Showing posts with label brand journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brand journalism. Show all posts
Thursday, November 15, 2012
I'd like to teach the world brand journalism
Coke turns its employee magazine inside out with a new brand journalism site. Cool stuff.
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?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The myths we live by
I like what author Douglass Rushkoff is saying in this Q & A with Fast Company, and what's not to like if you are a PR guy?
What will marketing organizations look like in the future?
It will be companies that figure out how to communicate the non-fiction story of a company, so it’s going to look a lot more like a communications company than a creative branding agency. It’s going to look a little bit more like PR, in some sense. It’s going to be people who go and figure out what does your company do and how do we let the world know about that? There’s going to be a lot of psychology involved, except instead of it being psychologists turned against the consumer, it’s going to be psychologists going in and trying to convince companies that what they’re doing is worthy. It’s breaking down this false need in companies to hide from the public what they’re doing--except for the ones that do (need to hide).
What Rushkoff says dovetails nicely with what I and others have written about brand journalism (a.k.a. currated content) in which an organization tell its story without salesmanship and provides value to its audience in ways that do not merely serve its own needs. I like the hard question that Rushkoff asks of companies: “Well, are you proud of what’s going on inside your company? Are you proud enough to pull up the shades and let people see inside?”
I do take issue with Rushkoff's use of the word "mythology." Myths are not merely stories that are untrue. They are allegories, stories that may not be true at face value but which convey a deeper meaning, a deeper truth. Often myths convey our values -- as cultures, as nations, as organizations. As organizations we need to mine our myths for the values that lie beneath. These are the values upon which we build relationships, and they should endure, even if, in the age of transparency, the myths do not.
What will marketing organizations look like in the future?
It will be companies that figure out how to communicate the non-fiction story of a company, so it’s going to look a lot more like a communications company than a creative branding agency. It’s going to look a little bit more like PR, in some sense. It’s going to be people who go and figure out what does your company do and how do we let the world know about that? There’s going to be a lot of psychology involved, except instead of it being psychologists turned against the consumer, it’s going to be psychologists going in and trying to convince companies that what they’re doing is worthy. It’s breaking down this false need in companies to hide from the public what they’re doing--except for the ones that do (need to hide).
What Rushkoff says dovetails nicely with what I and others have written about brand journalism (a.k.a. currated content) in which an organization tell its story without salesmanship and provides value to its audience in ways that do not merely serve its own needs. I like the hard question that Rushkoff asks of companies: “Well, are you proud of what’s going on inside your company? Are you proud enough to pull up the shades and let people see inside?”
I do take issue with Rushkoff's use of the word "mythology." Myths are not merely stories that are untrue. They are allegories, stories that may not be true at face value but which convey a deeper meaning, a deeper truth. Often myths convey our values -- as cultures, as nations, as organizations. As organizations we need to mine our myths for the values that lie beneath. These are the values upon which we build relationships, and they should endure, even if, in the age of transparency, the myths do not.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
It's a clip show
I'm using an influx of new followers to my Twitter feed, which includes a link to this blog, as an excuse to do a recap of the most-read posts from Spin This in 2011, with a little added commentary to make it all worth your while. Here goes:
1. Matt Lauer, meanie
This was not only the most popular post of 2011, but has gotten the most hits since I started this blog in July 2010. I'll admit to walking back a bit the argument I made in this post that my fellow PR practitioners spend too much time worrying about the perception of the public relations industry. It sparked a healthy conversation with Frank Strong, PR in Pink, and Gini Dietrich about the consequences of negative stereotypes of our field, and how we should go about combating them. My prescription -- that we should simply let our good work speak for itself -- was a bit naive; if that was all that was required to maintain a good reputation for a person, organization, industry, etc., than no one would have any need for our expertise in the first place. The bottom line is that our clients and employers do need us, not just as communicators but as strategic advisors, to help them make sound decisions, and they won't trust us to do so if they see us as nothing but spin artists.
2. Brand Journalism 101
In this post, I talked about the opportunities that digital communications tools provide those of us in marketing and PR to tell our stories directly to our target audiences, bypassing the news media and other traditional filters. It's about giving your audience value: information that is useful to them but that also advances your organization's strategic goals. Some people call it content curation. Whatever you call it, it's the reason why there's never been a better time to be in public relations.
