Vanessa ThinksInk

An Organization With Terminal Cancer

2012-02-14T12:49:00.002-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 2/10/12.

Here’s something that almost anyone from any side of the political spectrum can agree upon: the past week has been heinous for Susan G. Komen. And it has shown that the organization most known for its staunch (some, like me, would say steamrolling) support for finding a cure and raising awareness for a single type of cancer -- breast cancer -- above any other has a cancer all its own. It’s a cancer common to any group that has become bloated with a false sense of self-righteousness and one whose arrogance and hubris causes it to stray from its stated (if overzealous) mission and become embroiled in a politicized mess.

What I'm talking about, of course, is this week's announcement that Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen’s vice president of public policy, jumped before she was pushed. A speedy resignation with no severance package, Handel excised herself from the organization before mounting pressure within the group would have forced her imminent departure.

Her resignation caps a week of intense public backlash over Susan G. Komen's decision to first cut and then hurriedly restore about $680,000 in funding to Planned Parenthood, a provider of reproductive health services, including contraception and abortions.

In her resignation letter, which has been posted on Forbes, Handel goes to great lengths to explain how the situation got so out of control. Her defense? Komen is in the business of saving lives. Anything that distracts from that goal is a disservice -- thus the decision to pull funding and divorce itself from a controversial organization that might be spending money illegally, like funding abortions.

In October 2011, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I wrote about how the "pinking" of America was diluting the message of curing cancer and replacing it with corporate capitalism and too much consumption. I also took issue with Susan G.’s near-bullying tactics as they related to how the fundraising and marketing gargantuan has left smaller cancer-fighting organizations to fend for themselves, and how they aggressively muscle out any group that seeks to challenge breast cancer as the only cancer worth raising money for.

This latest misstep only adds to my great concern that Susan G. Komen, for all the good it has admittedly done for breast cancer awareness, has become a monopolistic and politically compromised organization. If she were alive today, I wonder what Susan Goodman Komen -- whom the organization gets its name from -- would think. After what must have been a grueling fight for her life, finding a cure and staying true to the organization's mission and goals would be more important to her then whether or not grant money was going to another group similarly charged with helping save the lives of young, often poor women -- an organization that happens to provide abortions.

Letters of resignation aside, let's not forget that Karen Handel is a former Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate, whose campaign promises included cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and was Georgia's 26th Secretary of the State.

On Sunday, the Huffington Post reported that it had obtained an email exchange between Komen leadership confirming that Handel had the sole authority in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.

Does this not have all the makings of a woman hell-bent on achieving a personal goal and using a behemoth organization which itself had become too politically connected, as cover to achieve her aims?

Yes -- the organization did reverse course in barely 72 hours, and restored the funds. It also made changes to its grant awarding guidelines that say only organizations under criminal investigation would be denied funding. But like a true cancer, this organizational one has already done much damage -- to those who truly believed in the structure of non-profits being “doers of good,” to those who held Komen as saviors of women, and to the brands who’ve invested heavily to be part of Komen’s shiny pink halo.

The upside to all this? Susan G. Komen’s misdeeds have opened up an enormous pathway for all the non-profits around the country, breast-cancer-related or not -- to start reclaiming their place in consumers’ hearts, minds and wallets.

And as for the PR advice, first administered by Ari Fleisher and now Ogilvy, all I can say is that it will take a lot more than some clever PR tactics and new positioning to rebuild this country’s trust in the Susan G. Komen brand and its “values.”

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 2/10/12.

When a Sinking Ship Gives that Sinking Feeling: Costa Concordia and Its PR Disaster

2012-02-09T10:22:00.007-05:00

Where do I begin with this one? How about the basics?

Why is it that big names seem to go with big doings? And I’m not talking about positive “big doings,” I’m talking about the ironic, disastrous kind. Perhaps if we didn’t christen giant cruise ships with bloated titles like Titanic, whose name means enormous size, strength or power and Costa Concordia, meaning harmony in Latin, these types of human and public relations tragedies wouldn’t happen?

Somehow, though, with 320+ days left to go in 2012, I’m sure this won’t be the last global PR nightmare, nor do I believe a simple name change could inspire a change of outcome. Maybe we even need these types of ironic names to help jolt us out of our collective lunacy and help avoid making repeat mistakes. At least the Costa Concordia, the Carnival Corp.-owned luxury cruise liner that ran aground off the Italian coast earlier in late January, didn’t ram an iceberg, or fail to have enough lifeboats on board. Oh hang on a sec, it didn’t.

But if that’s the best we can say about the tragic maritime crisis, we’re not doing very well. And as public relations professionals, charged with handling, directing and shaping a client’s message, somewhere, somehow, someone, could have, should have done better.

While media attention was first focused on the negligible and cowardly actions of Captain Francesco Schettino, who abandoned ship by accidentally falling into a lifeboat, then refusing coast guard orders to “do your duty” and return to ship, there’s been increasing anger and outright disbelief thrown at Carnival, the parent company of Costa Cruises, which ran and built the ship.

Good question. Where was he indeed?And rightly so. Carnival and Costa are responsible for ensuring the safety of their passengers and translates into having the right equipment and people. The Wall Street Journal’s recent article “Carnival CEO Lies Low After Wreck,” was as blunt as the company should have been at the start of the crisis. “Where is Micky Arison?” was the article’s four-word sentence opener.

The golden rule in any public relations disaster is to get ahead of the story and go into immediate damage control. From the moment the scope of the disaster was learned, Carnival and Costa should have been unwavering in their public openness. Instead what we got was a delayed, reactionary-type response that paints Arison as “a delegator” and one who is working tirelessly from afar at Carnival’s Miami headquarters. While that may be all well and good, once again, it’s important to remember that very often it’s not reality that matters so much as the perception of reality.

Reality vs. Perceived Reality

Take for example last winter when after repeated snowstorms, Newark, New Jersey Mayor, Cory Booker, after hearing complaints from city residents over unplowed streets, began tweeting his whereabouts as he physically joined the city’s snow removal crews. Residents tweeted their street and roadway conditions and Booker responded in live time when a plow would get through.

He even helped shovel snow and directed the plows to the most congested areas.

Whether it’s a snowstorm or a near-sinking luxury liner, that’s the kind of honesty, transparency and take-no-bullsh*t response that speaks volumes to people everywhere, whether they’re snowed in on Broad Street, Newark, or capsized off the island of Giglio in the Tyrrhenian Sea.

For a golden rule, it’s rather incredible just how often this golden standing gets tarnished. Besides, when it comes to gold, Carnival seems more interested in counting its post-sinking pennies than doing what is right. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the company expects the wreck will lower the company’s net income by $155 million, but that according to a company statement, “the incident will not have a significant long-term impact on our business.”

But isn’t that the very point? The “incident” – that lovely euphemism that translates to mean “an occurrence of seemingly minor importance,” should have a significant long-term impact on the Carnival brand and its business. It certainly has on the passengers onboard the vessel, and the on the families of those who died.

With uninspiring statements like that coming from a company with the PR-prowess of Carnival you can be sure that 2012’s harmony will be upset by further titanic missteps.

At least big doings will continue to be big fodder for my future blog posts, like Susan G. Komen and Goldman Sachs.

Out From the Digital Stone Age: Tablet PCs Emerge Along with a Lesson

2012-01-26T11:02:00.003-05:00

Perhaps one of the hardest tasks to man-up – or woman-up to in my case, whether in PR circles or just around the evening dinner table, is to admit when you’re wrong. Of course, this is mammoth amounts of scholarly work written on why that is the case, but I’ll spare you the details, provide the obligatory link to a book about “cognitive dissonance,” and get to the point of this blog post.

Recently I’ve blogged about two issues: the trouble with statistics, that approximately 47 percent of people like to make them up and the remaining 53 percent fail to interpret them correctly, (yes, that adds up to 100) and that tablet PCs and e-readers, while no doubt part of the mobile digital mix, are not likely to explode in popularity — at least until they are more completely untethered from Wifi-only Internet access.

Well, at least when it comes to the tablet computer portion of the above paragraph….(here goes) I may have been wrong. That wasn’t too hard.

An article in the technology section of CNN.com yesterday reported that adult tablet ownership roughly doubled during the holiday season jumping from 10 percent in mid December to 19 percent ownership in early January, only a few weeks later, and women were the biggest new converts. The Pew research behind the article attributed the surge to continuing price falls (some tablets are selling for as little as $99) and the aggressive marketing efforts of competitors like the Kindle Fire and Barns and Noble’s Nook as they continue nudging their way into what’s predominantly been an iPad 1 and iPad 2 domain.

What’s more, investment bank Morgan Keegan reduced its estimate of iPad shipments in December from 16 million to 13 million, a drop of 19 percent, while estimating that the Kindle Fire sold between 4 million and 5 million units, according to the article. An industry analyst cutting back on its predicted iPad sales is further evidence that the tablet market might be getting more complex –even if the Wifi umbilical cord hasn’t been fully cut.

While a doubling of anything is relatively easy when you start with low figures, (having $2 in your wallet when you started with $1 is a 100 percent increase) it’s quite possible this article and the Pew research are the first indications that tablet computers are finally coming into their own. Think about it, tablets were “born” right around and just after the momentary Netbook craze from roughly 2007, Kindle’s launch year, and 2010, the iPad 1 début. As “second borns” you’d think they’d be more refined products, flying off shelves. Well, it may have taken some warm up time, but apparently, they’re beginning to do just that.

With that coveted laptop-sized screen, who knows, 2012 could really be the “year of the tablet” never mind the smartphone. As communication professionals, it might be time to start thinking and re-thinking both for ourselves and for our clients ways in which tablet PCs can better disseminate a marketing message or push a product.

We already know they’re great for downloading books, have a knack for beating the statistical odds, and have proven this PR professional mistaken. (At least for the moment)

Now let’s see what else they can do.

Staking a Claim in Mobile Travel: Not Just Popular, Pragmatic and Profitable

2012-01-18T12:49:00.005-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of TravelInkd', originally appeared on Hotel Executive on 1/18/12.

Mobile a Must: Pragmatic trumps popular

If 2011 for hotel owners was all about learning from and joining the mobile masses simply because it was the “in” thing to do for our tech-savvy patrons, 2012 is rapidly shaping up to be the year where mobile becomes a must. In other words, the mobile marketing landscape has rapidly matured and the training wheels are coming off. This coming of age can mean only one thing: The time for hotels to launch their mobile presence is now. Not after the post-holidays’ travel slow down, and not in the run-up to Valentines Day or the season’s first spring breakers.

Right now.

From Training Wheels to Two-Wheeler: Mobile Matures

As with other trends in the hotel industry, it is customers who are driving mobile’s niche-to-need changes. Today’s on-the-go traveler expects to be connected wherever they are throughout their trip experience and that connectivity is expanding at a staggering rate. Earlier this year, more than half of all mobile phone sales (56%) were smartphones, and the total number of US smartphone owners jumped to 82.2 million people this summer – that is 35% percent of the 234 million Americans who use mobile devices 13 and up. Think about that statistic for a few moments…

Even a lighthearted (but with serious implications) October 2010 survey by Mashable highlights just how connected consumers have become. When asked what they would give up to keep their mobile phones for a week:

70% said they would give up alcohol;
63% said goodbye to chocolate;
And a combined 63% said they would consider doing without their toothbrush, shoes, or computers.

Considering those (rather shocking) expectations, it’s critical that hotels deliver. Hotels, as with other businesses, must go where their customers are going. Why? For one thing, the booking window, once a lengthy time frame where travelers corresponded with travel agents, business travel managers, and the like, has now shrunk considerably. Smartphones can literally book travel itineraries, price hunt, and check-in to a given hotel – assuming it has a sophisticated mobile platform.

But it’s more than just smartphone adoption rates. A recent survey by Greystripe, a mobile marketing company, found that 47% of iPad users who were considered frequent travelers (defined as a person who traveled at least twice a year) booked hotels via their mobile device, and were the most common mobile platform to do so, beating out both iPhone users and Android phones, the study found. So when I talk about the mobile channel, I am talking about tablets too.

And not to be outdone, TripAdvisor, a travel website and now travel app provider, announced in November a collection of 20 free Mobile City Guide apps (for 20 cities) that, in addition to point-by-point directions and general tourist information, includes hotel reviews. Some of the most downloaded cities include: Beijing, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and New York. If potential customers are relying on the these mobile apps to determine their booking choice, (even if they’re not booking through the app directly) it’s important hoteliers and their staffs get on board too, monitoring reviewer activity and having a system in place that incentivizes its customers to use said apps and write positive reviews, assuming they’ve had a superior experience.

Facebook, too, both in its mobile and desktop iterations, is becoming a vital space for digital commentary on travelers’ hotel experiences, which ultimately drive bookings and revenue. Some 30% of travelers who booked their hotel online said they would use the social networking site (as well as Twitter and LinkedIn) to comment on their hotel and trip. The study, by Milestone, a hotel marketing company, also showed that each social message posted by a guest drove five to six unique visitors to a hotel website.

Whether it’s apps, mobile websites, social media, or even the implementation of mobile phone-based digital room keys, (Open Ways, a mobile-based access management and security company, announced its launching of “Mobile Key 4 All,” a software and hardware solution) where hotel guests simply point or swipe their phone through a type of digital reader, all three outlets fall into the mobile sphere.

Driving home the point, Ian Carrington, Google’s mobile advertising and sales director, made his opinions on the mobile revolution clear: “Mobile isn’t ‘the next big thing’ – it is already very much upon us,” he said. Or, staying closer to the hotel industry, consider what Tom O’Rourke, founder and CEO of O’Rourke Hospitality Marketing, had to say: “[Apps are] an opportunity through a mobile channel to connect with a guest before, during, and after his stay.” Enough said.

Airborne Perspective: What we can learn

Considering the close ties that the hotel and airline industries share, (one relies on a large share of their customers from the other for business) it’s incumbent on hoteliers to take a page from the recent past and consider their future.

It’s hard to over state the impact mobile communications has had on airlines, especially as it relates to ancillary revenues. Ancillary revenues, or ways in which airlines unbundle specific services and monetize and customize the traveler experience, has largely emerged in concert with the mobile platform. Today more than 2,000 aircraft crossing the world’s oceans and continents are Wi-Fi enabled. Innovations like this have helped airlines offset rising fuel costs and generally prosper in a still-challenging economic climate. Unlike the hotel industry, which has been slow to adopt mobile, most airlines have already established the basics: allowing for mobile check-in, 2D bar code boarding passes, and many have mobile booking capability. Going forward, industry analysts predict additional mobile services like being able to select premium seating, club access, or the pre-purchasing of meals. Further down the road, (or runway), airlines will consider adding location based services, which provide travelers with location sensitive advertisements and promotions, as well as monitoring social media for commentary on the entire travel experience. Finally, the burgeoning field of NFC, or Near Field Communications, is also seen as a significant game changer going forward, allowing travelers to simply swipe their NFC-enabled mobile devices and perform a host of activities like check-in, pay for goods, (mobile wallet), and even exchange vital travel information, like last-minute itinerary changes, with other travelers, family or friends. Imagine having that type of capability at the check-in desk?

The Mobile Concierge: Booking (and banking on) future success

Boarding passes aside, nearly every mobile avenue airlines are pursuing has relevancy for the hotel industry too. In a competitive marketplace where OTAs (online travel agencies) are vying for an increasing piece of the booking revenue pie, mobile can be a way for hoteliers to once again directly connect with their loyal, returning customers, and attract new ones as well. For all the industry’s booking efforts, (OTAs included) global occupancy rates remain at roughly 60 percent. In other words, there’s plenty more the industry can and should do to attract more guests. Mobile booking, mobile check-in and check-out, cardless key systems, even mobile hotel restaurant reservations, gift shop rewards points, and in-room food and media selections, are exactly the types of services travelers are beginning to expect. If many similar services are already being offered by airlines for travelers in transit, why should these mobile amenities end when they get off the plane?

They shouldn’t.

From work, to travel, to recreation, mobile and smart mobile devices are remaking every facet of our collective lives. And in so doing, the technology is reshaping the way in which hoteliers must interact with and connect with their customers. Before long, hotels that fail to adopt these changes will look like antiques and will be losing revenue and guests. There’s no need to discard the leather-bound guest book just yet. Just remember the rapidly maturing mobile landscape is where the majority of today’s travelers are looking to sign in next.

In every touch point of travel lifecycle, from booking to check-in and home again, mobile has become a must.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of TravelInkd', originally appeared on Hotel Executive on 1/18/12.

When Big Brother Watches YouTube With the Rest of Us: Digital Divide 2.0

2012-01-11T15:16:00.003-05:00

Ahhhh, technophobia! No, I didn’t make this term up nor is it an irrational fear of a certain musical genre that will remain nameless (though obvious). Technophobia as defined by dictionary.com is “an abnormal fear of or anxiety about the effects of advanced technology.”

With this definition in mind, tech journalist Bill Robinson, a friend and colleague of mine, in his recent Huffington Post column, raised alarm over what he calls the new “digital divide.” No longer is the digital divide over the technological haves and have nots – those who have computers and Internet access versus those who don’t – but rather between those who have become outright addicted to our anywhere and everywhere gadget-gorged world and in so doing, are dividing themselves from the shrinking percentage of those who are living slightly off the digital grid, achieving that increasingly lost something we used to call: balance.

