Rick's World

Lessions from the BP Disaster. One year later.

2011-04-19T05:24:00.001-07:00

Well we sit here today on the first anniversary of the the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I believe future PR generations will be well served by paying close attention to what took place and what lessons we can learn from this unmitigated disaster. While we all know that BP was not solely responsible for this disaster, for better or for worse the blame fell onto their shoulders.

One thing emerged from this event and that it was that BP did about as bad a job at crisis management as an organization can do. It was obvious from day one that they did not have an appreciation of the extent of the problem and some of the initial comments by BP senior executions, like the CEO wishing to 'have his life back', really put the effort into disrepute from the beginning. BP seemed stuck to the plan when they should have realized that the first rule of crisis communications is that the plan goes out the window almost immediately.

There are so many lessons that can be learned from the BP explosion one year on that an entire book could be written and barely begin to scratch the surface. I think one thing that because obvious to future planners is when people are hurting as a result of something your company shares responsibility for, NEVER complain about how tough it is on you. Somehow a millionaire CEO is not going to find much sympathy from a group of people whose very lives may be ruined.

Also, realize that your plan, no matter how great you think it is and no matter how many times you may have rehearsed it, is totally useless. Look it over one last time and then toss it aside and be ready to move with the ever changing conditions that exist. Only a foolish captain would let waves better his boat.

Lastly, ignore the advice of the lawyers. Lawyers will tell you to shut up, say nothing, admit no wrong and show no empathy. This is wrong. This is always wrong and all it does is to stir resentment and anger and makes a bad problem worse. The model today is Southwest who when faced with a problem took a financial hit and made progressive steps to addressing and resolving the matter. Take a look at how quickly that issue has receded from the headlines. They get it! It is a shame most companies don't.

Crisis Communications in Action: One Good, One Bad

2011-04-05T04:57:00.000-07:00

I noticed this week that there are some people out there who are getting public relations and more specifically crisis communications and there are some groups out there who just don't get it. First of all, for those who read my blog you know that public relations is not a reactive tool. Just like you don't wait for market trends to develop to begin research on new products, you should not be waiting for events to develop before you start burning up the e-mails and phone lines.

First, the good news is that all is not lost when it comes to good crisis communications and public relations. We all saw on the news last week the Southwest flight which had to make an emergency landing due to a structural failure in one of its planes. The financially prudent move would have been to keep as many planes in the air and check them as they came in for regular maintenance. Instead what Southwest did was pull all the flights from the Boeing 737 flight which matched the one with the cracks. This caused a lot of flight cancellations but surprisingly very little passenger upset. Most people would prefer to fly safe and by doing this Southwest should come out much stronger than it might have when he went in.

The opposite happened when the United States began its bombing offensive against Libya. The political and moral issues are one thing but the President seriously dropped the ball when he did not address the reason behind it for a solid week. During both wars in the Gulf the two President Bushs' were on television that night explaining that the action was underway and why the action, in their view, was necessary. During times of crisis, it is important to be out and in front of the issue and shaping the dialogue. By bunkering down you let the events take a life of their own and you lose control of the situation.

Communications professionals have been fortunate to see two distinctly different examples of crisis communications, one of which clearly proves the model that in order to come out of a crisis alive and, stronger than what you went into it, you need to take affirmative action. The best course of action works in all areas of communications but especially during crisis. Stay on top of things, stay in front of the situation and be open and as honest as possible to your target audience. If done well, the crisis will quickly pass, if not, it will fester and grow worse and inflict a great degree of harm. As your mother once said, take your medicine, even if it doesn't taste good, it will make you feel better!

Why does HR have so much say when it comes to communications.

2011-03-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

The best way to get a good candidate is to have a well written job description. Yet very few organizations are in fact using the hiring process as a time to solicit good candidates and are posting poorly written job descriptions with a byzantine hiring process that it becomes virtually impossible to find good candidates and the few good ones who do respond are lost in the combination of technology and human disinterest.

I was at a luncheon and sat at a table with a sales rep from a mid-sized company who helps in the hiring process. She told those of us at the table that her company is proud of the fact that her company can scan resume and eliminate candidates based on words in their resume and thus send on to HR only candidates who supposedly match the job description. One person at the table, OK it was me, asked if they ever ran checks to make sure that the rejects deserved to be rejected. I could tell I hit a nerve and was told that for the HR people the results were negligible. A nice way of being told to shut up.

I asked another HR person I know who writes the job description in her organization. She told me that HR has to write them with some input from the hiring manager. Some input means that they write them and the hiring manager later tells them to change this and change that. Very little input basically. Another one told me that screening candidates is the worst part of her job and she would give it up in a second.

So that beggars the question of why are they even in the field of communicating with external audiences? For one thing, most HR people when asked will tell you they are there to keep the wrong people out, not to find the best possible people. I can also tell from most job descriptions that very little care goes into what is being put into them. It is not uncommon now to see a laundry list of skills and experience an organization wishes to see and then they claim they only want 2 years or so of experience. A nice code for wanting the $5 Fillet Mignon.

Some may argue that the current job market means that there is no need to be civil or offer any words of encouragement to candidates. Others may believe that the pool is so deep that any treatment of potential is fine and cite that everyone is overworked, understaffed and so on.

Let me make it perfectly clear. This logic is insanity pure and simple. If one of your key public facing arms is handling a potential client base and source of revenue for the organization rudely and abruptly there should be zero tolerance for that. Why not hold them to the same standards sales is held too? Would you ever not return a sales customers call after a meeting? Would you be brusk and rude to a sales customer? Would you treat a sales lead as a waste of time? Of course not!

But the same thing goes on within a number of organizations nearly every day. Individuals who can help bring the organization to the next level of success are treated as necessary evils. As the great unwashed masses. It is hardly news that no one likes to deliver bad news but shirking the duty and hoping the issue will go away does not lead to a resolution to the problem. There is an old military term called an attitude correction. In this case the HR arm of many organizations need what I will term a communication correction. Hopefully they will get it before they lose out on hiring some very talented people.

Why do so many companies not get social media?

2011-03-03T03:55:00.000-08:00

A curious question was posed to me recently by an organization who was asking for my help regarding their social media marketing and communications programs. I was asked if I used Facebook to which I replied yes. The next question surprised me, I was asked how many friends I had on there and while I knew the answer, it was about 180 or so at the time, I could see a deep frown on the interviewers face and was asked, "how come you have so few?"

I think that mentality sums up many organizations approach to marketing via social media. They believe it's best to plunge in without knowing the depth or temperature of the water. The important thing is to not miss out on getting wet. Forgive me for using more swimming analogies but they run the huge risks of jumping into shallow water , freezing water or water full of sharks.

Social media marketing can only succeed if we proceed with the due diligence we would in other marketing or public relations forums. We can't use some shotgun style approach while blindfolded and hope we hit the target. We need to use social media strategically and with a mental image of the beginning middle and end of the social media program.

The great risk we run here is that organizations may use the same approach to social media that was used to the web when that first emerged in the mid-to-late 1990's. That was a time of instant experts and throwing money at a problem and the immediate assumption that the old rules no longer apply. Hard lessons taught organizations that was not so but here we are facing one more time the assumption that the old rules no longer apply.

Let me close out with what I told the person I was meeting with. When asked why I had so few friends on Facebook, their interpretation not mine, I responded very simply. I asked about their client base and asked how intimately they knew them. I didn't really want an answer but could see I hit a nerve because they didn't know their client base that well. I then threw down the gauntlet and after bringing up my friend list offered them the chance to pick any one at random and I would tell them 3 things about them. The point being social media should help you broaden and strengthen you presence in the market and should not be just some fast and easy way to help yourself sleep better at night.

Step back when examining your Marketing & PR programs

2011-02-10T06:32:00.000-08:00

I have had several conversations with customers during the past few years and I often hear a common refrain, it can vary but it is basically, gee we had this great hit in The New York Times, (fill in pub name here) and we only saw a slight up tick in sales. Well first, if you saw any upward movement in your sales that is a good thing is it not? But more importantly, you missed the point entirely on what PR can accomplish for you.

Public Relations is an incredibly valuable tool and helps in ways that are too many to count. But it has the same weakness of any marketing tool. It is not designed to function as a sole agent for driving change. Quite the opposite, it can offer a slight up tick like mentioned above but the chances for long term success are virtually non-existent. In a discussion I once participated in, I likened a PR program to going out running after a long lay off. You will feel terrible and probably feel like you're going to die. Now you can assume running failed to get you healthy, or you can keep forcing yourself out there day after day and before long, you're amazed at how your body responds and how great you feel.

