who are more thoughtful in positioning storylines that meet the needs of the media as well as our clients.
Two blogs of note for clients and agencies to monitor to grow their understanding of best practices in media relations – by virtue of negative examples. One is The Bad Pitch Blog, providing appallingly hilarious tales from the trenches. These guys just wrote about another blog that makes for interesting reading, AngryJournalist.com. On this front, I find it very comforting to note that while its contributors are angry at bad flaks, they are equally angry at themselves, their editors, their co-horts and peers, their advertising staff, their advertisers…
How higher ed can lower marketing costs
Judi Schindler
Institutions of higher learning typically benefit from a weak economy because unemployed workers are often forced back to school to learn new skills. With the current credit crunch, that may not be true this time around. According to recent press coverage in the Chicago Tribune and on MarketWatch, students who want to take out a loan to finance advanced education are encountering high interest rates or failing to qualify. Financing also has dried up for currently enrolled students.
That means lower enrollments for universities, colleges and trade schools, which are now scrambling to cut costs. Unfortunately, one place where most of the chopping occurs appears to be the marketing budget.
We all understand the need to trim. But the paring needs to be done with a scalpel, not an axe. And those wielding the sharp instruments should scrutinize the ROI of each item. Rather than simply reducing high-cost advertising and direct marketing campaigns, they may want to consider beefing up lower cost, targeted public relations and social marketing efforts.
Some ideas:
- Develop career and job placement stories for monster.com, careerbuilder.com and other Web sites geared to job seekers.
- Place feature stories on students or recent graduates in their hometown newspapers.
- Develop a career blog for each educational program and encourage contributors to promote their postings on their MySpace and Facebook profiles.
- Gain local visibility by inviting area residents and businesses to attend school performances, exhibits and lectures.
- Gain industry visibility by inviting a local company to sponsor a student, academic or career-focused competition.
- Develop a speakers’ bureau for your faculty and actively market these speakers for industry and chamber events.
- Look for opportunities for faculty and administrators to write bylined articles and/or op-ed pieces.
While such ideas are comparatively low cost, they do take time and effort to execute well.
It is easy to just hack away at the budget. But when you simply reduce spending, you also reduce your returns. In the long run, a more strategic approach that calls for reallocating part of the budget to new, creative initiatives will pay off in bigger dividends.
Monster Cable response to blog post is scary
Note to Monster Cable Company: Hire someone who understands social media, immediately!
The company recently sent a two-page rebuttal to The Consumerist regarding the article “Monster Cables, Monster Ripoff: 80% Markups,” written and posted on Feb. 7 by Ben Popken, editor of this blog about consumerism. In a nutshell, a Radio Shack employee sent his store’s entire inventory list to The Consumerist, which included the wholesale and retail prices of every item in stock. The blog posted a list of Monster Cable items along with their wholesale and retail prices and then proceeded to rip on the company for over-inflating not just prices, but product performance assertions (especially on HDMI cables made for HDTVs, etc.).
Fair? Maybe. Maybe not. What matters more is that Monster Cable’s response, posted on Feb. 19, may have compounded the damage and also scared away potential customers by its lengthy, defensive and jargon-laden comeback.
The comments on Monster’s post offer insight on how the company might have turned this lemon into lemonade. As Hawk07 wrote:
“If it’s certified to be an HDMI cable, it’ll have the same quality regardless of who makes it since a digital signal is a digital signal.
“I would challenge the President or a videophile of his choosing to have 10 HDTVs setup using content of their choice (blu-ray or a live HDTV feed) and see if they can tell the difference between their top HDMI cable and a generic one bought for under $10.
“If they can pass that test, I think it would certainly give their company a lot more credibility. It’s also deceitful for them to try and pass a white paper off as credible like they did above. Either that, or their marketing department doesn’t know the difference between a white paper and an independent study.”
For a big picture view of just how important it is for companies to get their arms around social media asap, it might try reading Business Week’s Feb. 20 piece, “Social Media Will Change Your Business.”
Incidentally, if I were in PR over at Monoprice (Monster’s biggest competitor) I’d be dancing with joy right now, as Monoprice was mentioned in about every other comment on both posts, a combined 369 to date. Score one for Monoprice – and boo for Monster Cables.
Technology on the edge: ooVoo
Try as I might, I can’t seem to let go completely of my connection to the advertising business, where I worked for six years leading tech initiatives before crossing over to PR.
