A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other
things I find interesting.
Twitter and LinkedIn Split Up: Believe me, my friends, Twitter is doing you a favor by no longer letting your cross-post your tweets onto LinkedIn. Sure, some of what you post on Twitter is relevant to a professional networking site. But a lot of it isn't, and it annoys your LinkedIn connections.
GM and Facebook Might Get Back Together: Am I missing something here? Yes, I realize that GM's announcement that it was ditching Facebook ads was blamed in part for Facebook's lackluster IPO. But is GM really such a trendsetter that it alone can arrest Facebook's slide? The larger problem for Facebook is if companies like GM discover they can get just as much value by utilizing free content on Facebook. Then what does the social network do?
NBC Tells Its Friends It's Dumping Ann Curry: In a rather cynical take on PR, Adele Cehrs praises NBC for minimizing the damage of pushing Ann Curry off The Today Show by allowing rumors about her departure and stories blaming her for the show's ratings tumble to leak out.
NBC made the news regarding Curry’s removal work to its benefit by using the
trickle effect. The trickle effect is a strategy in which
information is released in small doses over time to reduce the overall backlash
of a negative announcement.
Certainly, the slow, steady divulgence of information, done deliberately, is a good strategy for preparing publics, internal and external, for bad news. But leaking information designed to portray a single, identifiable individual in a bad light is downright mean, not to mention unethical. I'm not naive in thinking it's not done a lot. But it isn't the kind of public relations I want to practice.
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Share this on Facebook
I was going to save this thoughtful critique in Forbes of Facebook's advertising model for The Spin Cycle, but given Facebook's massive IPO this afternoon, it seemed particularly pertinent.
Us PR/marketing types are still figuring out how to measure the impact of social media. Hell, some of us are still figuring out the best way to measure the impact of traditional media, so it's no surprise that there is fierce debate over the value of a "like" (which conventional wisdom now says is not terribly valuable) versus a "share" (which conventional wisdom now says is the coin of the realm):
Lazerow’s company helps “advertisers succeed on Facebook and other major social networks” and claims to have developed a way of measuring social KPIs, or key performance indicators. According to Lazerow, data from his clients show that “every share on Facebook generates an average of $2.10 in incremental sales.”
Really? It’s hard enough to get exact numbers on conventional key word campaigns that are aimed at driving the purchase of specific products, since other factors can contribute to a boost in sales. And Facebook shares aren’t necessarily product focused. Indeed, because content on a company’s Facebook page strives to be “engaging” it’s often not about products at all. At best, shares of these posts help create a warm and fuzzy feeling about a company that, at some point in the future, might turn into a sale. (There’s that word again.)
For the sake of argument, let's postulate that there is a causal relationship between shares on Facebook and sales. Whether or not the content is product-centric is irrelevant; if it has built trust in the brand that spurs a consumer to action, then Facebook has done its job for the seller. The problem for Facebook is if this sharing comes from content on a brand's free Facebook page, as opposed to one of its paid ads. This free content is where GM plans to focus its Facebook efforts, the company announced this week.
The writer of the Forbes article does not take for granted that sharing has concrete value, and questions why it is desirable given that people's Facebook friends may be very different from themselves -- and thus not part of the brand's target audience. Many of us have assumed that sharing is a 21st century equivalent of word-of-mouth advertising, but the people we actually interact with in the real world may have a lot more in common with us than the people we are friends with on Facebook. I'm not quite that skeptical -- after all, our Facebook friends likely share at least some demographic similarities to us -- but it is an argument worth pondering. There are people I'm friends with on Facebook whose taste in restaurants, or music, or baby strollers I could care not one whit about.
Us PR/marketing types are still figuring out how to measure the impact of social media. Hell, some of us are still figuring out the best way to measure the impact of traditional media, so it's no surprise that there is fierce debate over the value of a "like" (which conventional wisdom now says is not terribly valuable) versus a "share" (which conventional wisdom now says is the coin of the realm):
Lazerow’s company helps “advertisers succeed on Facebook and other major social networks” and claims to have developed a way of measuring social KPIs, or key performance indicators. According to Lazerow, data from his clients show that “every share on Facebook generates an average of $2.10 in incremental sales.”