While some might say Bill is off his digital rocker, a real-life “Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel,” (Google that, if you don’t know what I’m referencing) I do not. Besides, anyone who was a true technophobe in keeping with the spirit of the definition that framed this piece, would not be posting their thoughts on the Huffington Post.

That said, Bill’s concerns that just maybe we’re all a little too linked, synched and wired is more than a just his conclusion. To buttress his argument, Robinson sites a recent survey by Morgan Stanley that found that 91 percent of Americans have their cell phones within reach at every moment of the day. Just to clarify, that means every 86,400 seconds that make up a 24-hour day. (And yes, I used a Blackberry app to calculate that) The study also found that our collective time spent with our glowing gadgets is outpacing the time we spend asleep.

What a sad bunch of folks we are.

Bill isn’t a technophobe any more than I am. We’re both realists. As a public relations professional and journalist, we interface with the latest and greatest technology on a daily basis. Not only that, but very often communications technology, increasingly in the form of mobile and smartphone adoption, is at the core of what we do.

Navigating this new digital divide successfully doesn’t require an online search engine. All it requires is a dose of common sense, and the recognition that being a hopeless technophile – the opposite of the definition that opened this piece, is just as detrimental as the technophobic response.

To be sure, changing habits takes time and marketers from every corner continue to promote technology’s hyperactive presence. But tonight, when you’re finished reading this post off what will still likely be your Blackberry, Android, iOS device or laptop, remember to power down, turn off, or put your gadgets to sleep and join the remaining 9 percent of Americans that presumably do not have their mobile phone in constant reach. I have a sneaking suspicion that doing so will not only recharge their batteries, but it’ll recharge yours as well.

Sweet dreams.

98 Percent of Statistics Are Made Up – And Then Some

2012-01-09T13:04:00.001-05:00

“A [person] may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three meals a day, but that is not a good way to live.”

Nor is it a good way to use statistics.

The above words, attributed to US Supreme Court Associate Justice, Louis Brandeis, underscore the age-old trouble with this black sheep cousin of fully respected mathematics; a discipline we call statistics. For as much as statistics attempt to illuminate an issue, address a concern, highlight a trend, or flesh out a public opinion, statistics are as ambiguous as they are helpful. As a public relations professional, I estimate that 40% of my workweek (sorry, I couldn’t resist) is spent awash in statistics, some good, some bad, and many that leave me wondering “huh?!”

A new study by marketing company, Ifbyphone, has me doing just that. In its 2011 State of Marketing Measuring Report, the company found that while 82% of marketing executive managers expect all marketing channels, (print, TV, radio, mobile, online, email) to have a measurable return on investment, (ROI) only a paltry 29% of respondents said they understood how to measure and achieve that aim across all channels, with offline platforms being the most difficult to measure.

So does that mean the other 71% who admit to not having a clue deserves to go back to statistics 101?

Not necessarily.

For as earthshaking as pronouncements such as these sound, when you dig a little deeper, the gap really isn’t that surprising after all. Besides, don’t most effective bosses set the bar high and on occasion, leave their staffers scrambling to rise to the challenge at hand? It’s also not surprising since measuring ROI has long been marketers Holy Grail. How exactly does one measure word-of-mouth? Where is the hard money guarantee that a multichannel public relations campaign was any more successful than performing a mass emailing or any other type of initiative for that matter? In economics that’s called opportunity cost.

But in marketing, opportunity cost is a lot harder to measure.

The good news is that with the exception of social media – the online world’s digital word-of-mouth – 59% of respondent said offline media was the hardest metric to track. Why is that the good news you ask? Because as we begin 2012, Internet and mobile web marketing continues to gobble up a greater percentage of the marketing mix. Not in a cannibalistic manner, but in a complimentary one to traditional channels. Feature and mobile smartphones, with a combined penetration rate of 95%, (if you believe that statistic) offer some of the best marketing metric tracking ability including click and redemption rates, surveys, opt-in, and others. Already, it is estimated that US companies spend 30% of their marketing budgets online.

So while I wouldn’t dismiss a report like this and cry statistical BS, I’d be sure to keep an open mind whenever the topic of statistics comes up.

Or, to personalize it some more think about it like this:

I could tell you that statistically speaking; I recently placed my 2.59 children on board a plane back to England following the holiday break. I could tell you that because that’s the average size of an American family.

I could tell you that. But when it comes to my family I’d be telling a nearly six-tenths lie.

Go figure. (Pun intended)

The ABCs of the CES (Consumer Electronics Show): An Abbreviation on Steroids and Why PR Professionals Should Get Pumped

2012-01-06T17:26:00.003-05:00

OK. So maybe after 45 years and countless interactions with marketing professionals the Consumer Electronics Show aka CES, a somewhat clunky if accurate title with the verbal weight of a 60s vacuum cleaner, could use a bit of retooling. Even the shortened letters CES which the event has come to be known by, stand for other lovely little gems like: the Center For Epidemiologic Studies, Cholesterol Embolization Syndrome, and the Compulsive Eating Scale, to rattle off a few.

But here’s one thing to chew on – compulsive eating aside. Whatever the annual event lacks in nomenclature flavour it has made up for in word-of-mouth buzz. The approaching annual winter gala from January 10-13, held at the Las Vegas Convention Center, has grown from a meager 17,500 attendees to become a temple of consumer electronic and digital gadgets, beckoning all to come ooh and ahh at the tech world’s latest and greatest. Ever wonder what the Blu-ray Disc, the 1975 Pong home version by Atari, and 3DTV have in common for instance? All groundbreaking technologies were introduced to the public at this must-attend gathering.

Increasingly, though, the event, which already attracted nearly 130,000 in 2011, (and is forecasting 150,000 this year) is casting an even wider audience net now. This is exactly why communication professionals – even ones who don’t feel their clients exactly fit the technological bill – should be lining up to attend in what ever way they can, be it in-person visually or virtually via Facetime, Skype, Twitter, and whatever else they’ve got.

The widening net is a natural response to the changing nature of the gadgets themselves. For much of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, computer and video game talk dominated the CES. This was especially the case in 2005 when Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, as a keynote speaker, inadvertently caused an infamous PC staple – the “blue screen of death” when unveiling the new Windows Media Center. Today’s smart devices, razor-thin TVs and other must-have gizmos demonstrate a waning of this trend while highlighting another: the continued blurring of technological lines and smartening up of devices as new products literally talk to one another and whose functions become embedded with each other. Some like to call this the “digital loop.” Dell has been a CES no-show for four years already, and Apple backed out before that, choosing instead to launch its own New Year product extravaganza later in the month and Microsoft says it will be powering down its floor room both in 2013.

Fitting this change, this year’s keynote speaker is Dr. Dieter Zetsche, the Chairman of Daimler AG and Head of Mercedes-Benz. What does an automaker have to do with electronics and gadgets other than what’s under the hood, you ask? Everything – if consumers expect to be able to seamlessly link their smartphones, their hands free blue tooth receivers, their digital address books, their daily schedules, their music and whatever else is churned out next to onboard computer technology. Whether it’s cars or cameras, and anything that doesn’t start with a ‘c’ in between, any communication devices that help our clients get out their message is something that as public relations professionals we should be vigilant in investigating and learning more about.

There’s been much written about technological reluctance from companies, especially as it relates to the power and reach of social media. Attending and learning about the latest toys that integrate function and communication are a great way to get a start on the new year – as clients continue fleshing out their in-house and out-sourced 2012 marketing and promotional strategies.

But like any successful trade show – even ones that are as device dependent as the CES – the quality of the several-day event is equally rooted in the power of human connection. Like Jeff Levick, Chief Advertising Officer of Spotify, a UK-based streaming music service, said in a recent Ad Age article, “You could spend six months meeting all your clients and customers, or you can do it in six days." So for all the talk of world-changing and client-pleasing ad-ons, or accelerometer-less fitness-tracking digital watches, simply attending the Vegas show should be numero uno on your New Years resolutions list, particularly if you’ve been meaning to attend.

So maybe the Consumer Electronics Show is a dated event title. But there’s no denying that the mass meeting of tech and marketing minds alike will create a heck of a lot of Cool Entertaining Synergy. That’s what’s really behind the CES after all.

So Long 2011, The Year Of Distractions

2012-01-04T11:34:00.003-05:00

And welcome 2012, the year of pause, thought and enriching the brain!

It’s been several weeks since I posted anything, which is rather shameful for a blog. My reasons? An insane end-of-year rush to complete client deadlines, several new accounts and the inability to spend any time devoted to feeding my brain or thinking (which almost always leads to my being more productive). Isn’t it ironic that being “busier” actually moved me backwards by the year’s end?

So after two weeks of being immersed in reading and, well, doing nothing, I’m ready to tackle a year that will be filled with less rush and panic-driven deadlines and instead filled with more time to reflect, think, and strategize – which is really what my clients’ are looking to me for. And, most importantly, enjoy life.

This resolution is not unique to me, however. The author Pico Iyer wrote a brilliant piece in the New York times last week - “The Joy of Quiet” – lamenting about the loss of quiet and quiet time.

“We have more and more ways to communicate, as, but less and less to say. Partly because we’re so busy communicating. And we’re rushing to meet so many deadlines that we hardly register that what we need most are lifelines. So what to do? The central paradox of the machines that have made our lives so much brighter, quicker, longer and healthier is that they cannot teach us how to make the best use of them; the information revolution came without an instruction manual. All the data in the world cannot teach us how to sift through data; images don’t show us how to process images. The only way to do justice to our onscreen lives is by summoning exactly the emotional and moral clarity that can’t be found on any screen.”

Iyer was writing about all of us, wasn’t he?

But enough about me. I’ll be back tomorrow with a post on next week’s CES conference in Las Vegas – and why marketers and agencies should be going.

In the meantime, if you haven’t read the The Joy of Quiet I strongly urge you to.

Shame on Lowes for Pandering to Special Interests: When a Home Improvement Giant Could Use a Fixer-Up All its Own

2011-12-15T10:46:00.004-05:00

“Never stop improving.”

Well, at least for Lowes, the above slogan parked in bold blue all caps on the top left corner of the home improvement giant’s webpage, it’s an appropriate start.

The question is how will the company’s recent public relations snafu ultimately pan out as their corporate brass has plenty to improve on now. (And we’re not talking basic roof repair) Earlier this week, the shopping behemoth that only days ago was about as far removed from politics as one of its featured bathroom redesigns, has landed itself in quite the brouhaha.

In yielding to mounting pressure from a variety of sources, including our very own Florida Family Association, (more on that later) the company pulled an ad it was running on commercial breaks for The Learning Channel’s All-American Muslim, a new reality TV show that purportedly shows real Muslims going about their daily lives – you know exactly like the rest of us. I don’t know about you, but the very fact that we need a program such as this to allay our tired and torturous fears of the proverbial “other” – in today’s day and age is frightening. But I digress.

As we enter the peak shopping days and weeks of the increasingly secular holiday season, you can bet this communications bombshell was not what Lowes was expecting. Already Google is working its magic. Google “Lowes” and the fallout from the pullout is the fourth hit. And with the decision making front pages news on CNN.com on Tuesday and Connecticut congressman Chris Murphy addressing the matter on the House floor, calling Lowes’s decision a rubber stamp on “basic foundational bigotry against a major American religious group,” you can bet their troubles are only beginning.

From a public relations perspective, this is the kind of textbook nightmare we dread: an apolitical company becoming unintentionally embroiled in a very politicizing and polarizing mess. So all this begs the question, where did Lowes go wrong?

Lowes went wrong by not following the advice I wrote about in my recent Blagojevich blunder post. Louder voices aren’t more credible voices. And while the company continues to say that its ad pulling had nothing to do specifically with the Florida Family Association, a nonprofit whose web “About Us” description says the group aims to, “educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” it seems VERY likely that it was at least a contributing factor to a collection of below-the-radar narrow-minded people and groups.

Shame on Lowes for pandering toward groups that mask McCarthy-style witch-hunting in the guise of religious enlightenment –whether they’re a 501C3 or not.

There’s comes a point in any communications campaign where all the writers, all the support staff, all the leaflet designers, and press release pitchers, must step aside and let the company speak for itself – without the buffer PR teams necessarily provide. While Lowes has been diligently responding via Tweet and in the press, perhaps a more transparent apology would be in order –without our help. Until now Lowes CEO Robert Niblock, 48, has been mum on the controversy.

As Lowes closes out 2011 and opens 2012 searching for repair and replacement parts in its “corporate improvement” aisle, we can all rest comfortably knowing that the modern social media landscape and blogosphere won’t let red meat like this out from under its digital jaw grip easily. And if there’s a communications upside to any of this, All-American Muslim, which has enjoyed modest success with 908,000 to 1.7 million viewers since its November 13 launch, stands to gain at least something of a ratings bump following the buzz.

Then again, the show’s producers probably wished Lowes would never have gotten involved in the first place and “never stopped improving” their advertising campaigns somewhere else.

2011-12-14T10:33:00.003-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Offirce of ThinkInk, originally appeared on eHotelier on 12/14/11.

Shhhhhh. Listen. Can you hear them?

It's the sound of millions of consumers, leisure travelers, hotel guests and on-business patrons alike, across all demographics, adding to the mobile phone bandwidth super highway by jumping on the mobile phone bandwagon.

Roughly a quarter century into mobile phones' mainstream release, the technology - and its uses - has sure come a far piece. Mobile phones and their increasingly "intelligent" smartphone cousins have morphed into the ultimate digital Swiss Army Knife -marrying the best of computer-based processing power with the ease, simplicity and functionality of a 5-ounce pocket-sized device. Not bad, huh?

For hotel managers looking to capitalize on these rapid and profound changes there are only two words: Game on.

Without doubt, the mobile phone has become ubiquitous: 77% of the world's population (5.3 billion people) owns at least a basic mobile phone, capable of receiving SMS messages. Not to be outdone, though, the smartphone is playing some Major League catch-up ball, making up anywhere from 17% to as much as 63% of the global marketplace in some regions. Today the average global smartphone penetration rate hovers at around 27%, but is growing rapidly.

Increasingly mobile phone users see their devices as "always on" extensions of their everyday lives. From so-called "couch commerce," to mobile couponing, to booking airline flights while sitting at a traffic light (hands free of course), the mobile phone and the opportunities presented by the channel are just too great for hoteliers to ignore.

With this background picture in your mind right now, it's surprising, then, that the hospitality industry, specifically hotels, has been relatively slow at embracing the mobile platform. While the challenges to embrace mobile are real, ranging from hiring the necessary tech-savvy staff, to ensuring data security, guarding against errors, and incorporating an ability for users to book their stays on the go, and even choosing which mobile operating system to embrace, none of these obstacles should relegate hotels to the mobile sidelines. Surveys indicating a strong desire for hotels to adopt mobile (92%) don't seem to be enough, however.

In many cases, actions can speak louder than words, so let's see some action in the mobile game please hotels! That said, "action" without a game plan or playbook is equally foolish. For hotels, going mobile isn't simply a catch-all phrase or something that screams, "hey, we have an app too." It's about knowing your customers' wants, desires, and mobile habits: today's hotel booker is no longer tied to the home or office computer - but is mobilized with mobile in hand, capable of searching, comparing and booking from anywhere, at anytime.

So here are my five recommendations for hotel managers to consider when launching their mobile programs:

#5 KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between web surfers and web hunters. Here's the deal: laptop and desktop Internet users tend to "surf" the web, casually scanning data, comparing prices, and toggling between multiple sites. In other words, they take their time. Mobile customers lack this luxury. Instead, due in part to a smaller screen size and limited ability to multitask, (or multitask as effortlessly) mobile users are said to be "hunters," carefully picking and choosing exactly what they want from the website's they've visited or the app they've accessed. For hotel managers that means designing a mobile website that contains less superfluous data. Leave the "About Us" section for the web and instead have engaging, lively pictures and video of your hotel and current guests (with their permission). Consider thumbnails, though, and don't overwhelm a mobile users viewing space. Interactive maps, too, help zero-in on what your hotel is trying to promote in terms of neighborhood and curbside appeal - all of which a mobile user would like to know.

#4 DUE TO MOBILE USERS' hunting nature, they tend to book their trips in an even narrower window than their laptop or desktop counterparts - a tech sector that has also seen a closing of the booking widow. Earlier this fall, for instance, when New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut were hit with an intense power line-collapsing snowstorm, mobile bookings for hotel stays onPriceline.com jumped 270%. Although mobile booking on hotel sites directly remains a small part of the marketplace, there's every indication that if hotels build it, customers will come.

#3 APPS ARE NOT ALL THAT. Rely on what works: Here's the caveat to the above. Mobile bookers, regardless of whether they use a meta-search engine or an online travel agency, (OTA) want simplicity. It may not be necessary to have both a mobile-formatted website and an app. Choose which one works best. The time, money, and effort that goes into designing an app could, perhaps, be spent better elsewhere. With more than 500,000 apps in the iTunes App Store alone, it's incredibly easy for a hotel app - even a great one - to become buried in the digital noise.

#2 MOBILE GUESTS WANT TO TALK... about you: Mobile users increasingly expect and demand an ability to post their thoughts and opinions (good or bad) about their travel stay and booking experience. This is already being done through aggregator and OTA sites, as well as through Facebook and Twitter. Why not shift that buzz back to your hotels' mobile site?