A search on my former employer landed me on George Parker’s AdScam blog, where I learned of a new (and free) video conferencing and video messaging site, ooVoo.com.
From the Web site: ooVoo is the next evolution in online communication — a remarkably easy way to have a face-to-face video conversation with friends, family or colleagues, no matter where they are in the world. OoVoo is remarkably easy to use, easy to download, easy to install, and best of all: it’s FREE!
OoVoo is promoting a series of “ooVoo days” during which bloggers host small video conversations with members of their online communities on various topics. Parker was hosting a few sessions, so I signed up for one. A complete technology meltdown (on my end) prevented me from doing more than listening to and seeing Parker and two other participants, but I experienced enough to see the potential benefits of this technology for all aspects of business (not just marketing).
Communicating this way is personal, immediate and powerful. That’s because it’s much more dynamic than straight chat or one-to-one video chat, as you can see people’s expressions and see them moving and talking.
It’s also pretty easy to use (my issues were Mac-based). To get started you need only to download the software and get a cheap webcam and a headset (or speakers and a microphone). Then you should be good to go (if you’re on a PC, that is). The biggest problem as I see it is going to be Internet bandwidth. As it was, the video was cutting in and out frequently and the voice was buffering so the participants sounded like they had a terrible stutter (we have a T-1 line).
But for those of us whose clients are always looking for ways to lower the cost of PR and marketing (and whose aren’t?) this technology (with a tad more maturity) is a powerful and low/no cost addition to the toolkit. We’re going to keep an eye on it. You should too.
Crisis communications: Have a plan, don’t panic, be smart
Chris Scott
Let’s face it: There’s a reason why “crisis communications” is a PR specialty that not every firm offers.
You see clients at their worst since responses are, as a rule, hasty, reactionary and dissected by all. It’s a pressure cooker for the agency charged with managing the situation because of the need to respond quickly and smartly – often in circumstances where the client is disinclined to follow its advice. And in addition to traditional media scrutiny, there are customers to consider, who have increasing word-of-mouth clout making them even more difficult to manage than the press.
But helping companies deal with the PR maelstrom created by recalls, product tampering or embarrassing behavior by top executives is part of an extremely important job, one that most companies are smart enough to not handle on their own.
Just ask officials at Wendy’s, who in 2005 had to deal with a customer claiming that she bit into a human finger in a bowl of chili. While the woman was eventually convicted of attempted grand theft and conspiracy in the fraudulent claim, the chain reportedly lost $2.5 million in sales thanks to the bad publicity. In essence, even proper handling of the incident still hammered Wendy’s reputation and its bottom line.
So what’s a smart company to do? The worst response, obviously, is to bury one’s head in the sand and hope the crisis will just go away. It’s also not a good idea to test the public’s (or the media’s) sense of trust when addressing the situation. Did absolutely no one at Mattell – anywhere – know that a manufacturing plant in China was using lead paint on Dora the Explorer and her buddies? And tread lightly with “dark blogs,” which are designed to be activated when a crisis happens. Their credibility is questionable since they often come off looking pre-packaged and not necessarily a direct response to the issue at hand.
A better idea is to consider crisis communications like your relationship with the dentist: Brushing and flossing every day will make you better prepared in the event a tooth unexpectedly chips or breaks. Likewise, having a concrete plan in place and not panicking once the crisis erupts can prevent the situation from becoming a catastrophe.
February 15, 2008 at 7:12 pm cscottathodgeschindler Leave a comment
Is this a kingly way to treat brand loyalists?
Sally Saville Hodge
It’s difficult to argue against an advertising campaign that so clearly, definitively – and, indeed, creatively – demonstrates the role that brand loyalty plays in a business’ success.
And yet, while I admire the minds behind Burger King’s latest advertising campaign, there’s something about its basic premise that makes me very uncomfortable.
Few can have missed either the commercials or the viral buzz around the effort. In a nutshell: Take away the reason why the vast majority of Burger King fans visit its restaurants to begin with – the Whopper – and listen to the howls of protest. For two full days that’s exactly what Burger King did at two of its restaurants in Nevada. The ostensive rationale, deadpanned one cashier to a stunned customer: “…they got too popular. The sandwich got too big for the menu.”