Really? It’s hard enough to get exact numbers on conventional key word campaigns that are aimed at driving the purchase of specific products, since other factors can contribute to a boost in sales. And Facebook shares aren’t necessarily product focused. Indeed, because content on a company’s Facebook page strives to be “engaging” it’s often not about products at all. At best, shares of these posts help create a warm and fuzzy feeling about a company that, at some point in the future, might turn into a sale. (There’s that word again.)
For the sake of argument, let's postulate that there is a causal relationship between shares on Facebook and sales. Whether or not the content is product-centric is irrelevant; if it has built trust in the brand that spurs a consumer to action, then Facebook has done its job for the seller. The problem for Facebook is if this sharing comes from content on a brand's free Facebook page, as opposed to one of its paid ads. This free content is where GM plans to focus its Facebook efforts, the company announced this week.
The writer of the Forbes article does not take for granted that sharing has concrete value, and questions why it is desirable given that people's Facebook friends may be very different from themselves -- and thus not part of the brand's target audience. Many of us have assumed that sharing is a 21st century equivalent of word-of-mouth advertising, but the people we actually interact with in the real world may have a lot more in common with us than the people we are friends with on Facebook. I'm not quite that skeptical -- after all, our Facebook friends likely share at least some demographic similarities to us -- but it is an argument worth pondering. There are people I'm friends with on Facebook whose taste in restaurants, or music, or baby strollers I could care not one whit about.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
You still say hello!
The RepMan thinks AMC's new reality show "The Pitch" (which I have not seen) represents all that is wrong with advertising, and why "advertising is in decline and PR is ascending. Advertising talks at people; PR engages in conversations with them."
Fair enough, and far be it from me to argue with my favorite PR blogger when he insists that PR's more glamorous cousin is viewing its best days in the rearview mirror. It is certainly true that mass advertising has lost its captive audience with the fragmentation of said audience and the rise of on-demand media consumption. You can't talk at people; they'll change the channel, as RepMan so aptly notes.
Yet advertising, done well, is still a great way to kick-start the conversations that those of us in PR so deeply treasure. It's a way of saying "Hello." The great Pittsburgh ad man Ray Werner, in explaining Robert Morris University's Change A Life campaign, described the campaign and its web component as "hook and hang time." The advertising -- including print, TV, radio, and billboards -- lured people to the web site, where the conversation, and hopefuly a relationship, could begin.
The best advertising does that. Think the Old Spice Man commercials, which preceeded a spectacular social media campaign that not only started a conversation, but boosted sales to boot. (Which is kind of the whole idea.)
So yes, the lame kind of top-down, audience-ignorant ad campaigns that RepMan tells us are the grist of "The Pitch" are indeed dying, slow though their death may be. They're like the guy at the end of the bar, wearing too much cologne and spouting bad pick-up lines. But us PR types still a need good wingman once in a while to keep the conversation lively.
Fair enough, and far be it from me to argue with my favorite PR blogger when he insists that PR's more glamorous cousin is viewing its best days in the rearview mirror. It is certainly true that mass advertising has lost its captive audience with the fragmentation of said audience and the rise of on-demand media consumption. You can't talk at people; they'll change the channel, as RepMan so aptly notes.
Yet advertising, done well, is still a great way to kick-start the conversations that those of us in PR so deeply treasure. It's a way of saying "Hello." The great Pittsburgh ad man Ray Werner, in explaining Robert Morris University's Change A Life campaign, described the campaign and its web component as "hook and hang time." The advertising -- including print, TV, radio, and billboards -- lured people to the web site, where the conversation, and hopefuly a relationship, could begin.
The best advertising does that. Think the Old Spice Man commercials, which preceeded a spectacular social media campaign that not only started a conversation, but boosted sales to boot. (Which is kind of the whole idea.)
So yes, the lame kind of top-down, audience-ignorant ad campaigns that RepMan tells us are the grist of "The Pitch" are indeed dying, slow though their death may be. They're like the guy at the end of the bar, wearing too much cologne and spouting bad pick-up lines. But us PR types still a need good wingman once in a while to keep the conversation lively.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The medium is still the message
Some drowsy, end-of-the-day thoughts on a Nielson survey of consumers worldwide: What struck me about this survey is that a greater percentage of respondents said they trust information found on "owned media" such as company web sites than in paid advertising. So think about it: People are more likely to believe what they read on the Coca-Cola web site, for example, than what they see and hear on Coke's TV commercials -- even though the source of the information is exactly the same, Coca-Cola.