#1 USE MOBILE TO WELCOME YOUR GUEST - long before they step foot in your lobby: Mobile patrons are often tech-savvy, out-of-the-box thinkers. Hoteliers can use this to their advantage, as customers are increasingly receptive to purchasing in-hotel amenities like movies and room service, or securing hotel conference space, gym and spa time - all while on the go.

Considering that smartphone penetration rates are likely to increase, it's fair to say -as many already have - that a critical mass of public interest and user engagement is being reached. Whether or not 2012 is the year that crosses that threshold is anyone's guess.

But like the airline and retail industries before them, the hotel industry, armed with the above knowledge, needs to fully embrace the mobile channel and all its capabilities while understanding the unique characteristics of their users, their potential guests. Is your hotel in the mobile game yet, or still sitting out on the sidelines?

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Offirce of ThinkInk, originally appeared on eHotelier on 12/14/11.

Bowled Over By Blagojevich

2011-12-13T12:02:00.006-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Offirce of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 12/13/11.

Maybe he thought his retro mop-top/’80s-poof hairdo would equal the success of the mop-top-clad likes of John, Paul, Ringo and George? Well, it didn’t.

Then again, when it came to Rod Blagojevich, the eccentric former Illinois governor, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison last week for crimes related to his attempt to profit from then-president-elect Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat, his voice – and the less-than-truthful words he was known for spouting – was really what was on his mind. Never mind his head.

Despite some of the most theatrical grandstanding and public performance antics from any politician since the likes of Ronald Regan proclaiming his televised innocence (or ignorance) to the weapons-for-hostages Iran-Contra scandal, an uncharacteristically muted Blagojevich accepted the 14-year fate handed down to him by U.S. District Court Judge James Zagel.

"The harm here is not measured in the value of money or property. The harm is the erosion of public trust,” said Zagel.

Sometimes, even in our 24-hour, talking-heads news cycle, no matter how loudly you say something, fact trumps fiction and public trust is preserved. (Score one for us.)

It’s a lesson Mr. Blagojevich will have some 5,110 days to ponder in prison. For public relations companies and communication experts, trust is the currency we necessarily deal in – both for our clients and through what prism the non-PR-world views our work. And it’s a lesson refresher we can work on right now.

Perhaps the greatest lie propagated about our profession is the myth that we’re all in the business of outright Blago-style distortion. (Minus the federal wiretaps and profanity.) Pardon the pun, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Where in the PR rulebook does it say it is okay to lie? Nowhere. Are there times when the industry, by design of its client-driven nature, requires positive spin? Of course.

But I’d like to think that that relationship has an inherent self-correcting nature to it. There are far too many examples of companies whose in-house and out-sourced communications teams alike throw too great a curve ball on the proverbial spin.

The result? A failed company; a failed politician; a failed business leader, and a failed PR message.

Imagine if a modern cigarette company tried to promote the safety of its products as it once did decades ago? Talk about blowing smoke.

To be sure, not all lies—like claiming one’s innocence when trying to blatantly sell a senate seat – are Blagojevich big. Some, as posted by a recent socialmediatoday article, are almost funny and a little disturbing. Here’s a snapshot of some winners:

Ford Motor Co.’s admission that some of its gas gauges read full when they actually weren’t. The logic? With soaring gas prices, it was felt that the faulty fuel readout would inspire positive thinking.

Famed New York City restaurant Tavern on the Green chef claimed to be serving gluten-free pasta. Their logic? What’s a few allergic reactions versus the savings?

A report that Office Depot sales people upsell their customers, duping them to spend more, telling them those certain items aren’t in stock, when in fact they are.

As communication professionals, it’s our job to ensure the message our client puts forth is credible — and that’s not always exactly what they want to hear.

To do anything less, however, would violate the trust we have with our clients. Maybe it’s not the same level of public trust Judge Zagel was speaking of, but breaking it comes with its own sentence, too.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Offirce of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 12/13/11.

Empty Hands and Open Wallets: Amazon’s Amazing Little App

2011-12-10T12:16:00.004-05:00

Don’t pay us, we’ll pay you.

That’s pretty much the simple genius behind a new marketing gimmick in the form of an app being launched today by Amazon, the online shopping goliath, and growing threat to brick and mortar stores everywhere.

Starting today, smartphone users will be able to use the company’s free Price Check app (available on iOS and Android platforms) to scan the bar code of items in stores, take their mug shots, and report their price comparison findings back to Big Bro….I mean Amazon. But here’s the best part. Even if customers walk – or click – away with nothing, Amazon will still give its faithful participants $5 or 5 percent of the value off up to three Amazon purchases.

Now, I don’t want to oversell this, but I have to say, I think this is a really great idea. There’s been growing buzz this year in marketing and consumer circles alike that mobile technology is finally coming into its own, maturing from being a cool toy to an everyday necessity. Tech blogs and mainstream media outlets salivate over the inching upward smartphone penetration rates, which stands as high as 63 percent in some US demographics and is approaching 30 percent as a global average. But dry statistics only tell part of the story. Anecdotes like Amazon’s promotional plan really underscore the rapid changes reshaping the mobile landscape.

Think of it like digital democratization. Consumers are being empowered to essentially do the marketing hard work that’s at the core of any successful company: finding out what your competition is offering and what they’re selling it for. Amazon’s approach turns this effort into an almost scavenger hunt or game. The dollar award amount is trivial, yet I’d suspect that at the height of holiday season shopping, it’s high enough to get shoppers to notice, and seek to save a few bucks on items they were already likely to buy for themselves or others on their wish lists. It’s also a very good way to till the digital soil for future, more expansive campaigns, or ones that rely on detailed message marketing tailored to specific shoppers and their typical buying habits.

Of course, all good things must come to an end, and Amazon’s Price Check App $5 promotion will be over almost as soon as it begins, ending shortly before midnight. I’m sure everyone from Mom and Pop stores to the Big Boxes and everything in between will cry foul over Amazon’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers-like consumer takeover. But as a communications professional, and one who tries to keep her fingers on the digital pulse of the people, I can’t help but sing Amazon’s praise for an amazingly simple idea, made possible through some amazingly cool technology.

Happy hunting! The clock is ticking.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving: To Yourself

2011-12-08T13:46:00.003-05:00

Leave it to marketing professionals to come up with this one. Buying yourself that little “I’ve earned it” pick-me-up has a new name: self-gifting.

Just in time for the peak of holiday season giving and receiving, evidence suggests that 60 percent of all shoppers will add themselves to their holiday lists, spending an average of $130, a 16 percent increase from last year. In the short term, many are quick to call this yet another strong indication that the still-weak US and global economy is taking its vitamins and getting stronger all the time. Deep discounts and the relaxing of recession-era belt tightening seems to have left customers in the buying mood.

But is it me, or does anyone else see a bit of a problem with this “I, Me, Mine” relapse? I remember reading somewhere that Americans’ gluttonous consumerism and anemic savings rate was supposedly at the root of our current economic troubles?

Ellen Davis, Vice President of the National Retail Federation, who was quoted in an Advertising Age post that addressed the phenomenon, rightly points out the pragmatic downside to such an aggressive self-indulgent holiday marketing campaign. If the holiday season becomes overly connected with adding oneself to their annual guest list, as people patiently wait for the end-of-year price slashing, how will retailers attract business during the other 10 months of the calendar, she asks?

Davis’ concerns, however, aren’t even number one on my list, shopping or otherwise.

The bigger question is this: what happens when the over-terming of trends and excessive labeling, waters down the meaning behind such actions? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with an occasional spur-of-the-moment purchase. Such actions send your brain’s pleasure center into the stratosphere, washed over with the neurotransmitter dopamine. And like that coveted end-of-day piece of chocolate, provides your body with warm and fuzzy feel good feelings. But when impulse buys are turned into a self-promoting season of “You’ve Earned It” and “Gift Yourself” tag lines, as is being done by J. Crew, hasn’t the meaning behind the purchases been lost?

Instead, what once felt good has morphed into another transparent attempt to get consumers to open their wallets?

As a public relations professional, and one who is keenly aware of properly calibrating messages for clients, marketers this holiday season would be wise to consider the pitfalls of overly promoting the self-gifting fad. Otherwise self-gifts could rapidly become self-returns.

To Post or Not to Post

2011-11-22T13:44:00.007-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on ehotelier on 11/22/11.

"Get it in writing."

It's a phrase one often hears when guarding against legal action. It's also a physical affirmation of something positive or constructive. But when it comes to hoteliers, "getting it in writing" has a more nuanced meaning.

Ever since the first hotels and temporary lodging facilities arose, hoteliers have had to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their most valued resource: their customers - especially when it came to the delicate world of written feedback.

But what was once relegated to a quaint leather-bound book on the corner of some concierge desk has expanded exponentially. First came widespread travel publications that would print with equal care both positive and negative reviews. Today, those efforts seem decidedly quaint as social media and the increasingly ubiquitous nature of mobile and smartphone technology allows current and former guests unparalleled commenting access - without the filter of a publisher. While it's easy for hoteliers to remain skeptical over such unfettered open access, the benefits of "going social" for hoteliers far outweigh the risks.

The logic behind this embrace is simple. The proverbial Pandora's box has already been opened. Former and future guests alike are already posting their opinions on sites like Facebook and Twitter about their travel experience, beginning with the initial booking and following through all aspects of the travel cycle including: dreaming, researching, experiencing and sharing. In addition, user generated content sites like TripAdvisor, and online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline, among many others, are similarly embracing user comments. If hoteliers are concerned about losing control of their messaging, the best way to track what's being said about their hotel is by promoting a guest shift from private and independent site postings to include the more controlled public arena of a hotel website or its affiliated Facebook or Twitter page.

Recognizing the inevitability of this trend, a growing number of hotels are already jumping on board. Earlier this month Marriott Hotels announced it would allow guests from several of its locations, (Marriott Marquis in New York and the Marriott Courtyard near Orlando, among others) to post comments about their stay regardless of the quality of their experience. The announcement follows a similar move by Starwood Hotels & Resorts that also began allowing their preferred customers the ability to post comments directly to their website.

To be sure, hotels that choose this route require a firm commitment and necessary web-savvy staffing. In other words, it can't be done half way. Whether or not Marriott's open-access approach or Starwood's more limited approach is best for online guest reviews remains to be seen. One thing is clear. Even if hotels fail to embrace online customer reviews, they are already being written on numerous personal and public sites. Growing smartphone penetration rates, (around 62% for young adults ages 24-35) suggests postings will be grow easier, more mobile, and more frequent. In time not only will reviews alone be important to future guests, but the transparency and openness of a hotel that allows such access may also be factored in a guest's lodging decisions. This is similar to how some restaurant patrons choose their dining experience as much based on food quality as they do on whether the establishment offers free Wifi: an expected service.

So whether it's via text, personal website, or a hotel's own webpage, getting a customer's review in writing has always been a component to the hotel-guest relationship. It's time hotels welcomed the modern social media conversation by letting their guests joins theirs.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on ehotelier on 11/22/11.

Occupy What?

2011-11-18T09:56:00.004-05:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 11/18/11.

If ever there was a group in America that could benefit from a public relations team -- or some PR counsel -- it’s the Wall Street protesters and their increasingly global counterparts. Penn State or the recently released Jack Abramoff? I wouldn’t even bother…

The protesters may number in the tens of thousands, cut across demographic, cultural and socioeconomic lines, and are handy fodder in GOP political debates when the talk of 9-9-9 grows old. But when it comes to effectively disseminating what they stand for, millions of Americans throw up their hands in, well, protest, and draw a blank.

Considering their growing clout, that’s not a good sign.

A CNN/ORC International poll released earlier this month revealed a major disconnect between the protesters’ aims and what people think they stand for. They’re having an identity crisis, you say?

Not at all, they simply don’t have one.

Nearly half of those polled (40%) said they had no idea what the movement stood -- or stands -- for. Another 27% said they had a negative view of the overall cause – even if they were still fuzzy on the specifics. People I know who have taken part in the sit-ins, stand-ins, and protests have become disillusioned with the lack of organization or united message.

As someone who spends her days (and nights) helping companies develop and communicate a united and coherent message, I have to admit that I, too, would have trouble drafting up, say, four or five critical aims the group is trying to accomplish.

I think I know the basics: they are known as the Wall Street protestors or Occupy Wall Street, and spinoff groups or self-identifiers have cropped up across the globe, from Lower Manhattan to Oakland to Miami, to cities in Europe to as far away as Guam – the island, literally, not the expression. Their aim, or rather, their manifesto “is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations,” according to the group’s website.

But beyond carrying signs saying they represent 99% of the not-so-silent majority, brandishing megaphones, and getting into skirmishes with law enforcement, what exactly are they doing, and what, specifically, has been achieved by the group’s existence?

The truth is, not too much. But asking the above questions is exactly the type of maturing the Occupy Wall Street movement needs if it wants to be taken seriously in the long run. There are too many overnight successes, start-ups and movements that are forgotten as quickly as they rose to (limited) fame.

It’s time for Occupy Wall Street to embrace a modicum of corporate structure and communications strategy, and better disseminate what it hopes to achieve. Ranking second on a Google search is just not enough. If it wants to fight corporate America, it has to put itself in corporate America’s shoes – if only for a few moments, or hours.

Granted, in terms of civil (mostly) non-violence and grassroots organizations, the “occupiers” are babies, and still have a long way to go. For comparison, it’s easy to associate the civil rights movement with the decade of the Sixties, but its stirrings and undercurrents had been set in motion decades and generations before. Even with that slow burn, over time, civil rights moved from restaurant table sit-ins and hard-fought bus seats, to the top of the national agenda. Only then, finally, did meaningful change sweep across the country and flesh out its most discriminatory backwaters.

Whether the Wall Street protestors recognize it or not, the success, durability, and health of our citizen’s democracy has long been able to absorb these types of splinter groups and incorporate their values into the middle class, and through the legislative pen and ballot box, effect meaningful change. The road to that change may begin with street signs and protests, but it continues with a smart, cohesive, well-publicized public relations-honed message.

Here’s hoping that in our instant-gratification society, the Wall Street protesters grow up fast. I’m sure they have a lot to say and can definitely benefit by taking their message – whenever they work out what it is -- in multiple directions. Their actions and their words may have a tremendous impact on our future.

So I’m ready to listen, and I think so is the rest of that 99%. Still. For now.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 11/18/11.

Loyalty Linguistics and the Loss of Value?

2011-11-16T10:29:00.005-05:00

You know what the beauty of having your own blog is? The ability to instantly publish your thoughts – especially when you have a bit of a bone to pick with the thoughts of others. Here goes:

Last week, blogger-author and Loyalty specialist Bill Hanifin sought to parse out and expand on a recent LinkedIn post regarding the contemporary challenges facing customer loyalty and loyalty programs in his own blog, HanifinLoyalty.com. The LinkedIn poster, Annich McIntosh, the managing editor of C&M Publications, a UK event managing and media marketing publication, asked her followers if they could come up with one word to describe those loyalty obstacles. Several respondents chimed in over a six-month period. Never one to sit on the sidelines of a public relations debate, (I love a challenge) I too, buzzed in, writing the word: VALUE. “Creating value, shaping value, (of the program and rewards/incentives being offered), proving the program is of value,” I wrote.

I was surprised, then, to find out from Hanifin’s follow-up that no other readers agreed with my word choice, VALUE. What gives?

In my professional opinion, ‘Value’ is the word that best encompasses what respondents were addressing in both Hanifin’s and McIntosh’s posts. Instead, the word most commonly chosen to address loyalty challenges was “relevance.” While relevance is no question a critical component to promoting and expanding loyalty programs, I view it as more of a result than an action. Loyalty programs, or incentives and promotions that attract repeat customers, are essential for a business’s success. But with all the fierce competition and background noise created by many channels these days, it’s in some ways easier than ever for customers to tune out than tune in. Value includes relevance. As for a sampling of the other terms: engagement, differentiation, creativity, and budget, when added up, they too, equal value. (For instance, allocating a sizeable loyalty budget is easy once the value of the program has been established).

But rather than expending all this effort on somewhat trivial mental exercises over which are the most effective umbrella terms, as PR professionals, for ourselves and for our clients, shouldn’t we be promoting value, and not just throwing around terms? Contrary to some opinions that loyalty programs “have mastered the art of enrollment,” I think there’s plenty more to be done – especially as it relates to the still-growing mobile universe and increasing smartphone adoption across all demographics.

When it comes to loyalty campaigns, creating value while ensuring relevance is a good way to start!

Stirring the BS PR $hitstorm

2011-11-03T10:55:00.001-04:00

I didn’t want to write a post like this, but alas, the public relations $hitstorm must be stirred yet again.

What do I mean by this? Last week, MediaPost (where I have a bi-weekly column) published an article by George Simpson, president of George H. Simpson Communications, titled “More PR BS” where he cried foul over a piece written by Rosanna M. Fiske, chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America. In it, Fiske calls for better accountability when it comes to measuring PR’s ROI, or return on investment in marketing non-speak.

Simpson characterizes her 508-word article (it really was that long, I checked) as a blatant waste of time; a classic example of bloated PR language that promises much, yet says little. The article champions seven principles for measuring global standards as highlighted by a recent conference in Barcelona, Spain. The obvious heavy hitters include: quantitative goal setting, measuring outcomes (like increased business revenue or number of media clips) versus measuring the cost of what goes into a campaign, and the crème de la crème of the measuring sciences – the ability to replicate ones results.