As the Wall Street Journal reported, it all paid off quite nicely for the No. 2 fast food chain, helping drive up Burger King’s sales in the quarter ended Dec. 31 by double-digits. (Even as things were flat under the golden arches.)
It was all filmed by hidden cameras at two outlets in Nevada, using actors as cashiers. But the customers and their outrage over a Burger King without Whoppers were quite real, as footage, seen in commercials and virally (a special Burger King site and on YouTube), so aptly showed. Part of the act was to slip a competitor’s burger in customers’ bags and watch their befuddlement. “I didn’t bring that in here,” said one. “I hate Wendy’s!”
Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal used one word several times to describe the campaign, which might partially explain why it so discomfits me: Hoax. Synonyms would include “trick,” “swindle” and “ruse.” Other words that come to mind: Dishonest. Mean.
I think I’m probably in the minority in letting this bother me. But then again, I’m not a big fan of humor that involves pratfalls and physical pain, or of “reality” TV in general, for that matter.
Burger King got a great campaign out of this effort. But it was derived from a cruel joke on people who are its most die-hard fans. Is that any way to build a brand?
Chicken. Egg. Press Release. Pitch. Which comes first? Who cares?
Sally Saville Hodge
One of the most time-honored questions that I have been asked more times than I can possibly count over a very long career as a communicator has also got to be one of the most inane:
Do you send the press release to the reporter first? Or pitch first?
This burning issue reared its head again as a non sequitur at the end of a long thread of comments on a recent Tough Sledding post. Author/moderator Bill Sledzik was gracious but apparently nonplussed: Dunno, he said. When he was a practitioner, he hated doing media relations.
For those of us who do it anyway, here are some ways to look at it.
First, the press release is only one tool in the PR arsenal. And a lot of people, myself included, believe that it’s losing its relevance for many purposes. In an environment where “mass” is losing ground to one-on-one relationship building, a release that the journalist knows is also being send to hundreds of other reporters (since most PR folks follow the “more s— you throw against the wall” theory) will pretty much prompt a hit on the delete button.
Secondly, how do most practitioners “pitch” these days? Maybe our brand of PR is different, but 99 percent of our pitching is done via e-mail. We save the phone – when it’s necessary – for follow-up conversations after we’ve established a contact. Using the phone for the initial pitch (whether it’s been preceded by a release or not) is almost guaranteed to get you lost in voicemail hell.
But if you must do a press release (a fact sheet or FAQ won’t do), here’s an answer to this pressing question, a solution that seems tailor-made for the times. Which comes first? Both!
Your pitch is the text of the e-mail. Short, sweet, customized, and clearly showing that you understand your idea’s relevance to each reporter and his/her readers. And, might I mention, well-written, as well. But you also embed the release in the text field below the pitch and mention its presence for the reporter’s convenience.
A two-fer. Another issue solved.
New media use slowed by old business ideas, not old marketers
Sally Saville Hodge
It’s hell getting old.
Your back aches more. It’s harder to get away with calling your growing network of wrinkles “laugh lines.” And popular wisdom holds that you become so mired in tradition that you’re not keeping up with the changing world.
These days, the lines separating old dogs like me from the young Turks in PR and marketing are being drawn in media – traditional versus new. MarketingPilgrim’s Janet Driscoll Miller states it pretty bluntly: Most of the marketers she knows over 40, she writes, don’t understand even the basics of online marketing. And she cites Mike Grehan at Clickz to further support her position that most PR firms aren’t bringing new technologies to their clients.
Oh, if it were just so simple as the generation gap at work.
Here’s what this dinosaur has observed after many years in business.
First, there’s a lot of inertia out there. If clients and corporate bosses aren’t pushing their marketing and PR teams to be more than merely order-takers, to be thinking creatively about new and traditional tools to help move the business forward, then they aren’t going to step out of their comfort zones. Everyone knows traditional media works (never mind that studies show effectiveness is falling off). So why tinker? Where’s the incentive?
A second factor relates less to the generational thing and more to the risk aversion prevalent in our business culture. Why take a chance on something new when you know, as the saying goes, that the more s— you throw against the wall, enough of it’s bound to stick?
Ultimately, whether you’re pushing new media strategies or old, the challenge is to speak in the kind of language that decision-makers understand: These are the kinds of results you can expect.