Not surprising that the media influences the reliability of the message. As the survey also shows, trust varies depending on the type of paid advertising, whether print or broadcast, or even by type of print, magazing or newspaper. Nonetheless, it should remind us, even in the age of social media, that our actual web sites are very important. Remember when people were talking about whether they could use a Facebook page to replace their web site? Facebook's constant tinkering and fluctuating privacy controls put that talk to a rest, and I always thought the issue was overblown.
I suspect one of the reasons that companies' web sites fare better than their paid ads is that the smart organizations use their web sites not just to sell but to tell a story, and to share their values -- or better yet, show those values in action. I found myself coming back to the concept of brand journalism: using the tools at your disposal (in this case, your web site) to provide your audience with value that is independent of your product or service but which builds trust in your brand.
Utility is an important concept. People can't really use advertising, per se, but they use the Internet all the time. They use it to buy shoes and schedule dinner reservations. They use to download music and surreptitiously watch the NCAA tournament at work. So even if they have conditioned themselves to be skeptical of what they read online, the medium has inherent usefulness, while much of paid advertising is found in media that are purely for entertainment. (Note the Nielson survey shows that trust in online advertising is growing.)
So utility is another key to building an effective web site. Is it useful to your audience, not just the content but the experience? One of the things that my university web team has done over the past few months has been to simplify the online form that prospective students use to request information. We're tracking submissions, before and after, and thus far the results are promising.
Bottom line, audiences are increasingly likely, simply by default, to find your web site credible. What are you doing to enhance that credibility and cultivate it to grow your brand?
Not surprising that the media influences the reliability of the message. As the survey also shows, trust varies depending on the type of paid advertising, whether print or broadcast, or even by type of print, magazing or newspaper. Nonetheless, it should remind us, even in the age of social media, that our actual web sites are very important. Remember when people were talking about whether they could use a Facebook page to replace their web site? Facebook's constant tinkering and fluctuating privacy controls put that talk to a rest, and I always thought the issue was overblown.
I suspect one of the reasons that companies' web sites fare better than their paid ads is that the smart organizations use their web sites not just to sell but to tell a story, and to share their values -- or better yet, show those values in action. I found myself coming back to the concept of brand journalism: using the tools at your disposal (in this case, your web site) to provide your audience with value that is independent of your product or service but which builds trust in your brand.
Utility is an important concept. People can't really use advertising, per se, but they use the Internet all the time. They use it to buy shoes and schedule dinner reservations. They use to download music and surreptitiously watch the NCAA tournament at work. So even if they have conditioned themselves to be skeptical of what they read online, the medium has inherent usefulness, while much of paid advertising is found in media that are purely for entertainment. (Note the Nielson survey shows that trust in online advertising is growing.)
So utility is another key to building an effective web site. Is it useful to your audience, not just the content but the experience? One of the things that my university web team has done over the past few months has been to simplify the online form that prospective students use to request information. We're tracking submissions, before and after, and thus far the results are promising.
Bottom line, audiences are increasingly likely, simply by default, to find your web site credible. What are you doing to enhance that credibility and cultivate it to grow your brand?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Brother, can you spare 20 more articles?
I found some early data regarding the impact on site traffic of the New York Times' new paywall. Looks like both traffic and page impressions are down, which is no surprise, of course. The author notes that there is no apparent change in traffic from Google or social media sites, which allow one to access the Times without paying and without it counting against your 20-article per month limit. However, I doubt people are so highly motivated to read the times that they hunt for links to stories at these channels. One commentor makes the case that people may not aware these articles don't count against your limit, and may avoid the site as a result. The other concern I would have were I the New York Times is that some readers may have heard about the paywall but aren't aware that it doesn't kick in immediately.
Having a smaller audience isn't necessarily a bad thing, even leaving aside the revenue generated from subscriptions. A smaller readership makes it easier for the Times to tease out demographics and other audience characteristics, and can sell advertisers on tailoring content appropriately. The Times should be concerned, as at one least one commentator writes, that its content is not unique enough to maintain subscribers over time. I wonder if they've given thought to approaching advertisers about creating content specific to the Times that adds value, such as short films that can be seen only via subscription at the Times. (Or that count toward the 20-article limit, so that interested readers get a tease of what they might be missing.) If they can generate subscription dollars and increase advertising revenue by delivering readers more likely to click on sponsored content, then they can make skeptics like me look like fools.
