Truth in advertising

Expedia, Orbitz, Starwood, Hilton.... They're all the same. Even American
Airlines think that OTAs stink.. Misleading pictures (no one ever gets that
room on the home page), "special" rates that morph into a different deal
when you actually book, the small print that tells you the wi-fi will cost
$18 a pop, homogenized call-center service, and all the other nonsense that
makes booking a hotel stay a rather miserable experience.

Then, of course, there is the location itself. You wouldn't think that a
hotel would intentionally misrepresent its location, would you? Would they?

Well, yes, they did.

The "they" I'm referring to is the Sheraton Skyline in London, at Heathrow
Airport. But not really at Heathrow Airport. Close, sort of. A bit. Not
really.

I arrived at Heathrow. Hotel booking form in hand, I searched for the
Sheraton Skyline, London Heathrow Airport "situated just minutes from the
airport." Was I in the wrong terminal?

I looked, and I asked, and I looked until finally I realised the hotel was
not at the airport. Outside perhaps, just down the street? I read the
booking form again... "Just minutes from the airport" so I hopped into a
Black Cab and off I went, expecting a short cab ride. $55 later I arrived at
said hotel, "just minutes from the airport."

I don't usually blog about personal experiences of this nature, but it was
simply too great an opportunity to talk about the prevalence of misleading
information online. Or, in fact, every medium.

As consumers, we've come to distrust a lot of advertising. We've come to
distrust a lot of media.. To be sure, there's a lot of rubbish and
misinformation out there. Even Apple is in on it, destroying our trust
thanks to its private army of app developers collecting our personal data.
And soon, when our Facebook pages become flooded with social media spam,
we'll come to distrust that space too.

But to mislead customers about your business's location -- so you can
increase the chances of bookings -- that
is the ultimate trust-breaker.

When I complained to the front desk, they told me to ring the corporate
booking centre. When I rang the corporate booking centre, they more or less
told me to go to hell. My hotel "at the airport" turned out to be a false
economy when I added the cab rides and wi-fi charges..

So the moral of this story isn't don't stay at the Sheraton Skyline (well,
perhaps a bit). It's about not believing everything you read. Not even an
address can be counted on as accurate these days. Research, ask questions,
never assume that what you see online is what you'll get, and triple check
the address.

Because there's no truth in advertising anymore.

Goodbye 2010, The Year Of Austerity

And I'll bet you all thought 2009 was a killer.

Initially, I believed that 2010 would be a game-changer year. I was convinced that budgets would creep back up again, clients would become a bit more cheery, gloom would be banished to the South Pole and that the new normal would be, with our newly honed set of values, a well-balanced fabulous.

Well, it delivered in part. Twenty-ten has certainly been a game-changer of a year, but not in the ways that most of us (in our PR world, at least) had expected.

The "new value system" that we were looking forward to never really materialized. Instead, it seems we have collectively created a skewed perspective characterized by fear, hopelessness -- and some would add xenophobia (fear needs a scapegoat, right?) as evidenced by the most divisive political climate this country has seen in decades.

But I digress ...

The transition into austerity this year has proven to be a double-edged sword for our industry. Fiscal concerns have moved us into positions we had not encountered before. Through trial and error, we've redefined our own values and are now managing resources in new and effective ways that are paying off. But it hasn't been easy.

I'd like to share some of what I and my team have learned from a year of austerity.

Never be desperate

Some of the worst client hires -- yes, we hire clients -- were made this year, in the name of billings and cash flow. Forget the saying that cash is king. We found out the hard way that some clients ended up costing us far more than we could have imagined. "I'm Sorry We Hired You" is not a healthy way to view your customers. No price (or client) is worth the sacrifice of your mental health or employee morale!

Focus your efforts on the markets you know best

You can't be all things to everyone. Really. Focus on what you know and improve on that knowledge. Focus on what you love, and your passion and dedication will become contagious. Specialize and own your space. We got rid of practice areas that were either unrelated to our core offerings, or were already too crowded. As a result, we've gained recognition by becoming very focused on several industries -- it was the best move we made.

Which brings me to...

Learn to let go of crap, traditions, and fear-based "playing it safe" actions

We all know that change is hard. Adapting to new ways of doing business and handling clients in a more-for-less climate is difficult for most people. Turning down or letting go of business -- even if it's not good for your agency -- is really hard. But still, we need to find courage to embrace change and evolve with the marketplace. There's no point in wasting time and energy in thoughts of how it used to be. Whatever it was, or will be, it won't be that again.