There really is a lot of BS that goes in PR.While I agree with their obviousness and to some extent the redundant nature of Fiske’s post, I really don’t see the need to throw Fiske under the public relations bus. When I first read Simpson’s provocative title, I truly wanted to agree with him.

Our world filled with, no, gorged on superfluous language. (Simpson, by the way, manages to throw in the word circumloquacious – pot, kettle, black) But I really don’t see the harm in reemphasizing the need for measurable standards in an industry with a track record of, errrr, circumloquacious language and standards.

The fact remains that in order for Public Relations to be taken (more) seriously, it needs to better address these issues. Like political science and psychology, PR struggles at times with applying the scientific method to its results.

In other words, sometimes a little from column A and a little from column B doesn’t add up to C. But this obstacle hasn’t stopped the other two disciplines from growing and gaining legitimacy. Neither should it stymie PR.

Simpson’s overly simple litmus test for a successful PR campaign is if after said event the phones start ringing: ringing from your client, ringing from fans that they liked what they saw or read in the papers or on other digital media, and ringing from your enemies that you’ve stolen their thunder or piggybacked on a campaign they had already pioneered for their clients.

Is it all really that simple?

Ah, no.

I wonder what would happen if Mr. Simpson tried to disarm one of his client’s concerns by saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll know if our campaign was a marketing hit once the phones start ringing.”

Forgive me, but if I was one of those clients, I’d be desperate for something a little more reassuring. You know, something more measureable, like at least an attempt at business-world serious ROI figures. Barcelona and the Fiske-endorsed seven principles may not be making the world safe for democracy, ending world hunger, or returning humankind to the moon, but at least it’s a start.

That’s a lot more than I can say for Simpson’s “Put together a string of good stories in good publications” lukewarm advice.

Supersized Profits from a Supersized Pig: Cult of McDonalds McRib a Marketing Knockout

2011-10-31T10:33:00.003-04:00

I've had a lot to say these past two months about Apple and its visionary former CEO, the late Steve Jobs. But for today’s blog post, let’s leave Apple aside and change food groups. Enter McDonalds and the McRib.

In case you haven’t heard (CNN deemed it front-page-worthy last week and it led the news on three of the major networks), the gut-busting artery clogging cult-classic, McRib, is back, re-released October 24^th.

Introduced nationally in 1982 and a menu mainstay until 1985 after slumping sales saved it from the butcher, the McRib nevertheless may just well be swine-dom's – and the Golden Arches – greatest success. Rather than rolling its snout in the mud at a failed sandwich and marketing campaign, McDonald’s turned the boneless “fantastically flavorful” sandwich into a mega hit.

Except for Kentucky Fried Chicken’s nasty Double Down, (a sandwich whose "bun" is two fried pieces of chicken, mmmm I can feel the lard accumulating on my thighs right now) I can't think of another fast food sandwich that captures CNN's news hound attention quite like this. When you're a company who boasts, "99 billion served" it's hard to top yourself. But McDonalds and the McRib have done it again – and flying in the face of a high-volume national debate over the obesity epidemic.

In terms of marketing, kudos – or ribs – to McDs.

McDonalds marketing folks took a failed pork sandwich and turned it into a recurring limited edition hit. The McRib enjoyed a 16-year break after briefly being brought back last fall. Such an approach, combined with creative, playful marketing, and even self-mocking humor, helped not only CNN take note of the sandwich’s periodic return, but it has been mentioned almost daily on multiple morning radio talk shows, has been lampooned by the Simpsons over the years, and has enjoyed multiple billings on David Letterman’s Top 10 List.

Embrace Your Inner Pig

Swiftly embracing today’s social media generation, McRib fans can visit the sandwich’s Facebook and Twitter pages as well as check out the McRib locator website, complete with a Google map showing where the McRib is being served as a countdown timer ticks away the days until the sandwich goes back into annual hibernation.

The result of all this pig pandemonium? Last November during the McRib’s 2010 cameo, overall McDonalds sales enjoyed a 4.8 percent US sales increase, according to CNN. To be sure, such marketing success is not all about fun and games and over-the-top pig humor. It also serves as a reminder for PR professionals and our clients. Promoting your brand doesn't always require reinventing the wheel. Sticking with what works – and even what doesn’t work at first – can go a long way too. Not taking yourself too seriously is also a great way to demonstrate sincerity – a corporate characteristic that many in the public feel is sadly lacking.

All this for a greasy, sauce-laden sandwich.

Singing The Blues For Pink

2011-10-25T09:43:00.001-04:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/25/11.

For a color whose name doesn’t even get top billing on the visible spectrum of light, pink has certainly developed potent staying power. From the Pink Panther to pink Cadillacs, and everything in between, this dainty mixture of red and white has also come to symbolize a less benign issue: the hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-a-year-fight against breast cancer – the third deadliest cancer in America today and No. 2 killer of women.

Are you surprised I didn’t say it was the No. 1 killer of women and the second deadliest cancer in the United States? You can thank the power of marketing for shifting those perceptions.

Not only has breast cancer taken more than 240,000 lives since 2005, according to Cancer.org, it has also commandeered an entire month through powerful -- some would even say extreme, marketing influence. For the past 25 years, October’s ghosts and goblins have had to share the stage with the specter of breast cancer and its increasingly corporate-like kissing cousins – Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the inexorably linked Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.

While no one can deny the impressive global awareness and funding these organizations have brought to the breast cancer cause – Susan G. Komen alone raised about $420 million in 2010 – am I the only one who thinks that all the merchandising: the pink ribbons, the pink-clad NFL teams, the Bank of America pink checking accounts, the pink armbands, pink lunchboxes, pink Kitchen Aid food processors and whatever else has been Pink'd for October is diluting both the issue at hand and, in reality, siphoning more money toward profits than for research for an actual cure, and skewing public attention away from other serious cancers -- or other causes, period?

When was the last time you paid attention to cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer? Why don’t any NLF teams wear ribbons to support Male Breast Cancer – something that kills, on average, 450 men per year?

Pinkwashing: Where Does All the Money Go?

In 2002, Breast Cancer Action launched a side project called “Think Before You Pink,” whose goal was to raise awareness over the types of companies that chose to go pink, and “encourages consumers to ask critical questions about pink-ribbon promotions.” Doing battle with so-called “pinkwashing,” their motto is “raise a stink.” Here, too, donations go to cancer research. The organization asks consumers to do some research before a pink product is purchased, for example:

How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer? Does it say so plainly on the box or packaging?
Does the company you’re purchasing from have a cap on the amount it sends in donations regardless of the number of pink-related sales?
Are funds being raised through direct purchase, or is a clever marketing scheme disguising the fact that you need to purchase additional merchandise from the company in order to make a donation?
How, specifically, is your money being spent?

I was reminded of the need to research when I received an email from Etsy (a site for artisanal wares), promoting all things pink but without any visible endorsements. Showcased vendors were promoting their wares with descriptions such as, “This apron knot dress is a great way to show support for all those around us touched by Breast Cancer and a fashionable and fun way to show your support for the fight for a cure.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t that think fun and breast cancer belong in the same sentence, and it’s precisely this sort of overreach that at first confuses consumers (who exactly am I giving to?), then moves onto cause fatigue (not another pink promotion!!), and finally cause alienation (what a sell-out; I want nothing to do with that brand).

Have Sponsorship Dollars, Will Go Pink

Susan G’s overreach, too, seems to have gotten the organization into several snafus, the most notable when it partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken to sell pink buckets of chicken to franchise operators, where 50 cents of every purchase went to the “For the Cure” campaign. Seriously, KFC?

Needless to say, the public and media backlash was acute, and the partnership short-lived. Is a pinkwashed KFC really going to unclog all those red blood vessels? Fried chicken is a well-known contributor to obesity, critics said, and obesity is also linked to cancer. How can a campaign be genuine if, on one hand, money goes to a worthy cause and, on the other hand, unnecessarily shines the spotlight on a fast food chain driving its sales and profits?

The truth is, it can’t.

Then there was the perfume brouhaha where independent testing of the chemicals in Susan G.'s Promise Me perfume revealed that some of them might be linked to cancer. For its part, the foundation released a statement saying that the levels of questionable ingredients fell “well within the guidelines of the International Fragrance Association,” but that out of an abundance of caution, the perfume’s formula was being tweaked.

Of course, the plot thickens when you consider the driver behind this story was cancer charity rival Breast Cancer Action. Is it possible their constant nitpicking is also part of their own marketing campaign called "my charity is better than/more deserving than yours?"

For consumers, it becomes very tiresome and, if that example raises questions of agenda bias on Breast Cancer Action’s part, this one won’t. Earlier this year, Stephen Colbert took Susan G. Komen to the court of public opinion when he teased the group’s million-dollar-plus effort to squash nonprofits that allegedly appropriated the “For the Cure” slogan. Who can blame these smaller nonprofits wanting to cash in on what's become a multimillion-dollar marketing machine.

To Komen’s credit, the organization makes no bones about its size, its influence or the way it does business.

“It’s a democratization of a disease,” said Komen CEO Nancy G. Brinker, in a recent New York Timesarticle about the pinking of professional football. “It’s drilling down into the deepest pockets of America. …America is built on consumerism. To say we shouldn’t use it to solve the social ills that confront us doesn’t make sense to me.”

Raising awareness is all well and good, and Americans have huge hearts and pocketbooks when it comes to giving, but why must that awareness come with a pair of New Balance sneakers or a Kitchen Aid blender?

The truth is that it shouldn’t. Since when did we start needing to get something in order to give?

Let’s Reconsider Our Disease Consumerism

Pink’s 2011 October reign is almost complete. Soon we’ll be on to November, which is officially recognized as Lung Cancer Awareness Month. You remember lung cancer, don’t you, the No. 1 American cancer killer that took nearly a million lives in fours years? It’s got a color and a ribbon, too, though it shares its pearl-colored badge of honor with multiple sclerosis. Only its marketing budget can't compete with pink.

As we close out the final months of 2011, why don't we leave the color spectrum and our "disease consumerism" aside? Perhaps my singing the blues over pink may convince others to think about the effect that one cause's marketing efforts have had on so many others.

From breast to colorectal to pancreatic and prostate to ovarian, esophageal and all the insidious rest -- cancer kills indiscriminately. Choose whichever form of runaway cell growth you want and re-focus on the color of money instead: donate all that you can directly to treatment and screening sources of these other unadvertised cancers – having done your research first, of course.

Trust me. That blender – pink or otherwise – can wait. Because all cancers and life-threatening diseases are equal-opportunity killers, even if the marketing budgets of the nonprofits that support them aren't.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/25/11.

Are Marketers About to Face Facebook Fatigue?

2011-10-21T10:02:00.004-04:00

Call it a building generational misstep.

Just as marketers seem to be catching on to social media’s professional usefulness, new data suggests sites like Facebook may be losing some of its youngest faces, today’s college students and recent graduates, who will soon form the next generation of adult consumers. Fed up with the site’s frequent rules changes, feared invasions of privacy, and overwhelmed by the never-ending stream-of-consciousness thoughts that seems to ooze from its millions of users, so-called “Facebook Fatigue” is growing.

The “disease,” which was diagnosed by Inside Facebook, a blog who owes its existence to tracking all things Facebook, (along with social gaming and mobile applications), found that while the number of Facebook users continues to grow, growth rates have slowed. In the US, some 6 million users have defriended the social media site, dropping its total number of nationwide users to 149 million, down from 155 million in recent months, a nearly 4 percent drop. Across the pond, UK Facebook user numbers also took a dip, where 100,000 people –out of about 30 million users – deleted their accounts.

So what’s the big deal if Facebook’s portrait these days isn’t as bright?

The Facebook usage study coincides with marketing research that suggests Fortune 100 companies –if belatedly – plan to ramp up their spending sharply on social media campaigns in 2012. A summer 2011 study by Booz & Co. and Buddy Media, as reported on eMarketer, found that nearly a third of respondents said they expected to grow their social media budgets to as high as 10 percent of their overall marketing budget in the next three years. More than a quarter, (28 percent) predicted their social media spending would surge to 20 percent of their marketing spending.

As with any hot new trend like social media at large and Facebook up close, it’s critical marketers, aided by their in-house and external Public Relations partners, remain fresh with the times. Anyone remember Friends Reunited, Bebo, (short for Blog Early, Blog Often) and MySpace? Well, maybe you remember them, but when was the last time you checked your profile or sent a post? Chances are it’s been a while.

Thanks to the growing bonds between social media and mobile communications, its likely the new medium will continue discovering ways to reinvent itself and maintain popularity. In other words, if it’s not Facebook or Twitter, chances are it’ll be something else.

So is there a building generational misstep?

It’s too soon to tell. But when marketers express confidence over their social media spending plans, remind them that on today’s fast-changing digital high seas, it’s easy to miss the boat.

Two Weeks On, Apple Endures

2011-10-19T12:25:00.001-04:00

Two weeks may not sound like a lot of time, but for a company that’s just lost one of the world’s most influential technological and social innovators, it is.

That’s why in the huge wake left by the passing of Steve Jobs, tech writers, bloggers and PR professionals, continue to hang on almost every word the company says, and look for signs, no matter how small, that suggest the company is foundering.

On Wednesday, 14 days after Jobs’ death, the naysayers may have found one.

For only the third time in nearly a decade, (cue the foreboding music) the financially conservative tech giant missed its quarterly earnings estimate – a fact that sent the stocks spiraling downwards by some 22 points before today’s Nasdaq opening. As of 10 o’clock this morning, Apple’s stock was down 5.4 percent.

I don’t know about you, but this latest sign of the purported apocalypse hasn’t caused any iPhone 4 or 4s, or any of my iOS devices to suddenly crash. (My Blackberry, however, is another story) Over the last few weeks, both before and after Steve Jobs’ death, I’ve written about Apple’s long-term vision, its ability to manage its message, and its resilience going forward. So lets set the record straight – a missed earnings call by any other company, like Goldman Sachs and Google, generates news, for sure, but few people start questioning the company’s future. Miss a few more earnings estimates, however, and legitimate concerns mount. Apple Q4 sales still rose 39 percent to $28.3 billion and the company ended its fiscal year with $108 billion in sales.

Only Apple has the bragging rights to call this a “poor performance.”

The Street writer, James Rogers, rightly points out three reasons why the bite into Apple’s profits won’t last: An already better-than-expected Q1 outlook, an expected uptick in iPhone 4s sales, offsetting sales declines in older models, and the staggering $81.6 billion the company has in on-hand cash.

Apple’s aim high and shoot low forecasting approach should serve as an important reminder for PR professionals. No matter how groundbreaking and dare we say media controlling Apple can sometimes be, the company often underestimates its projected performance to its own advantage. (Yesterday’s miss aside) Clients, especially young startups, run the risk of being overzealous when it comes to the type of messaging and marketing campaign they seek to launch. Reigning in those expectations sounds like a good idea to me.

Two weeks without Jobs and Apple’s message still bears fruit. And it will for a long time to come.

IPhone 4s-teve: There Was No App For That

2011-10-13T11:13:00.007-04:00

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/12/11.

It’s unfortunate that for all the hype, “The Jesus Phone” -- or its latest upgrade -- couldn’t do more to help its creator.

Billed as the device that could almost turn water into wine (at least in app form), Apple’s muted unveiling of its iPhone 4s, and not the much-ballyhooed fifth-generation earlier, was met with a chorus of naysayers that a Jobs-less Apple, (a reference then only to his departure as CEO) might mean bad tidings ahead. Apple, it was said, in a rare fumble, mismanaged the hype express, failing to mitigate and control the Internet rumor mill.

In fact, so under-woven were supporters after the initial announcement that Apple stock tumbled an iOS-crashing $20 to $355 a share a day when both the Dow Jones and tech-heavy Nasdaq enjoyed 1.4% and 3% gains, respectively, before a robust recovery stopped the bleeding. Apple ended the trading day down some $2 or 0.6%.

To be sure, now that the technological shock has passed (the human one is just beginning), Apple’s electronic awe is flooding back. Model number aside, the specs are impressive: a new processor seven times faster than the iPhone 4, an 8-megapixel camera, better battery life, and an almost artificially intelligent talking personal assistant called Siri.

Some 48 hours late --, the time it nearly once took to download several DVDs to bulky desktop computers -- and we are stunned by how much has changed. Last Wednesday Steve Jobs, who had been battling pancreatic cancer, died. He was 56. Looking back to Tuesday, it's very likely some of Apple's less-than-shiny rollout was due in part to the behind-the-scenes building tragedy. The fact that would-be tech insiders, bloggers, journalists and PR leaders didn't report any of this -- clearly being kept out of the proverbial loop -- reinforces how shortsighted we may have been in Apple's negative critique.

Shame on us.

Rather, Apple’s performance over the last few days was message control at its finest. While we don’t know what time Jobs passed away, we do know the announcement came around 7:40 p.m. Eastern time -- some three hours after the close of business and nearly four after the close of the Nasdaq, where Apple’s stock is traded. Whether this was by chance or design, we’ll never know.

Unlike media outlets like CNN that had plastered Jobs’ picture across its homepage as it began its homage, Apple relied on its Jobs-honed, simple, sleek, approach. Apple’s homepage featured a black-and-white portrait of their leader, circular glasses rimming his eyes, a piercing look that jumps off the monitor (or smartphone screen) as he inquisitively pinches the salt and pepper scruff of his beard. Click on the image and visitors are brought to a concise, three-sentence tribute, along with a link to email one’s memories of Steve to the company.