3. Stop this man before he speaks again
Just when it appeared that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings couldn't do any more damage to this once vaunted brand, he gave an interview in October to the New York Times Magazine in which he seemed to blame his company's customers for the debacle that was Qwikster. Previously I had discussed the difference between a genuine crisis and a PR crisis, and noted that Netflix had both on its hands, thanks to its CEO's verbal diarrhea.
4. Print is still fit for news
We're not dead yet, says the traditional news media, given a media use survey that found affluent audiences -- the ones that are often most coveted by marketeers -- still get most of their news from TV and print, and prefer to read magazines in print rather than online. The bottom line for professional communicators: Know your audience, know their preferences, and don't forget the old tricks even as you master new ones.
5. It's the message, stupid
This post was of particular to interest to my Pittsburgh readers, but is of relevance to everyone. I dissected the public relations battle between hospital giant UPMC and insurance giant Highmark. I concluded that despite a preponderance of negative publicity, UPMC was coming out ahead because it was consistent in its message that it had a plan that would allow Highmark subscribers to continue to have access to UPMC physicians. The lesson here is that the messages conveyed by media coverage may be more important than the tone of that coverage.
Well, that's likely it for 2011. Have a Happy New Year, and thanks for all your support. Let's do it again next year.
1. Matt Lauer, meanie
This was not only the most popular post of 2011, but has gotten the most hits since I started this blog in July 2010. I'll admit to walking back a bit the argument I made in this post that my fellow PR practitioners spend too much time worrying about the perception of the public relations industry. It sparked a healthy conversation with Frank Strong, PR in Pink, and Gini Dietrich about the consequences of negative stereotypes of our field, and how we should go about combating them. My prescription -- that we should simply let our good work speak for itself -- was a bit naive; if that was all that was required to maintain a good reputation for a person, organization, industry, etc., than no one would have any need for our expertise in the first place. The bottom line is that our clients and employers do need us, not just as communicators but as strategic advisors, to help them make sound decisions, and they won't trust us to do so if they see us as nothing but spin artists.
2. Brand Journalism 101
In this post, I talked about the opportunities that digital communications tools provide those of us in marketing and PR to tell our stories directly to our target audiences, bypassing the news media and other traditional filters. It's about giving your audience value: information that is useful to them but that also advances your organization's strategic goals. Some people call it content curation. Whatever you call it, it's the reason why there's never been a better time to be in public relations.
3. Stop this man before he speaks again
Just when it appeared that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings couldn't do any more damage to this once vaunted brand, he gave an interview in October to the New York Times Magazine in which he seemed to blame his company's customers for the debacle that was Qwikster. Previously I had discussed the difference between a genuine crisis and a PR crisis, and noted that Netflix had both on its hands, thanks to its CEO's verbal diarrhea.
4. Print is still fit for news
We're not dead yet, says the traditional news media, given a media use survey that found affluent audiences -- the ones that are often most coveted by marketeers -- still get most of their news from TV and print, and prefer to read magazines in print rather than online. The bottom line for professional communicators: Know your audience, know their preferences, and don't forget the old tricks even as you master new ones.
5. It's the message, stupid
This post was of particular to interest to my Pittsburgh readers, but is of relevance to everyone. I dissected the public relations battle between hospital giant UPMC and insurance giant Highmark. I concluded that despite a preponderance of negative publicity, UPMC was coming out ahead because it was consistent in its message that it had a plan that would allow Highmark subscribers to continue to have access to UPMC physicians. The lesson here is that the messages conveyed by media coverage may be more important than the tone of that coverage.
Well, that's likely it for 2011. Have a Happy New Year, and thanks for all your support. Let's do it again next year.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Once more, with feeling
I stumbled on this debate about the merits of brand journalism, which I think is one of the great innovations in public relations and marketing in the digital age. It's clear to me that the writer of the anti-brand journalism essay doesn't actually understand what brand journalim -- which others call "currated content" -- actually is:
Imagine this scenario: A technology company releases a new smartphone and begins a massive marketing campaign, claiming the phone does amazing things, is faster than any other phone, and has the best network. But consumers are much better served by turning to journalists—real journalists—for reviews of the phone. A technology site such as CNET (CBS) would put the phone through extra paces, with all the marketing claims tested in a lab.