More lemonade making

The proverbial lemonade stand has grown. We've learned to make do with a whole lot less of everything -- time, money, sleep, holidays, shoes -- the list goes on. But a few things we cannot do with less of are ideas, creativity and motivation. Without more of these in our profession, we are doomed.

Austerity measures are counterproductive 99% of the time

When you limit your thinking or reduce it to "just get by," you will never, ever grow or get out of that place. To become more efficient is one thing, but to operate from a cheapskate stance is another. In 2010, the worst year of our trading, we expanded our staff, locations and client service offerings because we couldn't run our agency in pause mode. Think big, but take responsible risks.

Communicate, communicate, communicate

With clients, staff, stakeholders and, well, everyone you meet. People appreciate honesty and authenticity. They also want to be communicated with, not at. Small gestures of authentic, personalized communication will go a very long way -- especially if you have bad news.

Get off the downbeat bus

We are in the business of image building and shaping perceptions, so liven up, people! No one likes hanging out with a loser. Recognize that there are so many opportunities to be had, or created and carpe diem already. To be sure, the PR industry will go through some significant changes in the coming year, but we are ready.

So goodbye and farewell, austerity, and welcome, 2011, the year of new opportunities and reinvention.

I Still Love You!

Dear Blog,

It’s not you, it’s me.

I just wasn’t feeling the same way about you, so I decided to take a break. Just a little time to think things through. You know, you and I were so close for so long. What was it, a year? I couldn’t throw it all away. I thought that maybe a little distance would do the trick. What’s that saying, absence makes the heart grow fonder?

Well, it worked. I came back to you. I missed you. Did you miss me?

I promise not to disappear again. Really. I’ll be good and post regularly… starting tomorrow, maybe.

Will Give Good Coverage For Free Stay

Perhaps I'm a killjoy, but I don’t like it when other people get freebies. And especially when those freebies take the form of a hotel room. And especially when the free hotel room is in exchange for media coverage. It came to my attention that a tourist bureau (to protect the guilty, I’m not naming names) frequently sends out requests to hotels and their publicists looking for exchanges. Media fam tours are one thing, this room-for-free-media-coverage is something else entirely.

It goes something like this:

Mr Ben D. Rulz, and Miss C. Sponger are coming to [insert city here] and are looking for accommodations (read: free) at high-end venues in exchange for very positive media coverage and a high profile feature naming FREE HOTEL as the place to stay in [insert city here].

Does it bother you, or am I just being a stickler?

Perhaps I am (and probably still having holiday withdrawals), but how is it ethical to promise such a superlative endorsement without experiencing the hotel first? How can a journalist promise positive media coverage when he or she doesn’t even know which hotel will respond to the request for free board? And how objective is the writer if his or her trip was funded (even in part) by the host?

How about revealing this freebie to readers - to whom a journalist’s responsibility should be – that your arrangements were based on a barter? I’ll definitely be reading travel reviews and destination recommendations with very different eyes from now…

Despite what I just wrote, I do have a free week in mid-January – in case the tourist bureau is reading -- and the hubby and I would simply adore a romantic get-away, and a massage, and open bar. And I probably don't have to remind all of you 5-star hospitality venues reading this that there will be some stiff competition for the Valentine's romantic get-away dollar this year. Oh, and did I mention I'm in PR, well connected and might be able to get you into a magazine or two?

Your Brain on Ads

Hello!

Vanessa is taking a break this week, so the following post comes to you courtesy of me – Katie Norwood. Nice to meet you all!

Vanessa and I were exchanging thoughts last week about a New York Times article that looks at “neuromarketing,” a new science that uses neuroscience to analyze people’s responses to advertisements, products and promotions. Neuromarketing testing techniques are poised to mine the untapped resources of the unconscious to help marketers understand more of what makes consumers tick. Perhaps predictably, marketers have embraced the science, the idea being that by learning how advertisements effect consumers’ brains, they will be able to tap into consumer’s subconscious in order to market more effectively, and sell more products.

Angling to maintain a competitive edge, a number of major corporations including Google, CBS, Disney, Frito-Lay and A&E Television have already embraced the neuromarketing techniques to test consumer impressions and responses. And they’re not alone in their support of the science. Proponents of neuromarketing contend that traditional market research methods are less effective because they are only measure participants’ opinions and impressions on a conscious level; and considering only 2% of the brain’s energy is expended on conscious activity and the rest is mainly devoted to unconscious activity, the importance of exploring the untapped unconscious is certainly significant.