The same holds true for marketing and communications. You can not simply sit back and cherry pick a success and say that it's not working or this worked and that didn't. In fact evaluation needs to be taking place in an ongoing fashion and needs to examine not just the marketing mix but how other elements in the organization such as sales are helping. A complete and exhaustive examination may show that other elements in the organization are hindering the development and execution of both the brand as well as the communications program.

We live in a world that tells us we should expect instantaneous results and that we should act in an instantaneous fashion. The down side to this idea is that we are surrendering the ideas of perspective and focusing on evaluation and adjustment. It is much better to do it right once and invest a little more time in a program than rush it and be disappointed in the results.

Protecting marketing from those who think they can help!

2011-01-11T04:54:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting facets of marketing and communications of late is when a weak or even a failing organization decides to hitch all of its growth potential to MarCom. This is somewhat ironic because it represents a variation on the theme I last spoke about where MarCom is seen as simply a foot soldier, expected to do nothing more than carry out orders and do as told. But let me be clear that this represents just a different variation of the same, terrible mix I spoke about last time.

In some organizations, senior managers are in love with marketing and communications. Of course, while we would love to have that happen, it is not always what it's cracked up to be. While I am a tireless and relentless advocate that marketing is the best way to build brand, it can not be the sole part of the organization out there delivering the organizations message. Also, marketing needs to be used in such a way so that the return on investment it can provide can be maximized.

One trap which needs to be avoided at all costs is the temptation to use marketing and communications as vanity tools. There is an old builder's maxim that says one should know the soil before laying the foundation. That is very true when it comes to marketing and communications. In my own experience I have told many managers that PR does not stand for press release.

So the point here in summary is that as marketing and communications professional we need to do all we can to build and protect the brand. If you look around the organization, there is very no one else who is really equipped or capable to do so. While the risk of having nothing done is both real and great, the risk of having harm come to the brand by individuals who think they know how to manage it, but really don't, is even greater. Marketing and communications people need to be that person who is there to build, render aid but also defend the brand, all depending on what the situation calls for.

It's time for marketing and communications to take a stand!

2011-01-06T05:11:00.000-08:00

One area where marketing and communications has always lagged is that it allows itself to be seen as a strictly tactical tool by the C-level executives. The past recession has made this even worse. The corporate communications function has struck a new low by becoming simply a reactionary tool which has offered hardly any strategic contribution to the organization's success.

2011 should be the year in which we take back our profession and reassert it as the strategic tool that it is. Speaking as someone who works as a free-lance consultant, I have the advantage of offering strategic advice to senior level executives on what to do, and then to go and execute it on a tactical level. My experience with this is that even when speaking strategy, and trying to draw marketing and communications into a larger corporate theme, it is virtually impossible to have the senior level executives see MarCom as anything other than a tactical tool. When it comes to communications all we hear is that the C-level wants more press releases, a new web site, more literature and so on. We rarely hear about using it as a strategic tool to drive sales.

This is really the fault of the marketing managers out there who are more than happy to coast along doing as little as possible and figure that if they go along and get along they will survive. Sadly, this has left our field scattered with a bunch of mediocre managers who lack the courage and drive to challenge management and encourage it to see marketing and communications as a long term tool which, when executed properly, can drive the entire branding and sales function.

One thing we can do as a profession is to drive our field and commit to standards of excellence. How many other fields would sit by and allow anything other than excellence be their guides. Such fields and medicine and law have high barriers of entry and require educated people to make informed decisions. Also, a certain specialty is not only expected but in many cases it's required.

Marketing and communications could benefit greatly by taking on more of trappings of an elite profession in 2011. By doing this, we can establish ourselves as legitimate stakeholders and contributors to the organization's success. By standing up and wanting to be counted as a profession and not just a job, we can have a stronger impact on the entire business community!

Driving social media in 2011

2011-01-04T04:48:00.001-08:00

Ah yes, my first post of the new year. When thinking about what to write about I only had to go back into the waning days of 2010 to find some good material. One of my personal favorite topics is social media. Besides being personally fascinated by it, I find it very interesting to see how organizations are allocating resources to develop their social media platforms. Some, are following the failed model of the late 1990's and are walling up their social media programs as far away from marketing and communications as possible. Others look to outside people to tell them what to do but at the same time use the masquerade that they know exactly what you are talking about and that you are not telling them anything they have not all ready thought of.

The key for a successful social media program is that it absolutely must be run hand in hand with public relations. Furthermore, PR and marketing must be the parts of the organization which make the calls and guide the development of the program. This was not done with the development of the web site in most cases and as a result, we see that the Internet has never lived up to its full potential as a marketing or communications tool.

Also, only PR and marketing people can see that when it comes to social media, one size does not fit all. We need to find the best fit for the organization. Not every social media site is ideally suited for the needs of the organization. The goal is to find the site which fits the organizations needs and not the other way around! Social media is a tool to be used for the betterment of the organization and not a cool gadget we need to find a way to use.

I believe that's the key for social media in 2011 and why it has been a bust for most companies up to now. Find the right social medium for your company and work with an organization or individual who truly understands not just social media, but also has a firm understanding of organizational needs and can find a program which will dovetail perfectly with organizational goals. Marketing and specifically PR are ideally suited to make social media work for companies large and small in 2011.

How best to integrate social media into organization marketing

2010-12-16T05:07:00.000-08:00

I have been fascinated by the number of organizations who are hiring for social media managers. I have spoken to a few of these people and I have seen some very interesting things. By and large the one finding I have noticed is that they see social media as a bomb to be defused. They approach it in the way the technicians in the "Hurt Locker" approached their jobs.

It has become apparent to me that the concept of social media in the marketing and communications field has yet to be fully defined. For one thing there is a tendency when defining the role responsible for social media to look out and see what's popular in social media and try to find a way to fit into all outlets. Very little forethought is given into what may be the best social media outlets. This is very similar to bringing the furniture into a house before the windows have been installed.

Fortunately, one trend that does seem to be emerging is the desire for marketing and communications to handle the social media platform for the company. Given that on a professional level this didn't really exist 2 to 3 years ago, this bodes very well. Those of us who were around remember how when the internet took off, web design and structure was set off very distinctly from marketing to mostly disastrous results.

Still there runs a grave risk of placing some type of mystique into social media that doesn't belong. I had one person tell me that they wanted someone who had a "feel" for social media meaning someone who was younger. My main concern here is that if someone doesn't understand marketing, how can they develop an integrated strategy? Physicians do this all the time, they go off and learn about new procedures and new tools. They don't just bring in doctors just out of med-school with the idea they know more, it is expected that physicians keep up to date on the latest technology and integrate it into their years of experience. This is something which marketing and communications people can adapt to social media.

So what do marketing people do when it comes to social media and how do we fit social media into our current marketing platform. One of the best methods to follow may be that of our friends in the medical field. We need to keep up to date and most importantly find a way to integrate new and emerging trends such as social media into our own field of expertise. By assuming ownership of what is new in the world, we can fully contribute into the organization's climate. We also need to make sure we don't shut out the lessons we can learn from those who may have less mileage overall, but may have a special expertise we lack. Remember professional learning never stops!

Is the Press Release Dead?

2010-12-14T04:44:00.001-08:00

There was an e-mail or blog posting which went around a few weeks back asking if PR was dead. That seemed to raise an ire within the PR and marketing communities and I believe the general answer is that PR is most certainly NOT dead. Still, one can't help but wonder if it may be sick because certain sickly elements of it give it the appearance of death.

Case in point is our old friend the press release. Many a PR person has burned the midnight oil waiting for a C-level executive to make sure that the i is dotted and the t is crossed. One thing is certain and that is that senior executives love to see a good old fashion press release. They love to pontificate like a prophet from the hill top, extolling the ignorant masses with the blessings of their brilliance.

What is shocking is that from a cost perspective the press release often is a huge money loser. Consider that most distribution services charge you for every word after the first 500 and the first 500 usually only get you past the headline, sub head and maybe the introduction paragraph. Very rarely do the bean counters want to stop a senior level executive from having their pulpit and thus most press releases cost between $1500 and $2000. The saddest part of all is that no one outside the organization is reading them!

Yes that is the sad and true fact. Information both anecdotal and factual indicate that the news media do not read news releases and choose not to receive information for the news they cover from them. Modern technology has allowed press releases to be distributed via Google and other aggregate services so people are seeing them, the level of penetration and how much information is being absorbed still remains questionable. Sadly, the more this becomes apparent, the more we seem to double down on the press release.