At the end of the day, whether the iPhone 4s is derisively called the “Peter phone” and not the “Jesus phone” doesn’t much matter. In retrospect, CEO Tim Cook’s gray tenor Tuesday and iPhone4’s stuttering launch, was more appropriate than ever, and a clear sign that an Apple without Jobs, whether it wants to or not, must continue updating its message. Like Apple so often successfully does: The public was once again misdirected over what was truly unfolding.

Robert Mead-Green, in his TechRadar blog, rightly points out Cook’s southern drawl, his somewhat muted style, and his desire to share the mic and limelight with fellow Apple executives -- a far cry from the one-man-band hoopla that Jobs was famed for delivering. The point: Managing your message means updating it too. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Kudos to them.

Or try this analogy: Companies -- and ballplayers -- can’t always hit home runs, even when they want to leave the crowd whooping and hollering. Sometimes a well-placed bunt does just as well or better.

Apple’s “bunt” Tuesday and press redirection in no way suggests the tech giant is heading to the Minor League -- with or without Jobs. What’s more likely is that a quieter launch gives the company healthy breathing room from now until next summer (or sooner) when the iPhone 5 arrives.

Looking ahead, while uploading some perspective, Apple has had numerous product hits in the last decades, and few duds -- think Apple’s original “hockey puck” mouse or the $7,500 20^th anniversary Macintosh, released in 1997. Thanks to his commitment and total dedication to the company, Jobs’ ideas and inspirations, like spare parts for a classic car, are poised to keep Apple well stocked with his genius and vision for at least the next decade.

Until now, there has been a belief on tech blogs and in PR circles that whatever Apple touches turns to gold (I actually wrote that in another column last week). The iPhone 4s product launch and our metaphysical recall in no way diminish that mystique.

Jobs wasn’t Jesus. Nor are his phones. But the way Jobs and Apple handle its stardom in even the darkest of hours is almost religious.

When it comes to the tragic passing of a great visionary like Steve, and all the surgeries and efforts to save him, it’s too bad there wasn’t an app for that.

If given a little more time, perhaps he would have designed it.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/12/11.

Stop The Presses!

2011-10-12T10:06:00.003-04:00

Yes, there are still presses!

And, no, we’re not talking about cookie presses, juice presses or drill presses, but rather that staple of mechanical print writing that for oh, about the last five and ¾ centuries –iPads and other iOS devices aside— dominated the newspaper and communications industries and marked the dawn of our information age, version 1.0.

That was the heartening, (and perhaps stunning) conclusion in a recent article on The Daily, which profiled a Brooklyn “pressman” Dan Morris and his efforts through his business, The Arm letterpress, to help a now-niche industry prosper in decidedly digital times.

Considering that I recently wrote about the power of old school print and supported our cheers with data that suggests print media – in all formats – may have endured the worst of its circulation declines, I wanted to throw my support (and ThinkInk’s), albeit digital, to Mr. Morris’s work. His business, launched in 2005, offers Sunday DIY classes on the mechanical printing art while his own 1950s-era Vandercook presses, according to The Daily, pump out wedding invitations among other individualized requests.

Morris’s passion for print preserves our written heritage. From Gutenberg to Jobs, we all should offer a simple thank you.

Now start those presses!

The Down Low on the High Tech Women Workforce: Numbers Could Be Better

2011-10-07T10:41:00.002-04:00

Download this: for all the achievements high technology has accomplished in recent years at bringing different people together, when it comes to the high-tech workplace, women are still being left out.

That’s the troubling conclusion reached by the Level Playing Field, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that researches educational and workforce inequality. Their data, released last week, reveals that women working at high tech IT and startup companies continue to feel isolated compared to their male peers – and even feel belittled and bullied in the work place, resulting in high job dissatisfaction. And, despite encouraging signs that women make up 46% of the workforce and half of all college graduates, a paltry 22% include the high-tech marketplace – an area critical for 21^st century advancement.

So why don’t women feel more empowered to successfully tackle tech? There are many theories – here’s a snapshot of two:

#1 – With all that has changed in the American workforce in recent decades, it’s hard to remember that only a short while ago, women, were relegated to secondary positions in male-dominant corporate hierarchies. Is there a residue of (outdated) beliefs still filtering through the last bastions of male-only (or mostly male) domains?

#2 – The age-old throwaway: “Women and technology don’t mix.” I always find that one amusing considering the first waves of modern office and domestic inventions were consistently in the stereotyped sphere of women’s use.

The bottom line? Technology and women do mix. Women-led startups generate higher revenue per dollars of invested capital and have lower failure rates, according to Cindy Padnos, founder of Illuminate Ventures, a venture capital firm catering toward woman business leaders. Women-run high tech companies, her research found, had annual revenues that were 12% higher, using a third less capital.

It’s fitting, perhaps, that October is National Bullying Prevention month. While the initiative –a collective work by a variety of nonprofits –is geared largely toward children and teens, it’s nevertheless a good time to remember that bullies, like other bad apples in a high school or college class, graduate too. Upon receiving their diploma where do they go? The office.

As Public Relations professionals –an industry that has enjoyed an unprecedented male-female flip-flop with 85 percent of the field’s employees being women – we can work with our male and female clients alike, helping them craft a more balanced message about who they’re looking to recruit internally and who their products or messages are directed toward externally. Nobody likes a bully and everyone can afford to be a little more inclusive. Now that this boss (who happens to be a woman) is about to get her own cup of coffee, (don’t need an assistant of either sex for that) let me post this high tech blog –before I magically forget how.

You know…. ‘cause I’m a woman. Please.

Message Not Sent: Public Eager to Adopt Mobile Buying; Businesses Not So Much

2011-10-05T09:02:00.002-04:00

For a three-word sentence, “Message not sent,” does a pretty good job at frustrating text messagers from completing and sending their digital thoughts. And when it comes to m-commerce, ‘M’ for mobile, businesses it seems, haven’t gotten the message either.

A new survey compiled by Empirix reveals a mixed message: 91 percent of American shoppers believed mobile buying for anything from airline tickets, to department store purchases, to all items in between by text message, email or smart phone app, will generally benefit their shopping experience, while nearly two-thirds of respondents expected an improvement in customer service via their mobile outlet.

But like a garbled message trapped in the Internet ether, fewer than half of businesses surveyed in several countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, said they’d be investing money toward establishing m-commerce networks. The US, which often plays second fiddle (or third, or fourth) to tech-savvy Europe, was a relative “winner,” with 41 percent of businesses saying they would. Better still; more than half of US businesses said they at least had a mobile strategy in place. By contrast only 14 percent of UK businesses were game for upgrading from ‘E’ to m-commerce.

Dealing with the digital disconnect

That’s where PR companies come into play. Playing the watchdog role for our clients means it’s our job to inform them when it’s time to enhance their business and marketing models, offering concrete mobile marketing suggestions and strategy. In short, just having a web page is so last decade. As seen on airlines, mobile onboard buying campaigns have really taken off. (Pardon the pun)

If airlines can be persuaded to the see the benefits of turning a jumbo jet’s cabin into a touch and click sky mall, then why not other businesses?

To be sure, an m-commerce-embracing public and a plugged in communications industry are only the first steps toward success. But they’re not bad starts. In Empirix’s press release on the study, Tim Moynihan, VP of Marketing cautioned companies against quantity of mobile initiative versus quality of effort.

“As more businesses deliver m-commerce applications to an increasing number of consumers, the risk of poor service increases dramatically,” he said. “Investing in an end-to-end service assurance program at the start of this journey will separate the winners from the losers.”

An “end to end service assurance program,” huh.

Sounds like the perfect job for us.

Why almost everything that Apple’s PR machine does turns to gold

2011-10-03T11:53:00.003-04:00

The following article originally appeared on Mobile Marketer on October 3rd, 2011.

I started writing this article the morning after the media vultures started picking over Steve Jobs' resignation carcass. Why add more fuel to the Apple fire, I thought.

It has been “Apple this” and “Apple that” for longer than I care to remember. So I put down my notes.

Now, more than five weeks later, the world has not ended with Steve Job no longer at Apple’s helm. Its shares have not plummeted. The iPhone 5 will likely dominate 2011 holiday sales. And, in the process, Apple became the most valuable company on the stock market.

Life continues, and so I write.

Give an apple to the teacher, as the cliché goes, and you stand a better chance of getting in their good books.

But in a very real sense, for the better part of its existence, Apple has been the company that has given us the apple and kept the public relations spinmeisters and media industry singing the company’s praises – right down to its very core.

So how has Apple kept us plugged in?
Consider this: Twenty-five years ago tech was geek. Majorly geek.

Tech was for nerds who were shunned by the masses. They were the ones who rode bikes or skateboards when we bought our first shiny BMW. They discovered iPods while we were still ooohing at clunky MP3 players. We got hammered at parties while they wrote code wired on Mountain Dew.

Who’s laughing now?

They are, all the way to their tech-stock engorged portfolios. Today, tech is très, très chic, and much of that chic transformation goes to Apple.

It is not every day that a balding, lanky, somewhat geeky man can command the stage, holding a twinkling device that promises the universe but is only a phone/music player/tablet attain rock star status.

Yet, Steve Jobs and Apple have done just that, launching hit, after hit. As Kool and The Gang sang back in the ’80s, “He’s got the Midas Touch.”

In the PR trade, it is usually us who are the ones drawing the lines and making the rules – or we like to think so anyway.

In the case of Apple, however, we have been entranced – or is it enchanted? – right along with consumers. I cannot image doing our work without an iSomething to hand and it is hard to imagine a world without Apple.

The Apple R&D folks create what often kicks off long and gushing reviews of the company’s line of firsts, but it is the marketing department which really goes to town on the behind-the-scenes work – even though it goes out of its way to appear not to.

Not all about what’s under the tech hood
While we sell our well-honed communications skills – skills that are supposed to help our clients develop strategies that communicate their messages with pinpoint accuracy – Apple’s PR strategy has been the opposite. Obfuscate, block, and say nothing.

Mix that in with lots of hype, cult-like adoration and oodles of staging, and you have the only brand that is globally tolerated for its “magic of misdirection.” Any other brand would be excommunicated from the journalism world, but not Apple.

Take the iPhone 5 prototype “accident” from a few weeks ago. Left at a bar, the only prototype available. Just like that.

A similar watering hole mishap occurred last year with the iPhone 4.

Although Apple says nothing, the publicity rumor mill speeds away at over four megabits a second. Did Apple deliberately lose a new phone to generate buzz? Was it to lap Android in a sort of subtle way, “We’ve done it again, you suckers?”

Even if the iPhone 5’s loss was a five-alarm fire of genuine concern does not much matter. Nineteenth-century showman P.T. Barnum is often credited with the expression, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

Mr. Jobs and Apple have polished that phrase to an all new sheen.

Apple, truly, has broken all conventions when it comes to media and PR strategy, from allegedly misleading the press – Electronic Games, 2007; the delayed Korea launch – to letting its fanatics have a free-for-all without saying much to deflate some, at times, far-fetched theories.

As someone with a vested professional interest in damage control, I have to admit that Apple is a PR treat to devour.

Instead of taming the media beast with a crisis strategy or even strategically controlled messaging, it has let the media beast feed on itself by strategically saying nothing at all.

Think about for that a couple of minutes.

For all the talk of CEOs and corporate communications teams stepping up and commenting the second a negative tweet or blog post appears, Apple has done the opposite. Its lack of response when it comes to conjecture only makes any actual responses all the more poignant.

Company that talks little but says much
Since Apple is regularly seen as observers in the melee, when it does speak, we listen.

Notable instances include the company’s denial of tracking iPhone and iPad users – which we know is a lie; we are tracked and yet we still do not much care – or when Steve Jobs' illness was finally clarified (way more serious than we thought).

Both instances could have been far more damaging for any other brand.

But Apple's product launch rumors and news kept us magically distracted.

In late April, we were talking about the tracking rumors. By mid-May, we were discussing a new product launch – a 180-degree turnaround in just 15 business days.

When we were talking about Mr. Jobs' health issues – for the third time – in January 2011, we were also knee-deep in iPad 2 news. His health, it seemed, played second fiddled to the life-changing promise of the iPad 2.

Humility: Great for philosophers, the religious, and repentant politicians during an election cycle; bad for Mr. Jobs and Apple.

Perhaps I am being too harsh: the media industry is human, after all, and we are suckers for strong personalities, bravado or otherwise.

In 1983, Apple, still a seedling of its present self, launched the ambitious Lisa computer.

With a staggering near-$10,000 price tag – $21,589 in today’s dollars – Mr. Jobs and Apple aggressively marketed their product.

Confidence may not have helped sell Lisa to a price-conscious consumer – Lisa was pretty much dead on arrival – but similar stances on a myriad of Apple products since have ultimately turned it from a computer company to an icon.

To continue reading this article, please click here to go to Mobile Marketer.

Old School Media Is Still Relevant, For Now

2011-09-30T11:57:00.000-04:00

By: Vanessa Horwell

For all the funerals planned and obituaries written for traditional journalism — those things called newspapers, magazines, broadcast television, oh, and radio — one would consider them finished. Just how many years of revenue and circulation declines can an industry endure before packing it in?

Plenty, it seems.

Without question the last five years, or even 10, have not been kind to traditional media. Its influence has shrunk from a global superpower to merely a component of an increasingly diverse set of media outlets all vying for attention and relevancy. I liken traditional media’s current power position to the United Kingdom following World War II: Stripped of its empire status, the war-torn country reemerged as a component of Western power, no longer its sole mover and shaker, or indeed master.

In response to a rapidly remade media landscape, PR firms have rightly shifted their focus to all things digital. Can you imagine a PR company — or any successful organization — not relying heavily on the digital space to advance their company or client’s brand?

Our clients now expect digital competency as a matter-of-fact and not some retainer-plus extra. Many of the college graduates knocking on our door have been using Facebook for a third of their lives, they prefer texting to talking (which we try to undo) and some have even earned their Masters in social media.

But for all the hoo-ha over social media, it’s essential that companies, especially PR agencies, remember the UK analogy. Traditional media, may be a shell of its former self –at least in terms of average profit margins — but it persists. Our industry gives so much lip service to integration and being multi-channel. Perhaps it’s time we listen to our own advice and not jettison traditional media from the marketing mix?

At a recent mobile marketing summit in New York, I sat next to the mobile marketing director for USA Today, and talked with several digital media directors of magazines that many would consider very traditional – only they are far from it.

Their digital model has and continues to evolve as they realize that traditional media still does have a place — and is it not in the coffin. The PR industry shouldn’t forget this either.

In its annual report on American journalism, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, highlights some positive news hinting that the worst of traditional media’s die off has ended. Newspapers, once a bulwark for our industry, saw its weekday circulation numbers contract by 5% in 2010. While not fantastic, the losses in 2009 were twice that. Revenue too, saw, similar declines, (a drop of 6.3%) but that softening was nowhere near the death spiral of 2009 where revenue atrophied 26%.

The revenue picture looked even brighter at cable news, network television and local news outlets, as all three saw growth. Overall local news and radio faired the best, as many stations added early morning programs. For instance, in 2010 69 US cities offered a 4:30 a.m. TV news program, up from 28 in 2009. Radio, which has long since found its niche on car dashboards, saw revenue tick upward by 6% in 2010 after an 18% fall in 2009. Finally, magazine ad revenue was flat, compared to a 26% drop in ’09. While readership/viewership struggled, all traditional media outlets combined still enjoyed many millions of consumers.

As for the fine print beneath the big picture?

The reports of old school media’s death (in all its forms) are exaggerated. Americans continue to rely on traditional outlets — along with newer ones — to consume information. They are still relevant to many of us, as least for now.

My advice to my PR peeps?

Don’t turn your back on traditional media. Not yet. Remain plugged in with your broadcast and print contacts – don’t overlook them for lure of likes and RTs. While the media pie has gotten bigger and there are more pieces to cut, you never know when you might need them.

Winston Churchill, England’s WWII Prime Minister, cautioned against looking too far ahead into the future, saying, “Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at a time.”

Let’s wait and see how the future media chain links connect and how that affects the destiny of traditional media before we sever those ties for good.

Via Marketing Daily

Next Generation’s New Pathways – And Potential Dead Ends, All Just A Click Away

2011-09-26T10:22:00.003-04:00

A recent post on the Future of Media (my favourite new blog) predicts that the next big business boom is likely to be in occupational therapy, (OT) and intimacy counselors. Millennials, the generation born post-1985, will increasingly require their services, having become too plugged in to remember that a “friend request” isn’t always a mouse-click away.

Sadly, I don't think this a prediction, it's turning out to be true - and growing. A report, “Cyber Communication on Today’s Youth,” by the American Counseling Association was already ringing alarm bells in 2008. Reading the document three years on, it's fascinating to note how much the digital landscape has changed in such a short period. While Myspace gets at least minor billing, Facebook, which was already 4-years-old at the time, does not receive a single reference.

How the mighty have fallen. Or, more to the point, how the mighty squandered a golden opportunity. But I digress...

If that much can change in three years, it’s rather hard to envision the next 1,100 days. While I'm praying for an economic rebound, I would hate to think that these new, or "reinvigorated" professions would be spurred by society's digital addiction. When President Obama talked of job creation, it's unlikely he was referring to these.