Having a smaller audience isn't necessarily a bad thing, even leaving aside the revenue generated from subscriptions. A smaller readership makes it easier for the Times to tease out demographics and other audience characteristics, and can sell advertisers on tailoring content appropriately. The Times should be concerned, as at one least one commentator writes, that its content is not unique enough to maintain subscribers over time. I wonder if they've given thought to approaching advertisers about creating content specific to the Times that adds value, such as short films that can be seen only via subscription at the Times. (Or that count toward the 20-article limit, so that interested readers get a tease of what they might be missing.) If they can generate subscription dollars and increase advertising revenue by delivering readers more likely to click on sponsored content, then they can make skeptics like me look like fools.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
May I have your attention?
I mentioned recently that I'm reading The Idea Writers which is a guide for advertising copywriters in the digital age but which is applicable to any kind of content creation. Case in point:
"today, as a copywriter or other brand creativity maestro, you're not just making something that will compete with other brands and other messages created by brands. You're making something to compete with every other piece of content, every other media experience that a person has during her waking hours."
Years ago I did some freelance writing for an excellent magazine editor named Robert Mendelson, who at the time was the editor of Pitt Magazine. (Today he's the editor of Carnegie Mellon Today.) Robert told me that Pitt Magazine wasn't competing with other alumni magazines. (Most people only get one, anyway.) Instead, it was competing with everything thing else that Pitt alumni had to read, everything that arrived every day in their mail box. So it better be a damn good magazine that anyone would want to read, whether or not they knew the first thing about the University of Pittsburgh. Now that I supervise the publication of the alumni magazine at Robert Morris, I've adopted that same attitude.
In other words, the competition for attention that we face as content creators didn't begin with the Internet or social media, though those things certainly intensified that competition, increased it geometrically. Each new medium threatens to steal the audience of the media that preceded it. The creatives who survive and thrive are those who refuse to be chained to any single discipline. In the 1950s, Disney was the first film studio to embrace television, because Walt Disney didn't see himself as being in the movie business; he saw himself as being in the entertainment business. Many newspapers have been flailing because they think they are in the newspaper business, and forget they are in the journalism business.
It's also worth noting that audience control over content didn't begin with the Internet -- it really began with the TV remote and the VCR. The remote control freed us from our own laziness at having to get up and walk to the TV to change the channel when we were bored with what we were watching. Not only did it impact advertisers, since we could avoid commercials, but the producers of TV programs could not longer take us for granted. They had to grab our interest and hold it if they wanted us to keep watching.
As for the VCR, it may be clumsy and primitive compared to a DVR, but remember how liberating it felt to be able to record a program when you were out, or watch one program and record another. I remember as a kid, the final episode of M*A*S*H aired the same night -- in 1983 -- as a Cub Scout banquet. The pack leaders had to promise everyone the event would end in time to get home to watch the show. Now, the only thing you have to worry about is reading a spoiler on Facebook or Twitter.
For those daunted by the jumbled and fragmented media landscape we face today as content creators, it's helpful to realize these changes are evolutionary, not necessarily revolutionary, in character. Sometimes, though, evolution takes a great leap forward. This is one of those times.
"today, as a copywriter or other brand creativity maestro, you're not just making something that will compete with other brands and other messages created by brands. You're making something to compete with every other piece of content, every other media experience that a person has during her waking hours."
Years ago I did some freelance writing for an excellent magazine editor named Robert Mendelson, who at the time was the editor of Pitt Magazine. (Today he's the editor of Carnegie Mellon Today.) Robert told me that Pitt Magazine wasn't competing with other alumni magazines. (Most people only get one, anyway.) Instead, it was competing with everything thing else that Pitt alumni had to read, everything that arrived every day in their mail box. So it better be a damn good magazine that anyone would want to read, whether or not they knew the first thing about the University of Pittsburgh. Now that I supervise the publication of the alumni magazine at Robert Morris, I've adopted that same attitude.
In other words, the competition for attention that we face as content creators didn't begin with the Internet or social media, though those things certainly intensified that competition, increased it geometrically. Each new medium threatens to steal the audience of the media that preceded it. The creatives who survive and thrive are those who refuse to be chained to any single discipline. In the 1950s, Disney was the first film studio to embrace television, because Walt Disney didn't see himself as being in the movie business; he saw himself as being in the entertainment business. Many newspapers have been flailing because they think they are in the newspaper business, and forget they are in the journalism business.