So back to the initial question is the press release dead? Well not entirely. Contractual and regulatory requirements plus the the need to distribution information will always require some form of the press release. What needs to be changed is how the information is distributed. For one thing, try a mental exercise. Ban the use of the term press release in 2011. Instead substitute the term news release. While this may be an exercise in semantics, it can also force people to think long and hard about what they really want to say versus putting every iota of information that crosses their desks.

Secondly, once you have adopted the term news release, try putting a hard cap on the number of releases issued. Say for example you agree to 6 per quarter. This will allow you to focus on the most important news and not on the trivial. Secondly, you can focus on delivering your message to key spokespeople and not simply drafting, approving and distributing a release. Lastly, you can significantly cut the costs of your PR operations and deliver results which will have an increased ROI and thus make PR a more significant player in your organizations marketing programs.

The press release is dead in 2011. It's offspring, the news release its younger and more productive offspring the news release. By focusing on news and choosing information which will raise visibility, strengthen the brand and ultimately sell more products we will create a strong and more responsive PR operation. PR does not stand for press release!

Time to stop falling for the latest fad

2010-12-07T04:43:00.000-08:00

One of the great weaknesses in marketing, or any aspect of business for that matter, is when a certain technology or skill is seen as unassailable and/or beyond criticism. A very worrisome trend is that social media is beginning to approach those standards in some respects. When any media vehicle is seen as a cure all that every one is in love with then it is time to take a step back and wonder if we're really doing something intelligent, or if we are like a herd of lemmings about to plunge over the cliff.

Now to be absolutely clear this is not by any means an assault on the viability of social media. Quite the opposite it is in my opinion a rare attempt to assess it based solely on its merits and avoid repeating the errors made when the web first came on the scene. For those not around or of short memory the Internet was seen as a magic cure for all that ailed the organization. Of course when this proved false organizations were forced to scramble because now they had to rely on more traditional marketing methods which had been largely shelved if not forgotten.

There was an insane posting I saw lately that I think demonstrated just how much the disease which is the passion for social media has infected marketing. One blogger actually referred to social media as marketing on steroids. So if I understand it clearly, and I think I do, social media is being compared too a drug which provides very little short term benefit, no long term benefit and ultimately kills its user? This is yet another brick in that wall of why PR, communications and basically marketing are not taken seriously as disciplines. We fall in love far too quickly and seem to completely lack any sound judgment or discipline.

Marketing people need to learn the art and science of self-discipline. We need to remember that gorging on appetizers will not allow us to properly enjoy the main course. Instead we need to focus on building a well balanced, well formed plan which combines the best of the old and the best of the new. That means that we will use some elements of both and that we will not use some. To act as if one program is completely without fault because it is new is as foolish as disregarding it for the same reason. It is up to marketing people to get their heads on straight and to think long term and constructively and deliver results which will build a brand!

Why are we so afraid of failure?

2010-11-30T05:01:00.000-08:00

I had the chance to speak to an agency big wig at a recent networking event and shocked her when I told her about the question I love to ask agencies during the screening process. It doesn't matter because her agency is not in a field that I would hire but she proved the point I was trying to make. People have an irrational and complete fear of failure and it drives them to distraction.

We are set up to believe that there is success, from which all good and bounty flows, and there is failure which is where all failure goes too die! Sadly this is not the case. To get back to my original question, I had asked this woman how her agency deals with failures when they are the ones responsible. Sadly the response I saw was all too typical. Fear of showing weakness seemed to trump any desire to be an open and honest vendor rather than putting on the typical facade that in the end makes them look silly as if they have never made a mistake.

Failure is one of those things that happens in the client relationship. It is not desirable but it does happen. Mature people and agencies make mistakes, deal with it and move on. Immature people and agencies act like it never happens and when it does seek to find people to blame. They never learn from their mistakes because they are too busy ducking blame and aren't interested in assuming responsibility.

I have found that by asking people to tell me about a time they have failed I get a really interesting response. First of all, most people are floored by it. The truth is that there is no right answer. Some will give a specific example, some will will try and turn it into a learning experience. Either way both are right, and both are wrong, but the question really turns on how someone tries to answer the question. Do they try try to evade it or do they stand up and admit to having failed in the past and having learned from it and moved on.

The simple fact is that failure is a part of our lives as professionals and while no one strives for failure nor should it be a goal it is something to be managed and controlled. It becomes a big issue when we dodge the issue and try to convince the world that we have not failed. Failure is a learning tool when it occurs. It is fuel to the fire of ignorance when it is ignored.

Using Marketing to Lead the Way to Better Times

2010-11-18T04:39:00.000-08:00

All we need to do is to turn on the TV and see that the recession is lingering and how poorly we are all doing. Yet a quick look at corporate earnings tells us that companies are booking record earnings and profits. This seems to be a disconnect in this aspect and it makes me wonder what the heck is going on. While one answer to this question is certainly cost-cutting and keeping costs low, the other aspect is just as clear, there is zero marketing going on. People are being fed a message that feeds upon itself and discourages people to make any decisions that may help boost the economy.

Let me address the issue of cost-cutting first. Tom Peters is attributed as saying either "you can't grow by shrinking," or "you can't grow by cutting costs." What ever the correct statement is, the sentiment is true. If you think strategically and invest in market growth and market your product appropriately, you product will take root in the market place and revenue and, if managed intelligently, profit will follow.

The other mentality is that of the C-level. As usual they see no benefit in marketing and choose not to market their way to prosperity. Instead they choose to entrench and try to survive, not realizing that a downturn or recession has been shown to be an exceptional opportunity to seize advantage in the marketplace. It is telling that Apple, Google, Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble have all increased marketing spending by at least 10% during the past few years. As a result, they have increased market share and have successfully launched new products.

It can't be said that only consumer companies have been successful doing this. The marketing arms of a number of tech companies such as TI have done great things and are reaping vast rewards. Sadly, these companies seem to be an exception and not the rule. Most companies are taking on a bunker mentality and live in fear of tomorrow which in a sense means they are tying their own noose and will be completely unprepared to take advantaged of a new burst when the economy resumes humming.

The conclusion that can be drawn here is that some companies are choosing to take the lead and market their products to their customers. These companies are the ones who will be uniquely positioned as the next wave of market leaders and some may continue brand leadership, others may sit on their hands, focus exclusively on the near term and lose any market advantage. Investment in marketing and communications will result in brand leadership and market growth if not now then in the future. The question is if you are an entrepreneur and see marketing as an investment with low to moderate risk or if you're completely risk adverse and are willing to sacrifice future growth for short term satisfaction.

Shaping Marketing and Communications During the next Recovery

2010-11-11T05:20:00.000-08:00

As the recession lingers on we often wonder if we will return to a period of prosperity. History tells us we will and it also tells us that we struggling with the dark areas of recession and feeling sorry for ourselves when all of a sudden we find we are in prosperity again. In fact a recent study showed that most analysts and pundits are as correct in their guesses on the economy as a bench warming ball player is about getting a hit. That's roughly 20 percent.

The big question I am wondering is if we will emerge a little chastened or if we will jump right into more excess and create another warped bubble where it's a party train and we think the good times can never end. Marketing and communications have a lot to do with creating bubbles and excess and of course we bear a lot of the costs when the bubble bursts. I am often reminded of the person who parties to excess on Friday night, only to swear off it Saturday morning and then goes out and does it twice as hard.

One tool that is rarely exercised in marketing and communications is the tool or restraint. Sure we hear the old cliche about striking while the iron is hot and so on. What we rarely see is marketing to step up and try to guide the brand so that rather than being some rickety old roller coaster, we are a high speed thruway where our top of the line sports car can cruise easily along. Marketing needs to guide and not just tag along for the ride.

Another tool to ensure marketing survives the next great wave is to make sure we are a council to the C-level executives. The C's like to go on a spending spree when their is a few extra dollars and they tend to spend like sailors on liberty. Marketing should force a strategic focus on spend money on what is most important and not necessarily what is fashionable or even worse, what is transient. While we all know that companies who spend more on marketing and communications during a recession often emerge stronger, we have to make sure that the position of strength is not squandered on either an early celebration or a bunker mentality.

Good times are destined to return that much we know. Sadly, I don't have a crystal ball which allows me to say when it will end, but when it does marketing and communications need to be ready. It's time to get off the crazy bubble train and bring marketing and communications into the world of manageable and strategic partnership within the organization. Rather than be a cost center we need to prove, yet again, that we are a premium revenue producing arm and, through our management of the brand, a vital component of the organization.

Is PR Dead?