Taking advantage of our "click addiction"

A recent article in the New York Times looks at Americans' growing reliance on their shrinks - online. Can't make it to your weekly couch-session in person? Not a problem. Just fire up Skype and connect with your therapist anywhere. Having an anxiety attack, possibly caused by having to do an "in-person" interview? Get some webcam time with your therapist for an online RX.

And the irony continues..

Driving to the beach this morning, I was reminded of this growing "click-to-counsel" profession: A huge billboard touting a local hospital's ER room "click and book your ER visit online."

The scenario could go something like this..

Have an accident with the automatic carving knife. Put sorn-off finger(s) on ice. Log on to hospital's ER booking system and reserve your place in the ER queue. Wait at home hoping you don't lose conciousness in the meantime, or take a leisurely stroll for a few hours (with ice pack of course), stopping at a drive-thru before your appointed time slot.

“Turn on, tune in,” may have been part of ‘60s countercultural icon Timothy Leary’s well-known phrases. I doubt he would have imagined the phrase’s 21st century impact on the Children of the Sixties' children.

Of course, "click-to-counsel" hadn't been invented then. I wonder what he would have made of that?

Famous Last Words… Think Before You Speak

2011-09-23T10:46:00.001-04:00

It would have been wise if John McWhorter, the renowned linguist, political commentator, lecturer, and blogger had taken his own advice from the title of one of his most recent posts: think before you speak.

McWhorter’s post for thedaily.com, last weekend was a controversial piece that in 842 words upended decades worth of linguistic study and knowledge. If we are to assume that different peoples speaking different languages perceive the world through different prisms, he argues, then the so-called “loser” of that arrangement -- the one with a subpar understanding of a given concept, be it love, hate, length of time, etc., etc. is doomed to inferiority.

“Before we celebrate this as showing that people…experience life in a dramatically different way than we do, we should consider that to embrace the idea of language differences as shaping perception in any radical way…denigrates the cognitive abilities of billions of the world’s human beings,” he says.

But ultimately, it’s McWhorter’s analysis that denigrates people, not the beauty and diversity of human perception. In fact, one could argue, that McWhorter’s all-or-nothing lens through which he views language is highly Amerocentric –that winner-take-all mentality that lay at the cornerstone of political beliefs like Manifest Destiny, rugged individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, and today very much resembles Monday night football.

Does this mean Americans view the world in two-dimensional, linear constructs. I do believe that. But that in no way implies that every non-American can’t view the world the same way if they so desired, and says nothing about different cultures, speaking different languages and their cognitive ability. The fact that IQs tend to rise in developed nations speaks –in whatever language you choose – to the power of opportunity, education and experience. It also suggests that most humans regardless of where live, have similar amounts of latent brainpower.

As PR agencies like mine continue adding new clients from across the globe, communication differences will undoubtedly create challenges in translating one idea and concept into another language and cultural context. I don’t know about you, but diminishing our clients’ cognitive abilities doesn’t sound like a good place to start.

Embracing difference, championing our linguistic uniqueness, and working with our clients to “get the message right” seems to me a far better approach.

Print’s Death March, Again

2011-09-22T10:53:00.004-04:00

Here we go again. Another article predicting the end of print media, or to be more precise, referring to its now sunset years. A recent post called Editorial Exit on the Future of Media blog, joins a chorus of naysayers predicting the end of the traditional newsroom and dismantling of old school media.

But are we talking about a sunset or merely a solar eclipse?

Without question the last five years (and even 10 years) have not been kind to a host of traditional media. Web 2.0 (or are we nearly 3.0?), running lightening fast, interactive sites and “iWeb” – the Internet’s mobile revolution – is enjoying double-digit percentage growth.

But referring to the present time period as traditional media’s sunset years is premature at best, and dead wrong at worst. In its annual report on American Journalism, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, highlights some quite positive news hinting that the worst of traditional media’s die off has ended. Newspapers, once a bulwark for the communications industry, saw its weekday circulation numbers contract by 5 percent in 2010. While not fantastic, the losses in 2009 were twice that. In revenue terms the picture looked even brighter at cable news, network television and local news outlets as all three saw growth. Certainly, traditional media’s influence has shrunk from a global superpower to a component of an increasingly diverse set of communications outlets, including web sites, mobile apps, blogs, Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages.

The bottom line: Record stores still exist, vinyl can still be purchased, and the “paperless office” has yet to fully mature. Traditional media may no longer be king, but it’s still serving in the king’s court.

Lose The Word INNOVATION And Focus On What Really Counts: DELIVERING

2011-09-21T10:26:00.000-04:00

“Avoid clichés like the plague,” is thrown about frequently in journalism and media circles as it is at ThinkInk. Like a well-worn record, or maybe I should update my own tired imagery to something like an endlessly re-tweeted tweet, clichés usually succeed in getting their point across, but not without the listener rolling their eyes over yet another hackneyed phrase. Too much use with too little care and the force behind the words is totally lost.

In today’s schizoid re-invent-the-wheel-every-day atmosphere – from wordy ways to jump start the job market, to long-winded debates over the commonsense logic of having the US government meet its debt obligations (yawn) – even the word “innovation” has lost much of its sparkle, according to Jack Springman, author and growth strategies consultant in a recent Harvard Business Review blog post.

His advice to readers: jettison the word “innovation” from their business vocabulary. Doing so, he says, refocuses a company’s attention on delivering quality to its customers, not the manufacture of buzzwords directed inward at corporate higher-ups.

While so deliberately discarding a word sounds a little sophomoric, kind of like having a “no-cursing” change jar to dissuade poor language (which definitely hasn’t worked at our agency – we simply love a good swear), Springman is nevertheless on to something. While doing research for his piece, a search of the term “innovation” on the HBR site came up with 4,700 results. Perform a similar Google search for “innovation” and “business” and you end up with 423,000,000 hits. Clearly the term innovation has, wait for it….. had its day in the sun.

Innovation, like guru, and expert, among countless other words, is a term that should be used like salt in a recipe, sparingly and with extreme care to not scuttle the dish. PR and communications firms should also take note Springman’s advice. I don’t know if innovation should be completely excised from our corporate lexicon, but a timeout is certainly in order.

What’s Your Digital Fitness Level?

2011-09-15T10:43:00.008-04:00

Work It Social Media!

Earlier this week PepsiCo’s director of digital and social media B.

Bonin Bough again chastised the PR industry for being digitally out of shape. “Digital fitness,” or knowledge about how clients use social media and a 101-understanding of the science behind search algorithms, said Bough, is essential if communications companies wish to stay on top of the ever-changing digital front.

To a large extent Bough’s tonic for the industry falls flat - pun intended. Put another way, if the PR industry –and the country – were as physically fit as we are digitally, we wouldn’t have an obesity epidemic on our hands. Digital fitness may be a great buzzword that generates web traffic, (of course we wouldn’t know as digital luddites) but the reality is, social media, be it Facebook, Twitter, RSS feeds or the almost-antique email, are already major components of our communications tool belts.

Think about it. Can anyone really imagine a PR company – or almost any successful organization – not relying on social media to promote their brand in some way? Moreover, today’s clients expect social media outreach as par for the proverbial course and not some gimmick-driven extra. Many of today’s college graduates entering the working world have already been using Facebook for a third of their lives, first signing on when they were in early high school in 2004.

A growing number too are graduating with degrees in social media.

And while demographers and the like forecast a graying workforce, data indicates that 78 percent of the US workforce in 2009 was made up of individuals ages 25-54. I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of 40 and 50-somethings who are just as (and if not more) iPad-savvy as the next 20 or 30-something.

To Bough’s point that Facebookers and Tweetters must intimately understand the science behind their media outlets, comparing the process to how children learn to ride bicycles, I cry foul. Yes, it’s true children don’t learn to ride a bicycle watching it sit idly by the curb. That’s why they get on and pedal. But ask a five-year-old about the basic laws of Newtonian motion that lie at the underpinnings of his first successful ride and he’ll draw a blank.

My point: Intimate knowledge of the inner workings of social media is important, to be sure, but just by using social media and receiving immediate feedback from our clients ensures that its usefulness and effectiveness grows organically.

Of all the ailments besetting our economy and the challenges communications companies face at attracting new clients in these difficult times, our collective digital fitness is not one of them. Now that I’m done exercising my fingers with this post I’m off to hit the pavement for a 5-k run.

Feeding The Search Beast: Google Acquires Restaurant Guide, Zagat

2011-09-09T11:43:00.006-04:00

Thirty points out of thirty. That’s how restaurant guide Zagat ranked its own acquisition by Google earlier today with a now-famous dining out scale.

Zagat-o-philes, too, will likely approve of the deal, which will help Google deliver even better localized restaurant, foodie, and nightlife search results.

In a letter posted on Zagat’s website husband and wife team Tim and Nina Zagat referred to their 32-year-old company as a longtime innovator in user-generated content. “Google delivers the most relevant and high-quality information, and it's the perfect home for our content,” they wrote. “We are thrilled to see our baby placed in such good hands and to start today as official ‘Googlers.’”

But Brad McCarty, blogger for thenextweb blog rightly points out there’s more going on than just improving Google searches and an older company moving into the "next course" of its career. Besides, the Zagat app for mobile devices is already onto version 4.0.4 and the latest one was launched just last month. Are foodies so ravenous for better search results?

The purchase by the behemoth search engine – and the anything and everything portal to the web – comes some three years after Zagat reportedly put itself up for sale for $200 million but then backed out of the process. Today, Zagat will join ranks with the 100+ other companies already purchased by Google. Considering Google’s increasing forays into other travel-related ventures, there’s no telling what other markets Google plans on gobbling up next.

Advertising Age agrees, and says “the internet giant is starting to look a little more like a media company.”

The Very Hungry Google

From a PR perspective, such developments reinforce the need to make certain our clients figure prominently in Google searches. Our stories and releases must take into account search optimization and search marketing - it's no longer an afterthought, but embedded in our thinking and our products.

The web, and Google, continue to remake how we as communications experts package and deliver our clients’ messages right down to the local dining out guide.

All this talk of restaurants and dining out has made me hungry and on that note, I'm off for a bite.

Is Journalism As We Know It Becoming Obsolete?

2011-09-06T10:52:00.006-04:00

Not yet. But a few prayers couldn’t hurt.

Last week Gigaom.com blogger Matthew Ingram resurrected the decade-old question: is journalism as we know it becoming obsolete? His answer – after a nearly 900-word build up:

No. “I would rather say it as evolving and expanding — and I happen to believe that’s a good thing,” he writes.

Pardon the bluntness, but to me that doesn’t read like a satisfying conclusion. The cells in my stomach are evolving, dividing one by one, millisecond by millisecond, year by year. My stomach expands with each new meal I consume. But without a little help from digestion and peristalsis to keep that expansion in check or DNA coding to prevent runaway “cell evolution,” my body would grow sick and unable to function.

If left unchecked I’d land in the Morgue – the place where humans – and newspapers ultimately retire.

To conclude that today’s twitter-centric and blog-frenzied journalism is “evolving and expanding” isn’t good enough. Chalking the process up to the cyclical “rise and fall” of newspapers and bloggers doesn’t cut it either. A more nuanced question is: how is journalism expanding and evolving and what safeguards, if any, are working to ensure its healthy growth?

Ingram rightly points out that journalism is about: “a spirit of inquiry, of curiosity, of wanting to make sense of things.” He’s also correct when he references programming scholar Dave Winter’s suggestion that in today’s world, with often zero mass publishing barriers, anyone can do it.

But the fact that “anyone can do it” doesn’t mean that everyone can do it equally well. Possessing a spirit of enquiry, of curiosity, and of wanting to make sense of things are platitudes that can be applied to almost any profession.

Eighteenth and 19^th century journalism, wrought with hyper opinion, political party dominance, and a healthy dose of sensationalism effectively blurred the lines of hard news, soft news, and what today would be called “infotainment.” Not until the middle and latter 20^th century did a more separation of church and state-like thinking transform journalism into today’s polished and professional product.

It’s not that today’s citizen journalists, CNN’s iReporters or Arab Spring bloggers are bad. It’s just that too often their skills are unrefined.

To be sure, gathering facts, observing breaking news, and collecting what else has been written on a topic – termed aggregating on the web – is the first step toward quality journalism. But placing that information into a compelling and concise narrative with context and fact-checked sources is where the professional differences lie. A world where citizen journalists, bloggers, and traditional reporters remember they’re playing on the same team, in equal numbers would be the best way to ensure that the hard fought professional standards achievements of the 20^th century and the internet mass publishing miracles of the 21^st work in concert, not in chaos.

In the last decade, as newspapers and other print formats struggle to engineer the magic bullet of profitable web publishing, thousands of professional journalists have left the profession entirely, jumping ship for the perceived safer and often better-paying waters of public relations, corporate communications and government outreach.

An industry losing its institutional knowledge is an industry in danger of losing itself.

Is journalism as we know it becoming obsolete?

Only if we let it.

Why Do Some Sabotage Their Own PR Efforts?

2011-09-01T09:14:00.002-04:00

If you are in the PR profession, it’s very likely that you have experienced the following scenario: a prime client insists on micro-managing visibility campaigns to the point where it’s almost impossible for us to work, or to focus on the strategy and execution of big ideas, instead of sweating the small stuff. Forget about achieving the results that are expected of us.

The PR industry is not alone in this dilemma: creatives and marketers join us in the struggle of extracting project briefs from some clients, or getting campaign details approved, or media interviews scheduled in a timely manner. And then there is the next-level challenge — the client that consistently misses top opportunities, cherry-picking interviews and walking away from top-tier placements because they can’t see the big picture — all while grumbling about farfetched initiatives planned to avoid the next kerfuffle.

I touched on this subject in a previous post over a year ago, and it continues to baffle me today. So why do companies hire us if they want to control what we do, never fully trusting us to be the experts that they hired us as?

Which also begs the question: “How do they stay in business if they micro-manage all their external resources and consultants?” It turns out that a lot of them don’t.

Hiring for All the Wrong Reasons

Companies don’t sabotage their own campaigns intentionally. It usually starts off with someone in management who thinks that their ideas are well-placed and timely; their interview rejections justified and reasonable — even if these decisions contradict strategies that have been well thought out and agreed upon. They are the CEO, after all. They have reasons and the need for hiring PR professionals, yet don’t end up taking our advice.

Why? Here are a few of my thoughts on why a company so interested in preserving its own good ideas would bother to look outside its own little bubble.

1: A supreme misstep that needs isolation — call in the professionals.

Maybe a firm doesn’t know how badly it has messed up until the legal threats start coming, or there’s an ugly sales dip that has shareholders riled. That’s when the need to call in someone else oversteps the need to micromanage campaigns. For a while, at least…

2: Recent restructuring and little direction — budget changes, hiring-and-firing.

An overzealous primary point of contact — possibly a new hire, perhaps someone who’s feeling pressure in their department — starts to quell campaigns for the sake of their own bright ideas, hoping for some recognition (and possibly a pay raise). This could be ego talking, or it could be fear in a competitive environment.

3: A well-meaning higher-up — not everyone is out to get us.

Someone in management knows what they’re doing — and recognizes that they can’t do everything on their own — but they’re not in charge of dealing with the day-to-day approvals, editing, releases, and interviews. If the “smart boss” was the one you talked with daily, there wouldn’t be an issue — but sadly, they’re not.

4: Power struggles — to seek help or not to seek help?

Maybe somebody got vetoed, and you are the shining cavalry that got called in, much to their dismay. Maybe an entire department got axed, and whoever is in charge now wants to make a point that their group could have done it better. Interoffice politics will almost always affect your dealings, sometimes seriously. Watch your back here because you may be set up to fail.

Apart from firing the misbehavers and walking away, there are a number of ways to compromise (if you want to compromise, that is) when working with a client who is a PR self-saboteur:

Weed Out Inconsistencies When your company contact is killing ideas and media opportunities (and coming up with their own “great ideas”), try to keep campaigns consistent at the very least. You might find that the same companies that kill ideas and opportunities are extremely prolific when it comes to tossing in-house ideas around. Cohesiveness is a boon, too.
Increase Communication and Accountability CC, double-check, confirm, and re-confirm. When finger-pointing about missed opportunities comes up, engage in CYA mode. You want to have names of exactly who nixed what and cover your behind at all times. Accountability is critical and it’ll get you to the end of your contract — or to the end of the campaign — without torching your own reputation. Containing sabotage is much better than having people ask: “Who is in charge of this mess?”

There is really only so much we can do for a company that is prone to consistently acting this way. There are fatal marketing mistakes lurking out there, and if the company is truly set in its ways, the mistakes will keep happening again and again. And as much as getting that retainer check was nice every month, you will be glad that the mistakes weren’t on your watch. It’s your reputation — and your sanity — on the line.

I like to think of these types of clients as horses: the ones you can steer to the water, but can never make drink. We may push and force and struggle to get things done with these companies, but in the end they will rear their heads and refuse to cooperate with us. Past experience has taught me (and my still sane team), that the struggle is almost always unsustainable and really not worth having.

Via Media Post: Marketing Daily by Vanessa Horwell – http://bit.ly/op0iml

In PR Today, It’s Adapt Or Die. Or Else.

2011-08-31T10:01:00.007-04:00

Considering the speed at which we get information today, it’s really no surprise that there's added emphasis on the “adapt or die” adage – regardless of which industry you’re in. In the case of PR, it’s adapt or die, and do it at warp speed – or else.