It's also worth noting that audience control over content didn't begin with the Internet -- it really began with the TV remote and the VCR. The remote control freed us from our own laziness at having to get up and walk to the TV to change the channel when we were bored with what we were watching. Not only did it impact advertisers, since we could avoid commercials, but the producers of TV programs could not longer take us for granted. They had to grab our interest and hold it if they wanted us to keep watching.
As for the VCR, it may be clumsy and primitive compared to a DVR, but remember how liberating it felt to be able to record a program when you were out, or watch one program and record another. I remember as a kid, the final episode of M*A*S*H aired the same night -- in 1983 -- as a Cub Scout banquet. The pack leaders had to promise everyone the event would end in time to get home to watch the show. Now, the only thing you have to worry about is reading a spoiler on Facebook or Twitter.
For those daunted by the jumbled and fragmented media landscape we face today as content creators, it's helpful to realize these changes are evolutionary, not necessarily revolutionary, in character. Sometimes, though, evolution takes a great leap forward. This is one of those times.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Everything I needed to know about public relations I learned from Don Draper
Don Draper, the fictional ad man on AMC's "Mad Men," has previously expressed his disdain for public relations -- an attitude mirroring that held by many of his real-life counterparts. But last night's season four premiere was aptly titled "Public Relations," with Don and his colleagues finding some use for their profession's cousin. In the process, he provides a decent PR primer.
I had originally thought that Don's smack-down of the Jantzen swimwear execs was a stunt, in parcel with his subsequent interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter. But "Mad Men" series creater Matthew Weiner set me straight during an interview today on "Fresh Air." That scene, in which Don unveils a risque ad campaign he knows the straight-laced Jantzen boys will reject, was really about Don calling a spade a spade. Jantzen wants to pretend it isn't selling sex, even refusing to call its swimsuit a bikini, since bikinis are merely "underwear you wear to the beach." If they don't own up to what their product is really about, their competition is going to eat them alive, Don tells them.
That's lesson number one: Own your brand.
In reality, it was Peggy Olson who taught Don that lesson. After he chews her out for pulling off her own PR stunt, she reminds him that everyone in the new firm had put their future at risk to follow Don. They all wanted to please him. No matter how many other names are on the letter head, it's his firm, and he better start acting like it.
Which brings us to the next lesson. After blowing an interview with an Advertising Age reporter by refusing to answer the question, "Who is Don Draper?" -- a question, that, at its heart, Don really can't answer -- he gives the WSJ reporter an exclusive about how he convinced his partners and co-workers to flee Sterling Cooper to form the new agency. The reporter eats it up, and Don seems to relish the tale. Why shouldn't he? After all, it's his story, and for once, Don gets to tell the whole unadulterated truth.
That's lesson number two: The truth is the best kind of public relations.
Unfortunately, Don Draper and the truth have but a passing acquaintance.
I had originally thought that Don's smack-down of the Jantzen swimwear execs was a stunt, in parcel with his subsequent interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter. But "Mad Men" series creater Matthew Weiner set me straight during an interview today on "Fresh Air." That scene, in which Don unveils a risque ad campaign he knows the straight-laced Jantzen boys will reject, was really about Don calling a spade a spade. Jantzen wants to pretend it isn't selling sex, even refusing to call its swimsuit a bikini, since bikinis are merely "underwear you wear to the beach." If they don't own up to what their product is really about, their competition is going to eat them alive, Don tells them.
That's lesson number one: Own your brand.
In reality, it was Peggy Olson who taught Don that lesson. After he chews her out for pulling off her own PR stunt, she reminds him that everyone in the new firm had put their future at risk to follow Don. They all wanted to please him. No matter how many other names are on the letter head, it's his firm, and he better start acting like it.
Which brings us to the next lesson. After blowing an interview with an Advertising Age reporter by refusing to answer the question, "Who is Don Draper?" -- a question, that, at its heart, Don really can't answer -- he gives the WSJ reporter an exclusive about how he convinced his partners and co-workers to flee Sterling Cooper to form the new agency. The reporter eats it up, and Don seems to relish the tale. Why shouldn't he? After all, it's his story, and for once, Don gets to tell the whole unadulterated truth.
That's lesson number two: The truth is the best kind of public relations.
Unfortunately, Don Draper and the truth have but a passing acquaintance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)