Well, duh. Except brand journalism isn't about a company boasting about its products, something they did just fine before the Internet. Such claims are not given more creditibility simply because they are made on a company blog or Facebook page, and most consumers understand that, even if there are fewer and fewer journalists to call B.S. on these brands.
Brand journalism is about providing your audience with information that will be useful or interesting to them even if they choose not to purchase your product, but that increases the likelihood that they wil become costumers because that information is valuable and thus enhance your brand's credibility.
Intel's Free Press is an example that I and others have cited. The defender of brand journalism in the debate I linked to offers Home Depot as an example: "Home Depot...may produce how-to content on fixing your home. Of course, such content carries brand value to Home Depot, but that doesn’t change the credibility of their article."
Just like brands have always promoted their products over their competitors, so have conscientious and customer-friendly businesses always put their customers' needs over their short-term interests. Think of the sales person who, rather than talking you into buying the most expensive product in the store, first talks to you about what you need, how you are going to use it, etc., and then steers you to a less expensive but equally reliable model. I once ate at a restaurant where my server talked me out of ordering the most expensive item on the menu because he said the portion size was far too small and it simply wasn't that good. Somehow it made what I did order seem that much more enjoyable.
It's good customer service, and it does exactly what brand journalism is supposed to accomplish: building your customer's long-term faith in your brand, which is far more valuable than one quick and easy sale.
Imagine this scenario: A technology company releases a new smartphone and begins a massive marketing campaign, claiming the phone does amazing things, is faster than any other phone, and has the best network. But consumers are much better served by turning to journalists—real journalists—for reviews of the phone. A technology site such as CNET (CBS) would put the phone through extra paces, with all the marketing claims tested in a lab.
Well, duh. Except brand journalism isn't about a company boasting about its products, something they did just fine before the Internet. Such claims are not given more creditibility simply because they are made on a company blog or Facebook page, and most consumers understand that, even if there are fewer and fewer journalists to call B.S. on these brands.
Brand journalism is about providing your audience with information that will be useful or interesting to them even if they choose not to purchase your product, but that increases the likelihood that they wil become costumers because that information is valuable and thus enhance your brand's credibility.
Intel's Free Press is an example that I and others have cited. The defender of brand journalism in the debate I linked to offers Home Depot as an example: "Home Depot...may produce how-to content on fixing your home. Of course, such content carries brand value to Home Depot, but that doesn’t change the credibility of their article."
Just like brands have always promoted their products over their competitors, so have conscientious and customer-friendly businesses always put their customers' needs over their short-term interests. Think of the sales person who, rather than talking you into buying the most expensive product in the store, first talks to you about what you need, how you are going to use it, etc., and then steers you to a less expensive but equally reliable model. I once ate at a restaurant where my server talked me out of ordering the most expensive item on the menu because he said the portion size was far too small and it simply wasn't that good. Somehow it made what I did order seem that much more enjoyable.
It's good customer service, and it does exactly what brand journalism is supposed to accomplish: building your customer's long-term faith in your brand, which is far more valuable than one quick and easy sale.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Mark Cuban's lament
A couple of items caught my attention recently in relation to my previous post about brand journalism. The first comes from the blog of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who doesn't think he should have to tolerate online sports writers covering his team:
In the year 2011, I’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo, or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room before or after a game. I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website, but I think we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned. I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters. (link)
So he doesn't like Internet reporters, and his team can communicate directly with fans online anyway. I certainly agree with the second point. Last year I attended a talk by Pittsburgh Penguins v.p. of public relations Tom McMillan, who said that fans are just as eager to get news about the franchise directly from the team rather than sports writers. The Pens do a great job communicating with and cultivating their fans, so I'm not going to disagree.
But then Cuban goes on to say that his team still needs traditional media outlets like newspapers and TV stations -- including ESPN:
The same logic that applies to newspapers, applies to TV. They own a segment of the population that doesn’t always read the sports section, but will turn on the TV to catch up. It may be the local news broadcast for some. It may be ESPN.
He does understand that ESPN and ESPN.com are owned by the same people, right? Those four letters they share are no coincidence. Hell, some of the same personalities work for both outlets. Kind of like saying to someone, "I really like your brother, but why is your sister such a slut?" (Not to mention that Cuban funded an online investigative news venture that many people think is an ethically suspect arrangement.)