A Controversial Approach

Technologically innovative though it may be, neuromarketing has been met with opposition from some consumer advocate groups, who have been quick to term the technique “brandwashing” – a clever combination of branding and brainwashing. Consumer groups have expressed concerned that the technique could be used to exert excessive influence over the subconscious mind, shaping consumers into robots without their consent and without any regard to the ethical implications of such action. However, as Singer’s article notes, scientists have expressed doubt that neuromarketing can trigger brain activity that can directly influence consumers’ buying behavior. The human brain, it seems, is much too complicated for such trickery.

But if neuromarketing could directly influence consumers’ buying behavior – what would happen then? Perhaps corporations would embrace neuromarketing wholeheartedly. Perhaps, over time, traditional advertising would be deemed outdated and obsolete.

On the other hand, if neuromarketing was able to successfully circumvent adults’ rational mental defenses, it might not be legally protected in the same way that traditional advertising is protected. And it might not be ethical.

What do you think? I’d love to hear what you think – you can reach me here or directly at knorwood@thinkinkpr.com.

In Response to Word Crimes

I received a number of responses to my Committing Word Crime post last week, and not all of them in agreement with me.

My columns are designed to do just that – start dialogue and debate - and confirm why it’s so important not just to provide “how-to” advice, but to delve into deeper issues -- like word usage – for us to think about, and think about how this impacts our (PR) industry and what we do.

This particular column came about from frustration and tiredness. I was reading press release and after press release all using similar “positioning” and opening lines… “XYZ, the leader in XYZ, announces it breakthrough leading-edge innovation platform/solution that will transform XXX.” At the same time, a number of clients insisted upon using hyperbole-laden phrases in their messaging and I just threw my hands up. I thought to myself “every company is now a leader, every company displays thought-leadership. Every company is the first to, blah blah, blah. Where’s the creativity, or differentiation folks?”

It is hard to keep coming up with new insights, and that’s exactly why we are seeing the same words used the way they are. It’s also a reflection of the overwhelming speed of our communication cycle and the volume of content that is being created.

What words can we use that will make the most impact? How can we get through all of this content and information?

It is a struggle, to be sure.

But in this discussion, there’s no right or wrong answer. I do believe, however, that through sheer overuse the value of certain words and phrases becomes diminished. Perhaps you also cringe at the words paradigm, synergistic, and out-of-the-box, that were some of 2004-2005’s buzzwords?

The same thing happens each year, and so most likely we’ll revert to the words we used in 1998-1999 next year, as they’ll feel sort of new again?

As one writer said, "language is to be used." I agree. It just should be used creatively and meaningfully.

In Social Media We Trust?

Marketing companies are now offering a new service: social media coverage in the form of front-page placements on websites like Digg and sponsored tweets from Twitter “power accounts” yielding hundreds of thousands of followers. The cost of this service is cheap and the promised exposure is enticing – but is it all ethical? That is the question asked by Forbes’ Elizabeth Woyke in a recent article, “$240 To Place Story On Digg Front Page: One Marketing Firm’s Pitch,” and it’s not an easy one to answer.

Some have argued against the pay-for-play model that is slowly becoming prevalent across social media networks, but on the other hand, social networks need a way to make money and if companies are transparent in their dealings, is there anything really wrong with this model? As much as social media has been discussed over the past few years, it is still a burgeoning phenomenon. Social media is evolving, and because there is no formal regulation – yet – us marketers are learning and making up the model as we go.

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

The survival of social media networks is entirely dependent on its users – if there are no users, there is no network. Sites like Digg and Reddit are completely dependent on user-generated content. Meanwhile, companies seeking increased visibility may opt to use PR companies to generate and distribute content on their behalf, or set up a corporate social account in order to share content. Social networks need content and companies want exposure– marketing companies that offer to connect the two are, in a sense, facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship (while charging a fee, of course). Is this not a win-win scenario?

While marketer’s ethical conduct in regards to social media is a topic that is still somewhat new, the issue of pay-for-play in media sponsorships has long been the subject of debate and industry scrutiny. Five years ago, advertisers were faced with considerable pressure as product placements were being written into television and movie scripts. Last year, it was the “Mommy Bloggers” who were called to task failing to be transparent in their product reviews and their “sponsors.”

Relevancy and Transparency

In these dealings, what’s critical is transparency – and relevant, meaningful content. Provided that companies fully disclose that they have sponsored the content, and that the content is useful and interesting, users won’t really care where it is from. The second that consumers believe that they are trying to be swindled by false or inauthentic content, the company’s brand reputation will be shot. Consumers will read sponsored content if it is relevant and engaging – but what they won’t stand for, and shouldn’t stand for, is having their intelligence insulted, free content or not.

What is your view? Do you care if someone has paid to take top-billing on a blog or a social media site if what they are delivering is of use, value or meaning to you?