2010-11-09T04:56:00.000-08:00

A good friend of mine, and a journalist no less, asked on his blog if PR was dead and, or dying. This wasn't a shot at PR in so much as he was questioning why companies spend a great deal of money on something which, in his opinion, is of very little value and which the news media pays no attention too. I corrected him on the two errors I see in the story, the first being that PR offers no value and the second being that we offer members of the media no value.

Now the easy thing to do here is to fly off the handle and say that this person has no idea of what we do and how important we are. But that would be only petulant and self-serving. I think we are better served if we use this as a means of examining the value we do bring and if we are offering true value to the organization or if we are muddying the waters and are a professional in search of a role?

I will say that I believe that a number of PR organizations, specifically some agencies, do a great disservice to the organization by being petulant and immature in their dealings with the media but also being petulant and immature in how they deal with the concept of public relations. Having worked with a great number of agency people I have seen no shortage of immaturity and almost infantile behavior. Now before I am strung up by my colleagues in the field I will freely admit I don't believe they are the majority but that they are a large enough minority to give those who do their job's right a black eye.

I also disagree, in the strongest terms possible the stereotype that all PR people are spin doctors or that we all bend the truth. First, I believe strongly that there are two sides to every argument and they deserve to be heard. Granted it can be an argument between right and wrong but that still is an airing of opinion which in an open society is a very good thing. Secondly, certain professions tend to get smeared by the acts of a few. Lawyers can certainly attest to this. But let's not forget the positives that have come out of these fields.

If not for public relations, we would have never heard of the ills of smoking, the need for seat belts or advocates for people with disabilities. All of these great causes were advocated by pressure groups which all use PR to advance their messages. Are there excesses in PR, of course, but there are in education, finance and even in media.

There is one thing PR can do a much better job at and that is letting the world know about how it helps make us healthier, happier and safer thanks to PR. Is PR necessary, absolutely because every legal organization, now matter what we think of it has a right to have its voice heard. Also, despite crying how much they hate it, the news media would be lost without a public relations person to help them meet the right people. Good journalism owes its life to good PR. So PR does contribute to the success of so many organizations. We are not just a cog in a machine, we are a strong driver or a full gear and when used properly we help the entire engine run much smoother.

Sorry but the rumors of the death of PR are greatly exaggerated!

Why marketing may need to fight the C-level for control of the brand!

2010-10-28T04:52:00.000-07:00

Communications and marketing people have a tough job that much is sure. No department in the organization is faced with such a rapidly changing means of reaching out to their target audiences, thus doing their jobs, as the Marketing and communications teams. Still there is one group that makes our job extremely difficult. It is the C-suite's slavish devotion to short term gains with a full knowledge of how the long term results will produce nothing but harm for the organization.

One key example of this is that the C-suite often expects marketing and communications to produce immediate results, while all the time reducing the budget we have to work with and shortening the amount of time to allow a campaign to work. Imagine if we told a doctor that a certain surgical procedure needs to take only 4 hours instead of 6, they can only use 75% of their tools and we expect the patient to be functioning at 120% inside of a week. People would laugh because these conditions are the height of irrationality, yet we think nothing of expecting marketing and communications to work under these conditions.

The most egregious weakness in this scenario is usually found in public companies. It is almost laughable how in many public companies the sole audience the C-level is interested in is the investment community and in keeping them happy. I have seen C-level executives prance around like they are in a dog and pony show and do self destructive things all for some short term benefit which, like a sugar rush, is often gone before it's enjoyed. Hardly any degree of attention is shown to the customer or retaining the customer. I have found it mystifying that a C-level executive will often dodge a customer call, yet will happily speak to some freshly minted MBA from Harvard or Princeton to keep the stock rating positive and thus up a penny or two.

An intelligent C-level executive sees the brand as the key to organization survival and thinks in the long term. The best analogy I have ever heard is that running a company is like climbing a mountain. You keep your eyes on the peak but also focus on the next ledge. That's a great analogy for what marketing can do to help a C-level executive succeed. Rather than being a cost center or a prop shop, marketing and communications can help the C-level executives reach the next level of success as well as that eventual peak. In fact, we're the only group who can get the program off the ground.

Marketing and communications can only succeed if they are viewed as a long term, strategic tool. Seeing them as a temporary, tactical tool to be cut and expanded on a willy, nilly basis is not only short-sighted but it is self-destructive. Visionary leaders in marketing and communications need to take the lead and need to confront the C-level on the responsibility to defend the brand and ensure its long-term success.

Let marketing drive the company

2010-10-19T04:52:00.001-07:00

This is a very obvious statement so please forgive me if I insult your intelligence. An automobile needs a steering wheel, accelerator, gear shift as well as brakes to operate properly. A bike, needs much the same things with the big change obviously being that it doesn't need the accelerator as that is the person riding. In the world of business, communications is what provides the acceleration and to some degree provides warnings of the course corrections and changes required as well as providing warnings about the crazy drivers in the other lanes and even the speed limits.

What's the reason for this automobile analogy? Well marketing and communications are far too often seen as entirely functional or tactical tools and far too few organizations see the value they bring as strategic assets to the organization. Can you imagine for a minute if you reacted when the person in front of you slams on the brakes or when the other driver runs the red light? Just like in marketing, a great driver needs to be in command of the situations, needs to know the course and needs to be able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, what is likely to happen soon.

Now the key thing to see here is that accidents will happen and perfection is impossible. Sorry, C-Level executives seem to think we are perfect when in fact we are not, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact remains however that the true guidance of the organization should be the domain of the marketing and communications department because we are the ones who understand how to chart an organizations long term voyage through the various ups and downs the organization will face. In addition, the marketing and communication team will be one of the few groups who do not live from quarter to quarter and have a more long term, strategic outlook.

So the long story short is that the guidance and acceleration of an organization who sees itself as a leader should be run through the marketing and communications group. Unlike most of the business world marketing and communications, when done properly, are long term strategic departments. That is necessary in order to help an organization survive the temporary hurdles which will come across its path from time to time. The organizations' who pursue other courses may succeed but it's like driving with a blindfold on. As long as there aren't any disruptions in the road, you will do fine. If you focus on marketing and communications as the leads for the organization, you should be able to avoid a number of pitfalls and in doing so, leave those organizations who choose another method of guidance well behind you.

Where do we set the bar on ethics?

2010-10-14T04:59:00.001-07:00

One of my favorite shows is Mad Men. It has won the Emmy for best drama three years straight. Besides presenting an engaging and enlightening view into the early 1960's. It combines strong characters with intelligent dialogue and just a dash of dark humor. I particularly liked the most recent episode broadcast on Sunday night here. For those who don't wish to know the plot skip the next few lines. As we know, Don Draper, the head of creative for Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce paid to have an open letter in the New York Times where he renounced any future intent to do advertising for cigarettes.

I find this interesting because it raises a rarely discussed part of marketing and communications and that is the aspect of where do we draw the line when it comes to marketing and communicating in an ethical setting. Now I will assume that no one believes that it is in anyway ethical to market a product which is illegal. The big gray area becomes whether or not it is unethical to design a marketing campaign for a product which is perfectly legal, but is certainly unhealthy.

Obviously the biggest market to consider is what Don Draper was considering and that was cigarettes. While they remain perfectly legal products, one has to consider if doing marketing for these products is unto itself unethical. While I do not smoke, and I am a huge proponent of preventing smoking, and it will kill you, the fact remains that it is a legal and highly regulated product.

Another industry to keep in mind is the fast food industry which sells meals which are extremely unhealthy and a leading cause of obesity today. But once again the fact remains it is a legal product and one whose risks, while not as sharply defined as cigarettes, are clear and distinct.

The final industry to consider is defense related industries. These people make weapons and let's be honest, weapons kill people. That is their purpose. If they fail to do this then they have failed! But having worked with that field the logic is that their products, if well designed, will save lives by making the other fellow less likely to start anything!

So now we're at the crux of the argument. Is is necessarily unethical for a marketing person to do their job in a field where the product is unhealthy. While some people may not like my answer, I believe there is nothing wrong with working for a company who is selling a legal product. Granted, there perfectly acceptable reasons to be upset with the products themselves but that does not render the product themselves unacceptable provided they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.

Kudos to Don Draper for making a stand and deciding that his company will draw the line at cigarettes. Notice that the writers did not put McDonald's in the script. If someone wants to take a stand and would not wish to work for a company which makes a product or promotes a lifestyle they object to, that is their right to refuse. Just remember, as Don Draper learned, nothing happens in a vacuum and there will be ramifications. Stands are very brave and should be respected, let's remember the old quip that in physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction while in business that reaction is 20 fold!

Time for hiring managers to exit the comfort zone!