PR depends on being incredibly up-to-date, knowing what’s happening in our clients’ industries (sometimes before they do), knowing who is covering what – or not - and managing these developments in a way that benefit clients, media, and just about everyone linked to them. It's sink-or-swim, without a doubt, and in the maturing digital age, it doesn't take very long to sink to the bottom.

As an industry, we can’t get out of this by looking the other direction or playing thumbsies – that's the whole point of “adapt or die.” So where to start? Here are a few ideas worth trying.

1) Refining information received – Information is being hurled at us every few seconds, demanding to be processed and shared, so it is critical that we sift through the noise, clutter and nonsense. Successful companies are able to study – and toss – information as it's ranked according to usability, quality and value. Think beyond the inbox!

2) Managing and managing some more – We need to study our competitors and how they are impacting our clients’ mindshare. (Hint – these may not always be PR firms).

3) Playing the field without floundering – Successful adapters aren't afraid to make some mistakes to reach another level. Failure can be good, otherwise we would never learn. These adapters are able to predict and plan for both losses and successes that come along with experimentation and a bit of risk.

4) Learning and retaining new decision-making skills – While we need to move at an increasingly rapid and demanding pace, we also need to retain those decision-making tactics that don’t always happen immediately. Think, juggle, balance, rinse and repeat.

And then, of course, are our clients. How do we convince them to adapt along with us? We can finesse changes using statistics and case studies to support our decisions, eking things out for those who aren't comfortable with a big change. Creating an actionable plan of little tweaks can get our plan moving, and once positive results are seen, things can happen more quickly. Piece by piece, we can show our clients that altering how we do things won't result in a collapse or their demise. Think baby steps here.

Adaptation isn't easy, but if we know how to do anything well in PR, it is scoping out situations and managing them accordingly. We know how to smooth, rework, and recreate, and so adapting should be second nature to us.

We just need to carve out some non-billable hours to see where our efforts currently stand, and where to go from here. Are you guilty of not taking the time to create an “adaptation plan,” or are you already working on it?

Fixing The PR Industry: Does PR Need A Do Over, Starting With A New Name?

2011-08-26T16:54:00.003-04:00

Should we be called PR professionals anymore, or is it time for a name change? A recent Ogilvy PR Peripheral Visions Study showed that 76% of respondents (PR professionals that is) believe that PR should be rebranded. Ouch!!!! But that’s not all: in the same survey, 60% revealed that they think public relations and advertising could be joined or blended into a hybrid, which is something I have been thinking about for a while. There are definitely some discussions brewing….

So the 76% previously mentioned? That sizable group hinted that public relations professionals could be called communications professionals instead. But isn't that a tiny part of the battle, renaming what we do? Wouldn't it be more advantageous and make better sense to actually revamp how we do things, rather than simply putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig. How about redefining public relations from the inside out instead of just a name polish?

And if we were to change the name of public relations, what would it be? “Communications professional” sounds somewhat boring (and we have a policy of no boring in our agency). Besides, PR is so much more than a single layer of duties - where do we start or end? While we should probably stay away from anything that puts “media relations” in our name, given that we've been pigeonholed as it is, besides that, shouldn’t we concentrate more on what we do and how we do it – than what we are called? As any PR rep will tell you, your actions are going to seal the deal, not the fancy wrapping.

In my mind, the first call of order is to show our value. Show that we are so much more than what many people think we are, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous and so on, and conversely show what we are not, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous.

We also need to communicate that we are not miracle workers, and we can't guarantee results in every crisis situation (News Corp., anyone?). PR done best is done strategically, creatively and thoughtfully —not a bandage to be slapped on after the fact. So if we are to rename public relations, we may have to start by clarifying both what we can and cannot do.

To be sure, PR is more personal than ever and it could be argues that our name is going be way of the press release. RIP press release. Moving beyond mass marketing, we are pressed to make new connections between our clients and theirs, telling a deeper and more compelling story to select groups. Looking at how much public relations has changed over the years, and so dramatically in just a few years, then perhaps a name change does make sense.

So what should we call it, ourselves, the industry?

If we don't change the name of PR, we can still go about making changes behind the scenes. The name's been debated before—and it will be debated again—but we can still help the public understand what it is that we do and the immense value we can bring to our clients... and that we're not just singularly focusing on crisis management or media relations all the time.

Questions time!

1. Should PR have a name change?

2. Do you like the name “Communications Professional”?

3. Do we have a perception issue?

4. Do you have a better name for PR that's NOT “Communications Professional”?

5. Is a name change essential, or should we work harder to clarify what PR professionals do?

6. Do you think that renaming PR has more to do with distinguishing itself in-company?

7. What would you do to “fix” the PR industry?

I would love to hear your views on what, if anything, PR should be renamed to.

Why Groupon WON’T Save Your Company

2011-08-19T11:22:00.002-04:00

Current economic environment notwithstanding, most consumers are attracted by ways to save money - not in their bank account, but on stuff - because they are going to spend. Businesses, naturally, oblige by offering “deals,” the growth of which has exploded thanks to Groupon, LivingSocial, Daily Deal and the dozens of other wannabes. Of course, the growing number of daily deals appeal to our human nature – getting the best offer before the next person does. One doesn’t have to be a coupon hoarder or penny pincher to fall in that category, and Groupon has been most “helpful” in transforming so many of us into online deal hunters.

In less than a year, the “Groupon experience” has become incredibly popular with retailers and restaurants trying solicit new customers and get the cash register ca-chinging again. But if they expect a lot of these new customers to jump all over non-Groupon prices after paying heavily discounted rates at the start of the relationship, they are delusional and tragically mistaken.

Last month, I posted a comment on a Loyalty group I’m a member of on LinkedIn:

“While relatively innovative, Groupon is not a company that helps brands build loyalty. Because Groupon offers consumers discounted goods/services from an ever-changing variety of companies, it inherently encourages consumers to purchase a scattershot of different items, driven by heavy discounts offered during a short timetable - not through developing brand loyalty. The process works against loyalty because it drives consumers to try many new brands – rather than sticking with one brand consistently - all on a single factor. Price. Groupon essentially says to consumers, why stick with the usual go-to salon/restaurant/bookstore when you can try this coupon for another, different company that's much cheaper than what you're probably paying? Companies may increase business by using Groupon to bring in new consumers who might not normally try their brand, but in terms of encouraging long-term brand loyalty the service simply isn’t equipped to offer real results. I've always argued that when marketers go down the discount highway, it's almost impossible to turn back around. Think about it... it's highly unlikely that a consumer making a purchase decision based on a percentage discount from an unknown retailer/brand will return to that retailer/brand for "non-Groupon" prices. Why would they? Instead, they'll simply look for the next bargain delivered by Groupon from yet another retailer/brand... and so on.”

That discussion is gaining a lot of traction as the “Great Groupon Debate” is argued among retail marketers and business reporters alike:

- Bryon Morrison, president of The Marketing Arm's wireless practice discusses the cons of Groupon in his article featured in Mobile Commerce Daily Countering the Groupon effect and linking tactics to strategy
- And Fred Minnick, writing for Stores, asks if daily deal sites good or bad for retail in his article “The Great Groupon Debate”

In a recent Slate feature, Noreen Malone lived off Groupon for a week. There was a lot of effort involved (20-minute walks each way for a coffee shop? No thanks.) and a little pressure (don't forget your coupon!), and Malone noted that it's also an easy way to be blinded by the deals: “We might not know, sitting in our cubicles, that we want these things—but take 50 percent off the sticker price, and suddenly we do,” she said.

And that's the trouble with Groupon. In a social deals-type environment, we look at sticker price, not at brand value. Groupon is less about the brand, more about the price. Why go back and pay full rates if you're always presented with something new—and that deal you grabbed wasn't even nearby?

Yes, we are even willing to go out of our way for a good deal, but will we return to the same place when we don't have a chance at a discount? Fat chance. In a recent survey by Cooper Murphy Copywriters, 82 percent of companies that had Groupon promotions in the past said that they were unhappy with the level of repeat business they received after running their promotion.

To continue Groupon momentum, a company might consider another deal, and another one... and they're continuing that cycle of margin giveaways in the process, not to mention alienating loyal customers who have been paying standard prices for months or even years. With an influx of new customers waving deals, will the regulars have the same level of service, the same experience?

It's better to concentrate on customer connections in the long run. Keeping costs low for all buyers—not just the Groupon set—will ensure repeat customers. Specialized pricing and competitive edge can hook new clients, but how can we keep customers coming back? is a better question than how low can prices go this month?

There is no quick fix to finding new customers – any marketer worth their grain in salt will tell you. The experiences that consumers are having with Groupon like not being able to redeem coupons for 4+ months (personal story that I’ll share with you next week) or finding out that the deals are only available at very limited times will and work against Groupon, the business and their brand.

My advice? Treat Groupon and its ilk with caution and think about long term ways to connect with customers to build profits – not give away margins and alienate existing customers through deep discounts.

The Rise Of Opinion 'News'

2011-08-17T09:58:00.004-04:00

The following commentary originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily (8/16/11) where I have a regular column.

"Is traditional news dead and gone?" I'm hearing that question more frequently. During the past 12 months, AOL bought the Huffington Post, "unbiased" Fox topped CNN and MSNBC's profits, and Twitter continued to grow -- boosted by worldwide coverage and the toppling of insidious regimes. With the downsizing of print media and the rise of the blog, we've gotten used to reacting to opinion pieces instead of forming our opinions at the source. A lot like what we're doing right now.

Backtracking just a little bit, you might remember a time when you would read a piece online -- not on a blog, but on a breaking news site -- and wondered where the headlining story came from. A PR resource, perhaps? But ease of access to trending topics and Twitter hashtags can lead to and has led to rampant rumors, from death hoaxes (#ripnickiminaj, 2011) to merger news (AOL-Yahoo merger, 2010) and plain old rubbish. There's just so much stuff to filter that it's really no surprise that traditional news sources can pick up on a trending tag, locate an "insider" to comment, and report on something -- mistakenly -- that happened only in a fantasy cocktail of viral news and online pranksters.

That's the case with conjecture and the odd off-base source, but what about news sites that survive on a daily dose of drama? It's hard enough to follow the online trail of "who reported it first," and if there's a team dedicated to opinion-making and finger-pointing? The original truth is obscured with clever turns of phrase and selective linking.

Since everyone and their dog appear to be blogging, it's particularly difficult to ascertain what is what -- and from where. Editors, guest bloggers, staff members, and "experts" have blogs or online columns hosted by their publishers, and that adds to the fact-opinion blurring of boundaries. Let's call it the "Foxification of News," cheap and quick journalism, or the negative side of citizen blogging: the muddling of opinion and fact-only reporting is killing "news news."

Complaints about opinion-infused reporting often mention Fox. Its representatives claim that it is unbiased, but if it were, would Bill Shine, head of programming, say that Fox can "offer opinions not seen anywhere else"? As is the case with any successful business model, Fox's unique blend of fact and opinion inspired other news sources. Fox's revenue for 2010 is said to have reached profits of $800 million on revenue of $1.5 billion, more than MSNBC and CNN combined. When we noticed MSNBC getting more political, we knew why.

News is morphing, slowly but noticeably. Networks incorporate viral video and social media responses about anything from major sports games to natural disasters. While networks are highlighting YouTube videos and Twitter feeds more frequently, newspapers are continuing to fight for some share of the market. But is it really that much of a change, or simply a return to our roots?

Some suggest that opinion news might not be such a modern move after all. It's different, but the switch could be likened to 19th-century journalism described as "discursive" by The Economist. Back then, news was spread through personal connection and networking. The only problem? The social side of media used by average citizens to share news is now used as a marketing tool for huge networks. It's not the 19th century anymore, and the speed and sheer reach of the Internet, coupled with the ability to put anything live almost instantly, changes the way we access news, react to it, and, from a PR company's perspective, spread any kind of rumors, half-truths, or leading questions we want, at any time, and from anywhere.

PR support for businesses and professionals in the spotlight is more important with the domination of opinion news (and worldwide self-publishing, done gratis). And now that aggregated content is a constant online presence and even networks are spicing up their coverage with an opinionated edge, it takes an eagle eye to find skewed news and quiet a storm. Twitter hashtags can skyrocket in an hour; blog posts can be published in seconds. Navigating online PR minefields is challenging enough without dissecting nuances on formerly trusted sites.

We're looking at the possibility of heavily slanted news passed person-to-person -- a relic of the 19th century -- combined with the speed of a new era.

Is opinion news really "news," and should we mourn the death of unbiased reporting?

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=155876&nid=129906#

Backtracking: A PR Lesson From Airbnb

2011-08-12T11:38:00.002-04:00

Have you been following the Airbnb PR disaster unfold? I first started following Airbnb last year when I discovered the site as I was looking for apartments to rent while travelling for business. Great idea, easy to use interface and an honest feel to the site – unlike the thoroughly dodgy HomeAway and other barely cobbled together vacation rental sites which have always left me feeling on my own.

Airbnb promised something different and judging from the investment community pumping in over $100 million and a crazy valuation of $1 billion-plus, others got that feeling too… until a few weeks ago, that is, when Airbnb tried to cover up some rather nasty news about a customer whose home had been violated and ransacked by renters.

Shit happens. A lot. But it’s how you deal with the crap that can turn those, er, negative moments into somewhat better ones. And it’s never a good idea to try covering up a mess – like we’ve seen with the News of the World phone-tapping scandals or when you have a very influential blogger on your tail, and especially if that blogger’s name is Michael Arrington.

Arrington, a man who’s known not to mince words, called Airbnb's response “tepid,” noting how supremely disturbed victim “EJ” was after finding her home ransacked and looted—so much so that she plans on moving. Arrington pointed out the how inadequate Airbnb's policy was, noting that, at the time of the incident, their only FAQ about theft stated: “Grand pianos weigh thousands of pounds and do not fit through doors.”

Things could have gone differently from there. Arrington's post detailing Airbnb PR issues could have been (and should have been) met by a thoughtful company response, updated policies, and detailed reparation information. Yes, Airbnb responded on TechCrunch, rather airily, but that response only materialized due to media pressure and public outcry. It was an attempt - a very late one - to make amends, and their efforts were almost immediately overshadowed by Y Combination founder and Airbnb investor Paul Graham. Graham called Arrington's report “bullshit” and insisted that Airbnb was doing all they could to help the victim—even though it was already weeks later. The name-calling, the hedging, the references to unverified information:this is exactly what taints even the most sincere of PR responses.

Arrington backed up his sources and soldiered on, proving that bloggers with conviction can get companies to change policies, make amends, and tighten up customer response practices. I’m glad to see some good come out of it for the sake of the victim – and future Airbnb customers. It’s still disappointing though that Airbnb never had a crisis management plan in place, particularly for a company whose business model relies on stranger-to-stranger interaction.

Airbnb says that it is “improving” security and service, and that's a no-brainer—they should have been improved before any of this happened. It's true that company missteps provide opportunities to learn, but Airbnb should have known that, statistically speaking, this was in the cards. (Actually, a similar situation had already occurred.)

What Airbnb should improve beyond all security measures next is how even their investors deal with the public. Here's hoping that they take every one of these suggestions seriously.

Oh, and thank you Michael Arrington for making companies like these accountable.

What Went Right for PR and Media Outreach in Norway's Aftermath

2011-08-08T16:25:00.003-04:00

No matter how gut-wrenching or shocking the news, PR professionals will always look back and see who handled crises best. It's not just work-related curiosity. By knowing who had an admirable crisis plan in place (and who didn't) and how it worked, we can fine-tune our own. Over the past few weeks, Norway's tragedy has remained lodged in our minds (along with the debt ceiling crisis and News of The World scandals), and it stuck with the easily-distracted press, too. We watched reporters handle interviews admirably in the aftermath, but it feels like much of the media has taken a step back from delving too deeply into the 93 deaths (at last count). Invasive family interviews, harsh criticisms: they simply didn’t have a place here.

Take, for instance, Helen Pidd's piece in The Guardian. She's covered tragedy, heartbreak, and murder the world over, but while in Norway she had an overwhelming sense of guilt for simply being there at all. Pidd traveled to Bardu to speak with the survivors, but when she arrived and was told to keep her distance, that was it pretty much it.

“If I am specifically told to leave the families alone, I won't go near them,” Pidd said in How Should Journalists Talk to Survivors of the Attacks in Norway? “If the police liaison officer hasn't issued a warning, I will take a deep breath and knock on the parents' door once, telling myself that sometimes people want to talk about those they have lost. It doesn't feel good. If they say they don't want to talk, I won't return.”

Pidd saw one of the survivors, and she didn't approach her for an interview. A nurse in Bardu asked her not to attempt contact. Instead, Pidd drove towards the Ice Peak mountains, thinking about all the other times she had pursued survivors for the perfect interview. This time, however, she felt torn between going after her story and leaving the survivors alone – and ended up choosing the latter.

I’d like to think that crisis management in Norway set the tone for coverage, beginning with PM Jens Stoltenberg’s response to the attacks. He showed emotion openly, and with obvious sadness, coupled with the skills of a true orator: “right words at the right time.”

Could it be the time of year, as we edge closer towards the tenth anniversary of 9/11, or the fact that Norway's reputation as peacekeeper and record-setting giver of foreign aid made the attacks even more shocking, pushing us towards a “softer” stance in media response? I think it may be so.

Murky Murdoch And The News Corp.