Whether you’re a new media groupie or a traditional media Neanderthal, your challenge is to strive to learn what’s on both sides of the fence, step away from the order-taker mentality, and find a way to mesh the best of both worlds to demonstrate value to the client. It’s a challenge we all should be stepping up to meet – at whatever age.
Integrated marketing helps brands walk their talk
Following is a snippet of a post I wrote late last year for our internal blog (on which we are permitted to blather on and pontificate with impunity). It was inspired by the Nov. 29 Mediapost Online Spin article, “Word-Of-Mouth: Marketing’s White Knight?” Our internal blog, called 1brain, is where we try out new thinking and examine new ideas. This is one we thought worth sharing.
As marketers, sparking and showcasing passion about a product or service among consumers is what we do, and facilitating viral “word-of-mouth” transmission is definitely one way to go about it. But simply getting people to talk about a brand is no magic pill. Building (and sustaining) a buzz is hard work, best achieved through an integrated marketing approach (of which WOM might be one aspect).
Why are marketers looking for a panacea? Because some still cling to the idea that running the “right” (singular) campaign will get people talking – and buying. Maybe it will. But more likely it won’t.
I think the biggest reason marketers resist the integrated marketing model is because it’s hard to pull off. It’s program management at its most complex. (A program comprises multiple, often simultaneous projects.) And managing a bunch of projects is distinctly un-sexy. In my experience, successful program management consists of about one part creativity and three parts logistics. Most marketers I know signed up for the creative. The logistics? Not so much.
But like it or not, program management is fast becoming a vital part of our job. Done well, it allows us to exponentially increase the impact of a brand (and its message) with consumers in a very short time, significantly upping the chances that targeted customers will do a whole lot more than just talk about it!
So let’s keep our feet on the ground when it comes to evaluating tactics and continue to use all the tools required, in whatever combination is appropriate — even if it means the execution will be complex. Our willingness and ability to do this makes us unique, and sets us apart from those who continue to resist this new marketing paradigm. And that’s worth talking about.
Expert media source: how to become one
Jeff Borden
It’s no secret the news media are in turmoil. Newspapers and magazines, large and small, are looking for ways to cut costs, which frequently translates into staff reductions. It’s not much better on the broadcasting side. Budgets are tight there too, and everyone is trying to do more with less. These conditions will only worsen in the near term with a shaky economy bordering on recession.
This creates opportunities for marketing executives shrewd enough to seize them. The reduction in newsroom resources has everyone scrambling even more for good, quotable sources who can bring a level of expertise to their stories. That’s where you come in.
With a number of former journalists working here, we know firsthand that reporters, editors and producers are like anyone else in a hurry. They gravitate to those who can help solve a problem. If you can offer yourself as an expert on a story, whether a large national event or a local issue, you position yourself as a thought leader and, quite possibly, gain a coveted spot in a news person’s Rolodex.
You can do this yourself, of course, but we’ve found that most executives don’t have the time to do this “reporter relationship building” very effectively. We help our clients establish and cultivate these relationships by monitoring the publications in which they would like to appear and advising them on how to connect appropriately.
Once a connection is made, it can be very rewarding, especially if you get a reputation for saying things that are smart and pithy. Ever notice how certain experts are quoted frequently in news reports? News people aren’t dumb. They go back to the sources who have helped them in the past. Connect with a news organization in a positive way and you can join their ranks – and boost your company’s profile along the way.
Non-traditional media not in Target’s sights
Sally Saville Hodge
Should bloggers be treated like “real” journalists?
For Target, the answer is an emphatic “no” – at least, for now. And we suspect this stance is not unusual.
Target’s PR folks stated their position loud, clear, and not terribly gracefully when blogger Amy Jussel recently asked them for an explanation of what some believe was an inappropriate billboard. Their response?
Amy,
Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.
Marketing Edge discusses very effectively the many ways this response was bad PR; there’s no need for me to try to further polish this particular apple.
But it begs a revisitation of an increasingly asked question: Should bloggers be treated like “real” journalists?
It’s a troubling question to this former business journalist. I was trained to meet high standards and earned no small degree of credibility and influence as a result – supported by the news organizations behind me. Those standards?
- The facts had to be accurate, verified as so to the best of my abilities, and cited.
- Exclusives needed to be based on confirmation by at least two, and preferably three knowledgeable and trusted sources, and backed by the kind of detail that spoke to the story’s accuracy.