2010-10-12T04:44:00.000-07:00

As we all know there is a problem in the employment system today. No I am not speaking about the 9.6% out of work, but rather the fact that even with unemployment that high, companies can't find qualified people to do the job. I was speaking with a recruiter friend of mine recently and was told that many hiring managers are being so exact and so picky that it is making the job of finding a qualified candidate nearly impossible. Case in point, let's assume that the hiring manager wants a corp. comm person who has 5 to 7 years of experience in health care and someone comes along who has 8 in tech. Nearly every time that person will be rejected, despite the fact that the skills are there.

Similarly, managers can often hire someone and not fully fleshed out their position. I have a rule of them that when ever I am reading a job description if it is one paragraph or less, I keep looking. Granted there may be a gem in there but the fact is that if a company only describes a position in one paragraph then they haven't really invested the time in seeking the long term potential for the position and whomever ends up with it will most likely be going crazy in a very short amount of time!

Let me be clear on one thing, I do believe companies have a right and, to be honest, an obligation to construct a job description that works as much for the internal audience as for external candidates seeking to join. But that should be an ideal and not a straight jacked which prevents the hiring of a qualified individual for the role. While I can't claim to be an expert on other fields, I can be sure that a qualified and capable marketing or communications person has a set of skills which are capable of being used in any field. Speaking as someone who has worked in various industries I can testify that if you are a good marketing communications person for a software company, your skills will be equally useful in hospital setting.

The other too that hiring managers must remember is that we do not always get everything we want. When we were young children we wrote out lists to Santa every year. Now if you were a young boy like me, you weren't really happy when you saw clothes in what you unwrapped Christmas morning but what you may not remember is how those clothes were put to good use. The same hold true for hiring a candidate. Someone may not be an exact match for what you want but if they have the skills, and have experience comparable to what you seek then you should find the best way to make them fit. Your industry can be learned a lot quicker than the skill set necessary to do the job can be taught!

I may be preaching to the choir here but I do think we need to have organizations realize that by adhering strictly to a pre-defined list of qualifications they may be missing out on some individuals who have amazing skills and who can bring fresh perspective and make a strong, positive impact on the organization. I don't recall the exact story but I remember hearing that in either Chinese or Japanese the characters for risk and opportunity were nearly identical? Well even if the story is wrong, the sentiment is dead on. Look at the candidate who can contribute the most to the organization, not the one who can simply fit the bill of what you're looking for!

Time for marketing to learn from failure!

2010-10-05T04:31:00.001-07:00

There is a well known and time worn statement which goes, those who can not remember the past will be doomed to repeat it. The worse are attributed to the poet and philosopher George Santayana. These words are as true today as there were when they were first spoken. In fact they seem to be even more relevant because our periods of remembrance seem to be drawing shorter and shorter with each generation.

I bring this up today because there are direct ties into business and specifically marketing and communications. Another cliche that is often used is that success comes from many fathers but failure is an orphan. Both of these statements define what is wrong about business accountability in this day and age. More often than not if something goes wrong, the first thing organizations try to do is look for a scape goat and eliminate that person to keep the baying of the legal wolves in check. This quite honestly is stupid and in many cases counterproductive. If there is a complete and total violation of a companies policies as seems to be the case with Hewlett Packard, then dismissing the head of the company makes some sense. However I am here to talk about the lesser examples that often times do not make a lick of sense.

Having been around the block in marketing a while, I notice that many times senior level executives will wonder why their initiatives are not producing the desired results. More often than not marketing and communications people will look for an excuse or a reason to give as to why they are not. In most cases there is a simple explanation such as marketing conditions or even lack of support from other elements in the organization. It is not improper or unprofessional to refuse to fall on your sword because some other party has failed to participate in the successful development of marketing and communications strategy.

So what's the point here? That is simple. marketing, corporate communications, PR etc need to OWN the communications function and the message. We need to let the C-level know when they are not being reasonable and we need to both educate other groups in the organization and help them understand what marketing and communications is all about and how to work. What is very interesting is that organizations who view marketing and communications as a strategic tool, similar to finance or sales, find the greatest return on investment for their marketing dollar. They tend to stay the course and spend their marketing dollars wisely.

Organizations who are struggling or failing tend to share a common trait as well. They see marketing and communications as purely tactical weapons. Elements to be used only in reaction to market condition and not as a strategic weapon. A perfect case is how McDonald's reinvented itself to offset negative publicity as well as changing marketing conditions. This required a difficult reappraisal of their operations from top to bottom and included a major revision to how they went about marketing their products.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that in marketing and communications, as well as in any aspect of business, failure is an excellent teacher. This is not a call for everyone to fail, rather it is a call for us to stop treating failure as something that requires a quick trip to the gallows and then carrying on as if nothing has happened. Use marketing as a tool to build brand and build sales. You will fail along the way that can't be helped. What you can help is taking the setbacks, learn from them, and come back even stronger and assume an even strong position in your market.

And, if failure is an orphan then it can join, Nelson Mandela, Alexander Hamilton , Dave Thomas (who founded Wendy's) and Louis Armstrong. So being an orphan is never easy, but can lead to great things!

Time for Marketing and CorpCom to Grow Up

2010-09-30T04:31:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting study out that claims that in a dictatorship, fear is less an issue than greed. What one often finds in this type of regime is that a select few are given access to power and its benefits (privileges, access to leadership, foodstuffs, etc.) that the average person does not have. This works to create a class of sycophants whose loyalty is to the organization and not to doing right.

I think of this because I believe that, unfortunately, there are far too many organizations who play the politics game and respond to lesser party's who act like a spoiled 5 year old rather than make the best decision for the organization. A classic case in point of this very usual circumstance making a rare appearance in the public forum was when AIG tried to justify the payment of large bonuses by saying the people being paid would go to other companies. Given that these people had run the ship aground this was a disastrous statement to make and show a tone deafness that, sadly, is not uncommon in corporate American today.

Now normally during one of my discussions I would offer an insight into how PR, Marketing and CorpComm could help with this. Well, the sad news is that we are actually a big part of the problem. I think I can speak for most of my colleagues who do a good job in saying we have all seen less qualified workers act like 5 year old and be treated like the spoiled children they are. I have a line that I have used many times to these children and will continue to use it. "Drama belongs on the stage, not in the workplace so either grow up or get out."

This is one area that concerns me when it comes to the long term viability of PR and marketing. We are currently fighting the battle of not being valued as true strategic partners. The lack of maturity and undeserved sense of entitlement of a number of PR and marketing people is directly causing harm to our industry. It is up to all of us to act professionally and to realize our profession needs us to act intelligently and maturely in order to achieve something beyond our own little niche.

Why aren't we using social media better than this?

2010-09-28T04:10:00.000-07:00

There were a few instances during the past few weeks that had me shaking my head. Now some of you who know me think that I am a completely opposed to social media in any and all formats. That is a total and complete falsehood. I don't fall in love with items because they happen to be new, I become interested in items because I perceive they offer a distinct competitive advantage.

Having said that, I am surprised at the limited or perhaps the miss directed scope we see when it comes to social media. We see people who offer updates on every little element that is going on in their lives with no filter regarding how appropriate or interesting it may be. We see organizations stumbling over each other to be the latest on Twitter or Facebook with no idea regarding why they wish to do so. One thing we do not see, is organizations forming a quick strategy about how to deal with social media for those times when computing will fail them,

Case in point was last week's Facebook outage. While I am sure we would all find it somewhat funny to think of this happening, one of the most sensible things for Facebook to do would be to go on some other outlet, or via e-mail, notify their base that the site was down and would stay down for some time. What they did end up doing is reverting back to the good old days and send out e-mail updates to the news media. While I somewhat chuckle at the idea of Facebook using Twitter to announce they couldn't bring their web site up, it would have been a most most effective way of reaching their target audience and, in my opinion, a means that would not have caused a great deal of long term harm or embarrassment to Facebook.

Social Media is a great tool. The great weakness of social media is that most agencies and communications practitioners are offering poor advice on how to use it. The advice I am hearing is similar to saying, "paint each house purple." When it comes to social media, the need should match the organization and not the other way around. Also some of the great potential for social media is being ignored. Why isn't it being better developed as a crisis communication tool? Given that Crisis Comm is about getting the right message to the right people as soon as possible, the big question we need to answer as corporate communications professionals today is why are we looking at social media as an entertainment tool and not a strategic communications one?

The Perfect information storm

2010-09-21T05:06:00.000-07:00

As a TV news junkie, I find it interesting that there seem to be two main subjects dominating the talking heads. The first is what ever celebrity has had a break down, been arrested, etc. The second is the messages regarding the economy. While we can always argue from a political perspective how good or bad it is, the way the message is being delivered is fascinating from a messaging and marketing perspective.