Then again, when you are billionaire, you can pick a fight with whomever you wish, I suppose.
The other item that caught my eye is about a news site called Futurity created by a group of universities sharing research news directly with the public, rather than relying on a shrinking pool of science and technology writers. I hate to say I told you so, but...
In the year 2011, I’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo, or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room before or after a game. I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website, but I think we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned. I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters. (link)
So he doesn't like Internet reporters, and his team can communicate directly with fans online anyway. I certainly agree with the second point. Last year I attended a talk by Pittsburgh Penguins v.p. of public relations Tom McMillan, who said that fans are just as eager to get news about the franchise directly from the team rather than sports writers. The Pens do a great job communicating with and cultivating their fans, so I'm not going to disagree.
But then Cuban goes on to say that his team still needs traditional media outlets like newspapers and TV stations -- including ESPN:
The same logic that applies to newspapers, applies to TV. They own a segment of the population that doesn’t always read the sports section, but will turn on the TV to catch up. It may be the local news broadcast for some. It may be ESPN.
He does understand that ESPN and ESPN.com are owned by the same people, right? Those four letters they share are no coincidence. Hell, some of the same personalities work for both outlets. Kind of like saying to someone, "I really like your brother, but why is your sister such a slut?" (Not to mention that Cuban funded an online investigative news venture that many people think is an ethically suspect arrangement.)
Then again, when you are billionaire, you can pick a fight with whomever you wish, I suppose.
The other item that caught my eye is about a news site called Futurity created by a group of universities sharing research news directly with the public, rather than relying on a shrinking pool of science and technology writers. I hate to say I told you so, but...
Monday, May 16, 2011
Brand journalism 101
When my colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, where I used to work, would fret over newsrooms slashing coverage of science and technology, I would tell them that the university needed to become its own source of news about these subjects. Why rely on a middleman when you can give your stories directly to the public? The catch was that the content couldn't be merely promotional, but truly informative.
Now, there's a name for this: brand journalism, and this article captures the opportunities it presents for organizations:
Organizations need to shift their media thinking from collateral (designed to support the immediate sale of product) to journalism (telling a story people are actually interested in). Consider Intel's Free Press. Most of the stories there are not about Intel. They're about topics a technology or business publication would cover and, in the course of their reporting, would interview someone from Intel or discover that Intel played a part in the story.
This accomplishes two things: It keeps your customers' eyeballs focused on you, and away from your competitors, and it enhances your credibility. If you appear to be an honest broker when it comes to discussing the trends in your industry, then customers will be more willing to believe that the good things you say about your own brand are true.
For colleges and universities, this means that our publications -- particularly those aimed at alumni and donors -- should not merely focus on what's happening at the institution, but on topics of interest to the audience in their professional and personal lives. So for example, your business school magazine could feature an article with an overview of changes in the tax code aimed at accounting grads. The article could be written by the head of the accounting department, or else quote her length. Either way, you've reinforced in the reader's mind the reputation of faculty as experts in their field, and by extension the degree that reader earned from your university. And they'll be that much more likely to hear everything else you want to tell them.
Now, there's a name for this: brand journalism, and this article captures the opportunities it presents for organizations:
Organizations need to shift their media thinking from collateral (designed to support the immediate sale of product) to journalism (telling a story people are actually interested in). Consider Intel's Free Press. Most of the stories there are not about Intel. They're about topics a technology or business publication would cover and, in the course of their reporting, would interview someone from Intel or discover that Intel played a part in the story.
This accomplishes two things: It keeps your customers' eyeballs focused on you, and away from your competitors, and it enhances your credibility. If you appear to be an honest broker when it comes to discussing the trends in your industry, then customers will be more willing to believe that the good things you say about your own brand are true.
For colleges and universities, this means that our publications -- particularly those aimed at alumni and donors -- should not merely focus on what's happening at the institution, but on topics of interest to the audience in their professional and personal lives. So for example, your business school magazine could feature an article with an overview of changes in the tax code aimed at accounting grads. The article could be written by the head of the accounting department, or else quote her length. Either way, you've reinforced in the reader's mind the reputation of faculty as experts in their field, and by extension the degree that reader earned from your university. And they'll be that much more likely to hear everything else you want to tell them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)