- Unnamed sources were to be used sparingly; one-source stories were inadequate.
- The subject of the article was given every opportunity to comment.
- Writing about businesses in which I had a vested interest was not allowed.
- Objectivity was key.
- And, by the way, good writing was not optional.
There are exceptions (slate.com and smokinggun.com, for example), but far too many blogs adhere to no journalistic standards. Perez Hilton can hide behind the First Amendment all he wants, but the fact that he’s found a social media soapbox and an audience doesn’t make him a member of the Fourth Estate.
I’ll be the first to admit that adherence to those standards by traditional journalists often appears to be slipping. Sloppy reporting is obvious, and objectivity is increasingly hard to find. And we all know how “facts” can be twisted to the writer’s purpose.
It all makes for a sticky wicket to be sure, further complicated by the fact many traditional journalists use blogs and bloggers to help them shape their coverage – whether for story ideas or to validate news sources. The boundaries are blurring.
It’s hard not to sympathize, to some extent, with Target’s position, gracelessly stated as it was. Perhaps the solution for corporate practitioners lies in using the same kind of discretion they use in responding to traditional media calls: Evaluate the outlet’s reach, credibility and influence vis a vis their business’ mission and audiences, and proceed accordingly.
And do a better job of monitoring the conversations from every channel so they’re poised to respond effectively.
Update: New York Times “Target Tells a Blogger to Go Away“
Jargon-Nots
David Donze
Do you ever wonder where “outside the box” is? Do you recoil from requests to dump your brain? Are you out of bandwidth because you’re overloaded with administrivia?
Plenty of books and Web sites are dedicated to cataloging (and ridiculing) the business jargon we hear and use daily. But jargon has its place. Nearly every industry has developed its own specialized shorthand that hastens day-to-day communication between its participants.
The trouble starts when business people use shorthand to show how smart and savvy they are. Consultants and managers lace directives with obscure language to create an air of expertise. Speakers and writers use buzzwords to gloss over content and presentation shortcomings. For some odd reason, many professionals still think slinging business jargon makes them seem smarter.
Once and for all: It doesn’t.
The Wall Street Journal agrees with us. (Be sure to check out the comments). The Financial Times agrees with us – at least FT columnist Lucy Kellaway does. And if that’s not enough, the National Council of Teachers of English does too. (JSTOR login required).
Convinced? Join the crusade. Because helping others to “shift their paradigm” is a totally “actionable step” you can take to help advance their “core competencies.”
Do blog issues keep communicators awake at night?
Sally Saville Hodge
I’ve been cruising through a lot of PR blogs lately just to get a better sense of the kinds of topics that float boats in our field.
I’ve not been surprised that a lot touch on tech themes – since all things new and social media-related have their genesis on the tech side. But I’ve been puzzled at the number of bloggers who focus on the subject of … blogs. In fact, a recent post by Blogbridge asserts that blog-related issues are the basis of the Big Questions that keep PR folks awake at night.
Writer Pito Salas cites three of them, gleaned from discussions with PR executives aimed at helping Blogbridge shape a possible new product offer directed at our industry: the most relevant blogs for clients; finding coverage that matters in them; and finding ways to measure the impact of blog coverage.Of course, Salas is going to be looking at issues like this, given the Blogbridge’s business as an aggregator of blogs. But call me an old-fashioned worrier. It’s not issues like these that keep me from a sound night’s sleep.
I have a different set of issues:
- Finding the most effective ways to help my clients to blend the best of traditional and new media strategies to ensure we support the reason they hired our agency to begin with: to build image and credibility.
- Ensuring we continue to help them deliver their messages in relevant and authentic ways – whatever medium is being employed.
- Finding ways to help clients better leverage the outcomes of traditional and new media exposure so that they get the bang for the buck they expect.
In his post, Salas suggests: “Many of the tried and true ways of delivering a valuable service to clients don’t seem to be working anymore. In fact there are those out there that say that ‘traditional’ PR is dying.”
Au contraire. The expansion of the “blogosphere” and other new/social media strategies constitute less a medium change or a revolution, but more of an evolution and enrichment of the gear in the PR/marketing toolbox. Figuring out how to put it all to work most effectively is the real issue that should be causing sleep deprivation among thoughtful communicators.