For one thing, the message is being disseminated by various talking heads, each representing not just their own point of view, but also the respective investment house or research institute they work for. This leads to a massive amount of confusing and often contradictory information being passed out. It is not uncommon on CNBC to see person A claim that things are great and the economy is finally on firm footing only have person B claim the exact polar opposite.

While I find this maddening to watch one person tell me that the sun out is a good sign and another tell me that the sun out will lead to more skin cancer it is an interesting view to communications theory. This is the perfect information storm. A lot of it confusing and often completely contradictory. This is where the Corporate Communications plate come into play.

Sadly, while many would like to live in a black and white world, the world is really built into shades of grey. But it is our job as communications professionals to offer the best counsel they possibly can. Yes that can offer mean offering unconventional advice.

Take for example the current year that the Boston Red Sox are having. They are out of running this year but as a true fan I can't say the season was a failure. Yes if you set the bar high (winning the pennant) then they aren't going to have a successful family. But if you look at over all performance, overcoming difficulties and adversity, I would argue they have had a very successful season.

The is much information circling the airwaves these days. In some respects the best talking head is combination of facts and information, but also preparation and skill by their own PR or corp comm people. The fact that a certain person's message is being repeated is a combination of both the right message, but also let's not forget the hard work and skill of the PR person behind the scenes doing the message development and pitching the speaker.

Driving down the highway that is marketing and branding

2010-09-16T05:03:00.000-07:00

I am sure we all have stories about seeing crazy things on the highway. Be it people talking on their cell phones, shaving or even reading while driving at break neck speeds. This past weekend, while driving to a cook out, I was forced to pass a woman who was driving 45mph in the left lane because she was busy texting and apparently fixing her hair. Of course I thought two things. First, this woman is an accident waiting to happen but secondly and more importantly it represents a good analogy of what is going on in marketing, communications and branding today.

For one thing marketing is be driven at breakneck speed and is often to expected to arrive at locations in an unreasonable amount of time while not getting a speeding ticket. In words that will ring true to all marketing people, do it fast, do it right, do it under budget and make no mistakes. What is also true for all marketing people is that, much like cars, the universe they operated in is changing. For a long time the automobile was a sanctuary. For better or for worse it was an area where a person could not be reached.

Marketing used to be a relatively easy to understand format. It used to be archaic and very traditional, with a long established means of doing things. It's scope was very limited and it was seen as highly tactical. There was very little change in its scope for a great many years.

Both areas have seen tremendous changes during the pasts several years. For cars there is now cell phones, GPS, satellite radio and so much more which change how we operate in the car. For marketing, the changes are even greater. Marketing people have evolved from being the helmsman who steers the large slow moving vessels to the captain of the craft running viscous white water.

As for the highway itself, we see that some people take to driving it different ways just like a true highway. For example, some people take to the driveway and drive really slow, others drive like lunatics. Others take it slow and steady. This is to be expected because just as drivers are unique and approach the highways different organizations approach marketing different.

What's ironic is that many organizations are like a lot of drivers in the good old days and approach marketing the way they approached driving. That is to say they don't plan and often get lost along the way. In these pre Garmin or Tom Tom days people had to look for gas stations or other locations to find their way. A great deal of organizations drive down that highway with no idea where they are going or how they are going to get there. Sometimes they drive down the highway very fast assuming speed is progress or sometimes they stay in the right lane assuming that slow and steady will win the race, yet fail to notice all the competitors blowing by them.

The moral to the story is that driving on the modern highway is a great analogy for doing marketing, communications and branding in the modern age. You need to have the right tools to get the job done (a well maintained car,good radio, etc.) you need to know where you want to go and how to get there. You need to stay focused on the road and not get distracted by small and inconsequential items. Lastly, you need to be aware of your surroundings and judge your progress by your own goals, not by what is going on around you.

Where are the corporate communications mentors and leaders?

2010-09-14T04:34:00.000-07:00

Having been in PR, Marketing and Corporate Communications I have noticed a few things. Usually the best talent are soloist or individuals contributors. The reason for that it would seem is that agencies and in house organs tend to draw careerists who are better at navigating the corporate minefields than at developing a tight and on-target message. Now of course everyone who reads this will think they are the exception and I am sure I will hear how such and such a company is the exception. The sad case is that as a profession we are failing those who are coming up in the ranks in how to do what we do and, by extension, we are damaging both our clients, their brands and our profession.

OK let me throw some harsh reality out to people who seem to think otherwise, especially in the corporate and agency world. People just out of school have NO CLUE about how to work in an office. I don't care if they have done internships all through out school. They have done sprints, now they have to run a marathon, they have done the swimming portion of the triathlon and now have the last two legs to complete. We have an obligation as professionals to take these people under our wing and teach them how to do our profession right. Also, if we can impart in them the need to be forceful advocates for how our profession should be run then we will be taken seriously and seen as a profession.

A good example is what happens to lawyers at large firms. They are worked liked dogs that much is true. But they also have a senior lawyer, usually a partner, who is guiding them along and helping them learn the ropes so they will succeed. Unlike a lot of marketing and PR people, they are not waiting for a mistake to be made so they can destroy their self esteem and reap some petty sense of power and victory, they are working to guide this person through what is best for the firm and ultimately the profession. (Notice I did not mention the client!)

I had the good fortune to train my dog and found it very enjoyable. First, he is smarter than about 95% of the people in the world today. Now get ready everyone because I am about to liken training a dog to dealing with people. Training him worked very well because I taught him how to be a house pet, (no jumping on the furniture, housebreaking, waiting for dinner). In doing so I corrected him when he made a mistake but I also made sure he knew when he did well. Ultimately he did well because he knew it was the right thing to do.

Usually in Marketing or Corp Comm. we see no mentoring or leadership. We see someone assigned as a supervisor who basically sees it as extra work being assigned with no benefits for doing this. We should see this as a great opportunity to share knowledge and impart experience. A chance to offer constructive criticism and teach the person to grow and become not only a better Marketing, PR, Corp Comm person by improving their technical skills and also improving their confidence. Lastly, we can overcome our greatest professional weakness and treat people that by cooperation we secure a great deal more than by petty and needless competition.

If corporate communications, marketing and PR are ever going to be taken seriously we need to recognize talent and nurture it. We need to end the immaturity, the turf wars and the nonsense and present a united front as a mature and credible part of the business community. Once this process is completed, or at least well underway, we can start to be taken seriously as a profession.

The deadliest communications four letter word :PLAN

2010-09-09T04:36:00.000-07:00

Last time I was talking about the need to speed things up and kick into high gear. Now is the time when I say, well we also need to slow down a bit. Are these contradictory? Now absolutely not and let me explain.

Execution is unquestionably essential to the development of a proper brand. It is often where the wheels come off the wagon and many well designed plans fall down, never to be heard from again. Execution is the time when we have to deliver. But let's step back a minute and look at what needs to be done before execution. By that, I am referring to that terrible word and something a lot of C-level's don't like to see and that is plan.

Especially in the area of communications senior executives seem to have the notion that it is simply a matter of throwing a switch and all will start running like clock work and that is all there is too it. As one CEO said to me once, "Communications should be as easy as order from a drive through." Needless to say he h ad no idea of how powerful communications was as a tool and how it could benefit his organization.

Now there is one big, enormous down side to planning and that is that it requires organizations to look three to six months out. It requires vision and it requires waiting. For a world class communications plan to work there is a need to plan out several months in advance just as there is in every category.

I laugh sometimes because my account and finance friends spend a long time working on various financial models and try to determine different scenarios which will show what cash flow will be in 3 months or 6 months or what ever time period. The same holds true for IT managers who have to plan several months in advance for upgrades and patches and security tests. As we can see planning is an essential and intelligent aspect of the organizational growth process.

Yet the communications department is expected to produce stuff on rapid turn around, more often than not to suit the temporary needs of senior management. Ironically, this is the most visible forum for the organization and unlike IT or, to a lesser degree finance, this will be seen by external audiences who will be making decisions based on what they see.

One thing we need to do as communications professionals in order to strengthen our position within the organization is to develop strong planning methods and then to stick with them. We need to do this so that we can develop a cohesive and far-reaching planning strategy but most importantly we need to do this so we can develop a system to measure and evaluate our progress. The use of planning and strategy and more importantly our resolute defense of the need to do this will ultimately benefit the organization and its brand and ultimately refocus senior leadership on the role of communications as a strategic tool and asset and one that needs to be nurtured and grown.