2011-08-02T11:13:00.002-04:00

(This article originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily, where I am a contributor)

A bit of distrust in the media is never a bad thing. It's good to keep people on their toes. For News Corp., however, a "little distrust" has turned into full-blown doubt and disgust for readers and viewers in the UK and just about everywhere else.

When a colleague asked recently what I would do if News Corp. were a client, I responded: "In the UK, I'd do nothing -- they made their bed a long time ago, and now they have to lie in it." And an imagined question directly to News Corp. executives: this wire-tapping has been tossed around for over four years; how could you allow it to crescendo into such a devastating crisis? You could have sought our counsel back in 2006.

Alas, we seldom have such an opportunity to get into the game prior to a crisis. But what actions, if any, could help resurrect News Corp.'s reputation in the UK, criminal proceedings notwithstanding? For a company facing this much fallout, it would take a massive overhaul of staff, a great deal of public groveling, and the creation of the strictest code of ethics one has ever seen in media. And even then, I'm not sure how much good it would do.

With zero credibility and so many changes needed, it's better to start afresh.

The U.S. News Corp. Problem

The problem at the WSJ irks me -- not at the publication itself, as I feel it is comprised of hard-working, ethical journalists, and editors -- but because of Murdoch's ill-fated decision of allowing longtime friend (and News Corp. veteran) Les Hinton to become CEO of Dow Jones in 2007. By letting Hinton cross the pond, Murdoch provided one (and as far as we know, the only substantial) link to the wiretapping scandal in Britain.

Until 2007, Hinton was executive chairman of News International, publisher of News of the World. After the 2006 wiretapping scandal involving Clive Goodman, royal editor of News of the World, Hinton told parliament there was no widespread involvement in wiretapping. Okay, fine: an illegal embarrassment under Hinton's watch dies down, Goodman is jailed, and the scandal is confined within the U.K. Now we come to my issue with Murdoch.

Why would anyone who just dodged a bullet -- or a rain of bullets, for that matter -- send a tainted newspaper publisher/CEO across the Atlantic to head an upstanding, nationally respected publishing company and its subsidiary newspapers? It doesn't matter whether Hinton had knowledge of the wiretapping in 2006 or not -- it happened while he was in control. It's unbelievable (not to mention foolhardy), and it's up to Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and their public relations experts to do the damage control.

Let me be clear: I don't believe that there was any illegality involved here regarding Murdoch, Hinton, and The Wall Street Journal. It just wasn't a good idea in light of all the scandal that surrounded News International at the time.

The takeaway from all of this?

The business of public relations has as much to do about crisis prevention as it does about crisis management. Did Murdoch understand the potential jeopardy he was putting Dow Jones in? Did he ask anyone around him -- like, for example, the public relations team?

Click here to continue reading.

Holy Talking Vajayjays! Summer's Eve Scandal: Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

2011-08-01T11:20:00.003-04:00

Is it possible to go too far with damage control? Summer's Eve hit the news again last week when it pulled the "controversial" Hail to the V campaign promos after the ads were called racially insensitive. While talking-vagina hand puppets will certainly get tongues wagging on their own, it wasn't Summer Eve's creative representation of the “V” that led to a wave of criticism. As if a company still associated with woefully old-fashioned (if not dangerous) douching doesn't have enough PR hurdles to begin with.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "V" campaign, it ~~consists,~~ consisted of three videos with three apparent audiences – and those audiences appeared to be neatly divided by race and their stereotypical interests - the white girls are the gym bunnies; the Latina punctuates her rant with an “ay-yi-yi.” When Huffington Post polled their readers, 56.14% responded that the ads were “offensive!” 43.86% disagreed, choosing “nothing to see here.” Personally, I'm more offended by Fox's assault on my intelligence than these videos.

PR executive of Richards Group Stacie Barnett told Adweek that the ads were pulled because "Stereotyping or being offensive was not our intention in any way, shape, or form. The decision to take the videos down is about acknowledging that there's backlash here. We want to move beyond that and focus on the greater mission."

The response, however, has me wondering if they should have handled the damage control without yanking the campaign offline. Taking them down was not only an acknowledgement of backlash but also guilt of racial stereotyping by poll, and failure by client pressure. The client saw the ads, everyone agreed they were edgy - so why take them down? Only the week before, The Richards Group defended their videos, doing a much better job of explaining their (albeit poor) campaign-planning process. Talk about flip-flopping.

Now I'm not saying the ads weren't questionable, but audiences were split on whether or not they were actually racist – while Summer's Eve vehemently stated that that they weren't. Pulling the ads prolonged coverage of an overall lackluster campaign whereas an explanation or simple mea culpa could have done a better job of righting wrongs than simply removing the campaign.

In fact, a recent study in 2011's Retail Consumer Report shows that companies willing to interact come out ahead – they don't necessarily need to pull products or ads. 61 percent of consumers in the study said they'd be “shocked” if a company responded to criticism online. Upon receiving a response, 33 percent of reviewers would go back and post a positive review, and 34 percent would delete their original negative review. If nothing else, it certainly makes a case for a well-worded apology.

Creative agencies should stand by their work, even if they need to apologize for it later. If not, they risk being relegated to order-takers and compromise-driven lackeys. I’d rather see work that is controversial and has people engaged in discourse rather than homogenized “creative” that appeases the masses and skirts around “private parts.”

Is Google+ Really Worth It?

2011-07-29T11:34:00.003-04:00

Google+, a replacement for Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter? Stop right there. While Google+ is a major (and exciting) advancement on the social side of the web, no one can determine how fast and how far it will go just yet -- and how much it will offer marketers. So while it’s definitely worth exploring, corporate communicators shouldn’t be abandoning ship on existing social strategies just yet. Um, if they even have one….

Even though Google+ is touting itself as the be-all in social, we know that a single social media platform can’t offer everything we need for every client - especially considering the variety of niche social media news and bookmarking sites (hello Tip ’d and DesignBump) adding value to companies and to their exposure built on search results. Even if a single social media platform did had everything we wanted in one place, we’d be asking where our existing competitors, partners, and supporters were, because we need to establish and maintain a presence in their corner of the web as well. With so many factors at play, it’s neither likely nor plausible that Google+ will whisk away the majority of users from large-scale social media platforms in the early stages.

There will, of course, be lovers and haters of Google+, if for more nothing more than it appearing to be an also-ran. And while Google+ might be a latecomer, it’s a latecomer that has had years to evaluate what makes social networking platforms fail and falter with users -- and what makes them win. From my initial research, privacy and integration are two major factors attracting Google+ users: they’ll be able to integrate their mail and applications with Google+, and G+’s limited-user test allows Google to address security issues before opening it up to a wider audience. It’s also the first social network that allows users to download captured data on them at any time. Nice one.

So what’s my advice to marketers exploring Google+? Understand how functionalities absent from other sites, like Circles, can help boost business. Google+ is the fastest-growing social net ever, and it’s not even open for business profile creation yet (although this is slated for fall 2011). Google+ can aid traffic development and content generation, and although preparing to expand with Google+ is a must, researching how it can specifically work for you is the very first step.

It isn’t social media’s panacea – but it could be a great start.

Say Goodbye To Soaps, Shampoos And The End Of An Era

2011-07-17T20:40:00.010-04:00

The following article originally appeared in Luxury Daily, "Soaps, shampoos and the luxury hotel."

Traditionally, luxury has been marketed through exclusivity, status, quality and excess – the latter of which implies “more,” not “less.”

This is what ran through my mind recently as I read a Reuters article, “Greetings trump giveaways at luxury hotels,” about how luxury brand hotels are doing away with the fancy freebies – amenities such as shampoos, lotions, soaps – and replacing them with more “enhanced” service in the form of personalized greetings. Whatever that is, anyway…

In my mind, this is very misguided thinking on the part of luxury hotels.

Bar none
Speaking at the Reuters Global Luxury and Fashion Summit last month, Arne Sorenson, chief operating officer of Marriott, expressed the view that, as rates rise back to pre-recession levels, customers will expect more.

“I think, as rates begin to go back up, which they have been doing since roughly midyear last year, you start to see customers expect more … as they expect more, it will cause us, on balance, to increase service in most brands,” Mr. Sorenson said at the Reuters event.

So, tell me, if consumers are expecting more, why do the soaps have to go?

The disconnect here is that while hotels admit that customers are expecting more with increased rates, hotels are, in fact, giving them less by taking away amenities.

So, in place of this bundle of amenities – a staple of hotel luxury over the last few decades – hotels are expecting that “Hello, Mrs. Smith, welcome back!” is somehow going to excuse a lack of shampoo in the room?

How will hotels convey this message to Mrs. Smith, “Sorry, Ma’am, but instead of shampoo, we’ve memorized your dossier.”

It sounds silly, as it is meant to, but it highlights an important point: luxury hotel guests like amenities, will expect amenities, and given the absence of amenities, will ask for them.

Are hotels ready to explain to Mrs. Smith that it is due to cost cutting, when she is paying a higher rate?

Is the front desk ready to tell Mrs. Smith that her shampoo was replaced by a smile and greeting as she entered the lobby just a few moments ago?

Won’t wash
In working with travel brands and hotel companies, I understand the financial argument: replacing costly extras with enhanced personal service always looks better on the books.

However, luxury customers do not care much about the hotel’s books.

Such customers are willing to pay more, to get more, in both service and amenities. And if they do not get what they want – or expect – they will simple go elsewhere.

Both amenity products and enhanced personal services are part of the “experiential” nature of luxury goods – something that we are going to see a lot more of from travel and hotel brands.

When Mrs. Smith buys a service, she purchases a set of intangible activities carried out on her behalf.

But when she buys an experience, Mrs. Smith pays to spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a company stages to engage her in a personal way.

It could be argued that when luxury guests check-in, they are buying into such an experience from the hotel.

Personalized greetings, enhanced services, and superior products – products that are different than what they normally use – all combine to form the entertainment and escapism necessary to provide luxury consumers the experience that they are expecting.

Additionally, in luxury marketing, enhanced and personalized services are seen as “a special touch,” or a unique way to make the customer feel even more exclusive.

Luxury consumers see such services as an added bonus – one that adds to the experience.

In no way are these services seen by the luxury guest as a replacement for a bundle of physical products that the he or she has received and enjoyed for many years.

Suds, not duds
The only time that luxury brands should even consider getting rid of amenities is in a recessionary, low-rate period, since the customer might excuse the loss of amenities at the lower rate.

To continue reading at luxurydaily.com, click here.

To Like, or Not to Like?

2011-07-11T12:38:00.002-04:00

What does it mean to “like” something online? That designation was vague from the get-go, and with the power-punch of overzealous marketing and social media campaigning, we've become veritable liking machines. Every post has a heart, a thumbs-up, or a plus sign next to it, and after it gets published (whether it's a sentence or a full article), there's StumbleUpon, Tumblr reblogging, and Google +, in addition to standard Twitter retweeting and Facebook liking. My brain hurts already…

In reaction to our increasingly noncommittal “liking” trend, Neil Strauss of the Wall Street Journal mourns the loss of the real online opinion. Gone are the those pioneer days of internet nonconformity, which Strauss blames on a blend of general development and advertising, served with dashes of greed and the ever-present search for “opportunity.” Plus, the internet's gone the way of approval-seeking and of time-wasting, he adds. It isn't only the lack of comments and the bland “+1” labels that reek of herd mentality, but the time-suck of retweeting and view counting that could be funneled into worthwhile internet activity – say actually opining in the comment box.

Lest you write off this post as the ranting of a disillusioned blogger, remember last year's drama when Facebook changed its previously-titled “fan” system to the maligned “like.” Critics also rallied against the switch from “Old Facebook,” but this was something different. Instead of aesthetics, this was about definitions - and clever marketing tactics. In Facebook's case, studies showed that people were twice as likely to click “Like” rather than “Become a Fan,” and that's most likely because the word is nonthreatening, bland, and well, noncommittal. Is that the definition of engagement? Um, no.

Sarah Jacobsson, in a PCWorld article, expounded her issues with “liking” things on Facebook: “'Liking' something on Facebook is a quick, easy way to acknowledge something—give it props, say—without having to be involved at all. […] Facebook seems to think that it's the language that's stopping me -- and that I view 'liking' something as less involvement and therefore easier to click on than 'becoming a fan' of something. This, at least, is true -- I do view 'liking' something as less threatening than 'becoming a fan' of something. But that's because it is true.”So really, “liking” is a very lazy direction to take when it comes to online interaction.

Think about it from the other end: if you're publishing an article that took you hours, would you rather see 50 “like” clicks, or 50 comments on the content you've produced?

That question should be a no-brainer, much like the act of “liking” itself.

A Life Before Email? Does Not Compute

2011-07-07T09:56:00.002-04:00

Our tablets, phones, and laptops of 2011 chug away in harmony, not unlike J.C.R. Licklider’s 1960 vision of human-computer symbiosis. Licklider—a veteran of Harvard and MIT computing-based endeavors—maintained that the human-computer connection would allow machines to address mundane, time-consuming tasks in a highly efficient manner. For the field, his work was outstanding; for a trained psychologist, his contributions were absolutely incredible.

Licklider saw computers as tools with tremendous capability, even convincing his employers to purchase a $25,000 computer in 1957. Imagine? He imagined future work desks as command stations tethered to the wall, with the essential “umbilical cords” completing a “telecommunication-telecomputation system.” Much like his conceptual sketches of electronic libraries and information retrieval (hello eBooks!), Licklider was years ahead of his time.

In fact, Licklider's ideas were accurate enough that they seem basic to us today. Using a computer for essential tasks? Sure. Plugging in at work for the ultimate human-machine team? Done. We use our “machines” to handle the mundane and necessary, and that includes email, which originated with two geeks leaving “Read Me” notes on disk files in the '60s. They wanted electronic mail for practicality's sake, and we still do today – despite the naysaysers who claim that email is dead. But were we productive back when we weren't answering emails every few minutes? We were, but just not as concerned with hearing back from someone a few seconds later. Others argue that we're getting worse in the productivity department: according to a recent study, American office workers spend up to three hours daily on tasks that aren't work-related (44 percent of that time “playing” on the internet), with lost productivity cost employers an estimate of $750 billion last year.

It's also about expectations—and memory retention. Once we know what our machines can do, it's easy to decrease acceptable communication waiting time, permanently. But while Grandma still says that handwritten thank-you notes are more considerate (and, of course, human), there's another reason to turn to paper occasionally: permanence. If you don't want your words to be edited, muddled, or misconstrued in the digital age, making hard copies wouldn't be the worst idea—this New York Times piece says it all . Plus, with new studies showing a 15 percent to 20 percent increase of memory retention in 3D digital media, we're in for a wild ride in advertising .

And I don’t care what anyone says, email is definitely not dead.

What Happens When “Hearsay” Goes Viral and Global?

2011-07-06T09:48:00.003-04:00

Gossip seems to travel faster than ever these days. When a rumor about a company picks up steam via Twitter or Facebook, it can send a PR division into a complete tizzy and overdrive on clarifications and retractions. With that kind of speed, companies have a rock-solid reason for finding social networking-savvy PR representation—unless they want to become a post-gaffe trending topic.

Even if a company has a huge budget for PR backing, crises can and will occur. Delta Air Lines, for example, which got hit hard after making a switch. The rumor? Delta and Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAA) joined forces, meaning that Jewish passengers couldn't board Saudi Arabia-bound flights. It began with an article published by WorldNetDaily, which spread to the Huffington Post. With headlines like USA Today's “Jews Not Able to Fly on Delta Flights to Saudi Arabia” (title since removed), things were not looking good for the largest airline in the world.

Delta could very easily have quashed the ill-intended rumors and clarified any controversy with a well thought out and timely statement. Instead, it seems that paralysis struck its crisis team – panic took over in the anti-Delta free-for-all, which lead The Economist to say that its efforts were “incomplete, unhelpful, and basically added fuel to the fire.” In any case, Delta's full response was submitted far too late to have any real effect - and that battle would be considered lost by any PR company.

For the record, Delta hasn't banned Jewish travelers. Saudi Arabian Airlines joined SkyTeam Alliance, so Delta will be offering tickets from SAA. As Saudi Arabia has their own visa requirements, some Israel-born Jews will have difficulty buying tickets, although this isn’t anything new - and there are workarounds. But does it matter anymore, considering how much negative feedback is still present on Delta's explanatory post?

It's not just Delta, of course. Facebook went under fire for changing its privacy policy, later switching it back after The Consumerist broke the story. In 2008, musician Dave Carroll claimed that United Airlines damaged his $3,500 guitar, which the airline refused to reimburse until he went all out on YouTube. Another PR issue of note happened in 2009 when Toyota's ad agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, offered $15,000 in prize money in a Toyota-sponsored video contest, and then proceeded to choose one considered not only sexist, but “lewd.” Despite public outcry, there wasn't much response from Toyota to smooth things over—and this drama claimed Get Satisfaction's blog's lowest rating. And then there was the safety issue… but that’s for another post.

Crisis or not, bad news moves fast regardless of whether truth has little weight in initial rumblings. That means that PR companies need to hustle a lot faster, have a crisis plan in place, and have crackerjack monitors watching (bad) buzz to deliver a swift attack right back. It might not be easy for every company to do this, but surely the world’s largest airline could spare a few team members to ward off boycotts, inflammatory headlines, and tweet storms that stretch for a week.

And before crisis management? How about trying some crisis prevention, front and center.