Another social media snafu
Oops, they did it again. This time it was a non-profit executive for research organization GiveWell. Executive director and GiveWell co-founder Holden Karnofsky masked his identity on an industry Web site while soliciting suggestions from visitors on the best source for comparing charities. Then, he answered his own question – recommending GiveWell, of course. Then he was found out. To GiveWell’s credit, its board of directors took swift and appropriate action. But the damage has been done.
What rock was the guy living under? Plenty has been written about the frequency and speed with which those trying to fake out the system have been caught. Whole Foods’ blogging CEO praising himself using a fake online identity. The Walmart RV Traveler’s flog. Sony’s YouTube-based viral marketing scheme for the Sony PSP.
Social media (forums, online communities, blogs, etc.) are powerful tools that, used properly, can rapidly raise an organization’s profile with its target audience and advance its business objectives. But as some organizations have learned (the hard way), it’s a double-edged sword that participants use swiftly and mercilessly when it comes to anything – or anyone – they perceive to be inauthentic or deceitful.
In fact, the success of any social media program hinges on complete transparency. The more authentic and truthful businesses appear in these venues, the more trust and goodwill they will engender. In today’s competitive environment, where a dozen companies are making essentially the same widget, the way people feel about the widget – and the widget maker – is an increasingly important key differentiator.
Companies that welcome the scrutiny of customers can profit handsomely from the exposure and viral nature of social media. Those who think fakery is a sound marketing tactic may be better suited to a different line of work. I suggest fiction writer.
When being trendy is not your style
Chris Scott
To get – and stay – ahead of the curve, 63 percent of businesses are bumping up marketing spend in 2008, according to a recent article in B2B Magazine.
What will they spend it on? Well, trends indicate that online everything is going to be big this year, along with neurological market research and continued outreach to younger targets. And because it’s a trend it must be true, right? Not necessarily. Businesses would do well to consider carefully whether (or not) the trendy action they want to take would really advance their business objectives.
A few “trends” I’ve run across lately that have thrown up a red flag:
- Social Marketing – Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and other buzzworthy concepts are spreading in popularity among marketers faster than the Bird Flu. Social marketing can be very effective when used appropriately. But some businesses lend themselves to this approach – and some don’t. Before implementing any tactic, it’s critical to know your audience and how best to reach them.
- “Recession-proofing” – When dark economic winds begin to blow, conventional wisdom says that marketing and promotion budgets should be the first thing to go. Actually, economic uncertainty should be a cue to spend more to promote your business. While your competitors are reeling it in, you have a golden opportunity to reach out to prospects and demonstrate that you innovate even during tough times.
- All Digital, All the Time – Cyberspace has changed the way many of us live, shop and communicate, but it also means we’re constantly inundated with electronic messages of all kinds. Don’t forget the power of the human touch; sometimes organizing an event that puts your business face-to-face with potential clients can be even more effective.
The moral of the story? All trends have one thing in common: None are very satisfying unless they really fit.
January 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm cscottathodgeschindler Leave a comment
…and another blog enters the fray
Sally Saville Hodge
With some 113 million blogs opining on everything from Britney Spears’ fashion and parenting missteps to behind-the-scenes perspectives of chocolate factories, is there room for one more?
Well, a Google blog search turned up a mere 260,000 PR blogs and another 170,000 on marketing, so I’m assuming this one won’t tip the scales one way or another.
And Lord knows, there’s plenty of fodder for all of us given the number of misguided fools who somehow seem to stumble onto our playing field.
If FEMA’s infamy for staging that mind-boggling fake press conference wasn’t enough, we have our own local Hall of Shame here in Chicago. This was lately topped off by Andre Garner, Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s main media guy. A reflection of the common political tendency to hire for connections, not smarts, Garner recently called into a local radio talk show where his boss was getting roasted as a guest, (poorly) disguising his voice and using an assumed name to come to the defense of the embattled politico. And was caught by discerning listeners.
Plenty of fodder, indeed.
So welcome to the launch of Diabloguer, brought to you by Hodge Schindler Integrated Communications. Mine won’t be the only voice, since we have a lot of smart folks here, and they have a lot of opinions. It will revolve around communications issues. Posts will be well-written. We’ll welcome your comments, even if – especially if – you don’t agree with us. (Hey, we didn’t name this the Stepford Posts, after all!)We look forward to doing our part to advance the conversation.