Sprinting to the finish line.

2010-09-07T05:05:00.000-07:00

Now that Labor Day is behind us we start heading into the time of year when the days grow shorter and the leaves change color and the thermometer drops. In many respects this is my favorite time of year because the air is so fresh and refined that it makes the work process so much more enjoyable. It also is the time of year when we can focus on what is coming up and begin our sprint to the finish line.

Ideally, the summer was spent planning for this sprint. That was of course, in between fantasies of vacations. The fall sprint should be focused on bringing target audiences back into focus and get yourself onto the radar of major stakeholders. This is really the time of year when marketing budgets are being established and major purchasing decisions are generally being reached. This is the time of year when planning turns into execution.

Given that a lot of plans are being made for 2011 we need to make the most of this time of year. This is a great time of year to engage social media and bring your customers and potential customers in at a new level so they can see you as a more concrete partner in their business. It is also a time to use the more traditional methods and try to engage media partners in a business relationship that will result in the previously mentioned complete market penetration. Lastly, it is the time to stop being the wallflower and become the player in the industry you thought you should be all along.

The final third of the year is when you should really shift into high gear. It is the time of year when marketing and communications need to demonstrate what we can really do for the organization and how our skill and success means the organization can and will be successful. It is when our planning and drive will lead to success in the market. Of course if it is not done with the right balance of strategy, execution and team work than we will fall short and the blemish to marketing will be impossible to erase.

How too many chefs ruin the brand

2010-09-02T04:42:00.000-07:00

I have seen my fair share of cooking shows during my life time. Now the hot chef is Gordon Ramsey but my personal favorite is Julia Child. The reason I always liked Julia is that you were able to see the art, and science, of creation. I always found it amusing that she seemed to find her own cooking did not taste terrible.

One thing I find interesting about Julia Child and chefs in general is that there is a direct analogy between cooking and building a brand. In each case there are unique elements which need to be created, proportioned correctly and then executed in order for the right blend to produce a wonderful bounty. Also, not everyone can do it right and few have the patience to take it to a level of excellence.

Let's stay on the cooking analogy for a minute. While we make like our lemon sole or maybe just a cheeseburger and fries , the final product represents a long journey involving many hands. We seldom think of the farmer who grew the lettuce or the grapes for the wine. Nor do we think of the truck driver who drove the produce to market. But what we do know is that once the products get to the restaurant, the chef and his or her kitchen staff know what to do with them and how to turn them into the incredible edibles we all love to eat.

Ideally this would be true with marketing and branding. Ideally the marketing department would develop copy, work on PR strategy, coordinate design components and be allowed to build a brand. Sadly, as we all know this is rarely the case. More often than not, CEO's and other senior executives like to stick their noses in and order direct changes to the product with little or no input regarding how the marketing team feels regarding the decision. The inverse is just as sad, they don't care enough about marketing to properly fund it and as such instead of buying the fresh lettuce for the salad or the top choice meat, we have to pick through what is left and try and make do.

Let me continue with my chef analogy, could anyone imagine the owner of a restaurant coming in and say, you know we need to keep costs down so from now on everyone gets their meat one style so we need not run extra ovens or in the bar advocate putting apple juice in some of the mixed drink containers arguing that the customers aren't going to notice. Surprisingly that happens to some degree in business. Not that there is active attempts at deception but rather micro-management by people who do not understand the field and think that they know the brand best or even worse don't think in terms of the brand but rather in short term, quarter-to quarter periods.

Of course one problem with being a chef is that someone will always criticize the cooking. That is true with marketing and branding and needs to be taken as part of the job. However the only type of criticism that works is to offer constructive criticism. Saying this is wrong, or not what I had in mind is totally wasteful and useless in development. Rather saying something like, "I would prefer we focus more on the technology as opposed to the design," is a concrete and workable brand criticism. Sadly, this is very rarely heard.

So what is the conclusion to take away from this? Well, I hope it is that marketing and communications people, just like chefs, need to be allowed to work. By doing this we can create a brand which will be stronger and ideally assume market leadership. All good chefs, like good marketing people, value constructive criticism and see it as a means of improvement. What we need from external audiences is the freedom to do our jobs with some feedback both good and bad but most importantly the opportunity to do our jobs!

The Crisis in Crisis Communications Part 2/Crisis Management

2010-08-31T04:37:00.000-07:00

While I don't like to revisit old topics, I do find that crisis communications is one that deserves a review due to upcoming events. As I write this from the east coast of the US we sit waiting to see if Hurricane Earl is going to be a major event, a major pain in the butt or fizzle out all together. Sadly, events like this often do far more damage to emergency plans than helping.

First off, when a major natural event, assuming it can be forecast, is announced, we are treated to the 24 hour media cycle in full wrath of God type mode. This will be a disaster of biblical proportions etc. etc. Of course 9 out of 10 times the event can not live up to the hype and people feel almost cheated. Public officials of course will meet in a comfortable locations with lots of bottled water and ample fresh food and calmly go through their preparedness forms as if all events will simply roll out slowly and smoothly.

If there is one lesson that can be learned from Hurricane Katrina and the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is that there is no crisis plan that can simply be opened and followed. I find it humorous that people think that by sitting in a conference room and thumbing through a 3-ring binder they are prepared for an emergency situation. In fact the best thing to do is gather all of those binders, put them in a nice pile, strap on some explosives and blow them up. I use this metaphor because that is essentially what will happen in a true crisis.

All too often management believes that crisis are about containment and "staying on top of the situation." Trying to stay on top of a crisis is much like trying to stay on top of a bucking bronco without benefit of a bridle. The worst thing and, quite possible, the most dangerous, is that managers believe that by conducting drills or having a plan means they are ready for a crisis. This would be laughable were it not so tragic.

One year before Hurricane Katrina, city, state and Federal leaders in the Gulf region did an emergency drill of a fictional Hurricane Pam. The fictional hurricane followed Katrina's path almost to within 25 miles and its wind speeds were only 10 miles per hour stronger. The levee breeches and the failure to evacuate New Orleans were all anticipated and predicted. Yet when the storm became more than an exercise the following year, all agencies were completely unprepared. They froze, panicked and when one element of their plan fell apart they tossed the entire plan out the window and became totally reactive.

The other great example is NASA. The space agency had a great legacy of running disaster scenarios that tried to anticipate everything from a rocket disaster to men being stranded on the moon. Amazingly they predicted both the Challenger and Columbia disasters. But at some point senior management decided that it was bad for morale at NASA to think bad things and killed the project. So rather than have a check list of things to look for and avoid, NASA went blindly into each project and had multiple failures, each of which could have been avoided had some crisis review been conducted.

So then what do we do? How do we prevent the next crisis from becoming a disaster? Well the first step still works so stick with it. That is to plan, as best that we can, for an upcoming event. Granted we can not see it all, nor can we anticipate every possible outcome. But we shouldn't try too. We should also plan on how will we manage the event. In this case we need to practice keeping our cool, keeping open the channels of communication. We need to think both long term, AND short term. Ideally they will not oppose each other but we must be prepared for the eventuality they do. Lastly, we need to take action. This can be anything from a prepared statement stating an intention to investigate, (always a sensible and reasonable action item) to a full blown media offensive designed to get our message to key stakeholders and audiences.

Crisis are almost always survivable and in some cases may work out for the best. But the require planning, calm and most importantly leadership for everything to work.

Putting the cart before the horse, tech wise!

2010-08-26T03:37:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned previously how fascinating I find organizations who wish to jump on the social media bandwagon and want to hire "experts" in the field. Given that we're talking about a technology that is probably 3 years old at best, that would be similar to finding a preschool age child who can type or do math. What we are dealing with now is people who have some theories as to what will work best and really it is the person who can sell the best dream that will win the race, not necessarily the person who has the best qualifications.

I was speaking to a senior communications person recently who asked me for my ideas on how to use social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Wikipedia to enhance their communications programs. I gave my own thoughts on the matter and we had a discussion regarding these thoughts on the issue. When it came time for me to ask questions, I asked this person, "How do you see social media working with your marketing programs and how will you quantify success regarding social media?" Well, going by the flow of blood and skin tone out of this person's face you would have thought I asked them to calculate Pi to the 800th number.

The sad fact is that there is a mad scramble to jump on the social media band wagon but there is very little thought given as to why or what advantage might be reaped for the least investment. Now lets be clear, I am NOT advocating that social media has no place in a business environment. Quite the opposite, done properly I believe social media can greatly enhance the brand, but we need to pick the technology innovation because it enhances the brand, not because we think it is cool and fun. World of Warcraft is still the biggest online community last time I checked, yet I don't see businesses rushing to set up avatars on WOW.

So the goal here is that before we all decide to jump onto the social media bandwagon, we need to decide how we can use it to grow brand recognition and ultimately sales. We shouldn't jump in out of fear that we are missing the boat. A measured and concentrated advance into social media, like we would approach any new media, would seem the obvious outcome. But it falls to all of us communications professionals to not only provide the necessary guidance as we head into this new communications arena, but also to provide a braking mechanism if necessary. Proceed with both caution and purpose and you will most likely succeed.

Most times the greatest threat to a brand comes from within!

2010-08-24T05:12:00.001-07:00

Keeping a brand going is no easy task. Well that will win the award for the most obvious statement of the year! But the scary part of the task is that there are so many ways that companies injure themselves when they communicate their brands that sometimes external factors are only a part of the problem. Sometimes, what goes in within the organization is as great a threat to the brand as any external threat.

The recent BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is seen, among other things, as a PR fiasco. I for one don't agree with that sentiment. Certainly the public relations team didn't tell BP management to cut corners on the well, nor did they encourage the CEO and other senior management to make sure foolish and uncaring statements. Of course they do share the blame for allowing these statements to go out as well as for so much incorrect and unclear information to be released.

This is an egregious example of how internal elements pose threats to the brand but there are many more. One of the worst, and BP can be seen as an example of it, is the desire of senior managers to see quarter-to-quarter and lose all focus on the larger picture. The worst example of this is the formula we see with larger companies who wish to manage to earnings and in doing so do fail to nurture the brand and we see no organic growth. The focus is on pleasing shareholders and not driving brand development so we are choosing a diet of candy and soda pop over good healthy food.

There are so many great brands who have died by the side of the road because of the right combination of lack of lack of foresight, complacency, arrogance and downright laziness. Let's keep in mind that brands are not restricted to what you may buy at the local grocery or department store. If you're a small agency or startup, you need to have a brand that sets you apart from the competition. Reputation matters tremendously and the worst part is that while it may take years for a good brand to be built, it can be destroyed in seconds!

Another enemy of brands is senior management. The worst challenge they represent is that they often think in the immediate term and as such do not have the patience to wait for the seeds of a well built marketing plan to fully take root. More often then not, they are pushing the panic button and are worried because they are not seeing immediate changes which they believe should be happening. It often does not matter that we marketing and communications professionals counseled patience, they do not see what they wanted to now they are panicking and want change for changes sake.

So what can be done? Well for one thing, we as marketing and communications people can continue to offer the best counsel that can be done. We can be the firm advocates of protecting the brand and ensuring its natural and organic growth. We can recommend that the brakes be applied when necessary or that we change into another lane when that is called for. Basically our continued expertise and ability to be persuasive will result in a stronger brand. The success or failure of this effort will result from the determination of the marketing and communications people to pursue the course of action that will strengthen the brand.

Sadly, too many of our professional colleagues are willing to do what is popular and what they think the bosses want as opposed to what's right. If we do what's right both for the brand and organization, we will emerge stronger, more successful and ultimately more respect both within and outside the organization.

The failure or communications to think and act long term

2010-08-19T04:54:00.000-07:00

I was having drinks with a friend the other night and she mentioned something at work that made her both angry as heck and sick to her stomach. "The names have been changed to protect the wishy washy." She was faced with a looming problem where a product was due to be issued and no one on the product team would commit to having the product ready but still insisted that the product be ready to go public by a certain date to meet quarterly goals. Well the date came closer and closer and it still wasn't ready.

At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.

Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.

The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.

The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.

So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.

Why do crisis always happen when you don't want them too?

2010-08-17T04:51:00.001-07:00

Well back from vacation one whole day officially and WHAM, hit with a crisis! Of course no crisis ever comes at a good time and let's be honest, how much of a crisis would it be if it happened when we wanted it to happen and when it was most convenient. But like any crisis, there is also an opportunity. There was an old legend that in Chinese or Japanese the characters which represent crisis can also spell opportunity. I don't know if linguistically that is true but from the standpoint of sentiment it is very true.

The first rule of thumb in a crisis is to maintain a level head. A crisis is obviously a serious matter and can lead to serious if not fatal damage to the brand if not handled properly. Some short term damage may be unavoidable, but the short term damage may result in longer term prosperity like the floods which provide for rich farm land. After calm has been restored, the next step is to get as realistic measurement of the scope of the matter. What happened, who was responsible, how far down the path have we gone? These are some of the questions that should be asked immediately.

At the crisis table should sit the CEO. Sorry folks, the CEO needs to be in front of this. A good CEO will see this as part of his or her job. If you're there for the good, you must be there for the bad. Second to the CEO should be the senior corp comm person. This person should be responsible for handling the day-to-day issues regarding the crisis. The formulation of the strategy, developing the message, ensuring that key stakeholders are all informed should fall to the head of corporate communications. Also at the table for informative purposes should be people like a corporate counsel, perhaps the CFO or maybe a brand manager, or the person who has day-to-day management regarding the issue.

Generally while I am loath to give the lawyers any say in standard corporate communications operations, this is the exception to the rule since there will most likely be identifiable legal ramifications, not only to the event which triggered the original crisis but also to subsequent events. Crisis management is the time when corporate communications assumes control of the ship and drives the organization clear of any harm.

One of the first and most important issues for the Corporate Communications team to do is to ensure that all communications to stakeholders are clear and in line with overall corporate objectives. The potential for distraction and confusion is high. There will be a great number of parties who will need to be communicated too and the more end points there are, the greater the potential for mixed messages and mixed messages can lead to the appearance of a cover up or cloud the facts.

A crisis will never happen when you are ready for it, when it is a good time for you or for what ever reason, when you want it too. The beauty of the crisis is that it is the one, singular opportunity for Corporate Communications to demonstrate its role in the organization and why it should be at the leadership table. Lets also not forget that a crisis often serves to bolster the role of communications by demonstrating that it should be a strategic program, planned in advance and consulted by senior management on an ongoing basis, and not just an afterthought. In this regard, a crisis can be a mixed blessing.

Any organization who values Corporate Communications, values its stakeholders and customers and brand should not only survive, but also emerge stronger than before. A company which sees communications as a task and chore, something to drive stock prices or as an ego platform for senior management will most likely receive a sharp rebuke from the market and learn a painful lesson a la BP.

Protecting the Brand: Communications Number One Role

2010-08-05T04:40:00.000-07:00

Brand Management is something which a great deal of ink has been spilled over. Most of these pieces are easily forgettable academic tomes, never to see the outside of a classroom. What is interesting though is that while nearly everyone can agree that a brand is important and that marketing should have some control over it, very few can agree on how to best manage and protect a brand.

I think it best to try and figure out first of all, who should not be responsible for managing the brand on a regular basis. I would start off by saying keep the CEO away from the day-to-day management of the brand. Yes, it is true that the CEO has organizational responsibilities that span the entire company and as a result there is the necessity for him or her to have a degree of involvement in brand management. What I would advocate is keep the CEO from micro-managing the brand and thus causing it to ebb and flow with their whims. Let's ignore the fact that micro-managing has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to organizational growth, the fact is that the CEO will be focused on too many things to give the brand the time it needs and, in many cases, the chief will lack the exact expertise to manage the brand and may, in fact, do more harm than good.

The other group who should be kept miles away from brand management is the group who are indecisive or who wish to make decisions they believe will please higher ups and please management. There will be times when hard decisions will be required about the brand and this group tends to either descend into anarchy or flee like rats from a sinking ship. One most also think of the mind set of this group. They tend to think in terms of what is best for them in the near term and have no concept of anything happening five years down the road. A good brand should be built to last for generations not just a few years.

The third group who should be kept away from the brand is people who do not have a background in one of the marketing disciplines. I say this because they first and foremost don't understand the evolutionary process that is both marketing and communications. What happens today was preceded by a historical event. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what happens tomorrow or next week will be the result of things planned and/or executed this week. Sorry to apply the broad brush here but sales people, accountants, engineers what have you just do not think in these terms. Marketing people are best equipped to deal with this type of thought process.

So we come to who should be responsible for protecting the brand. By now I am sure it is no surprise that I say it is the marketing team and specifically it is the communications group within marketing who should manage it. Why do I say this? Basically because communications people are the one group in most organizations who have to be both strategic geniuses and tactical wizards. We have to be both creative and analytical. We have to be able to deal with a CEO one minute, a vendor the next and then someone who maybe just out of school the third.

In addition, communications people are equipped with the necessary tools to think ahead several quarters and are the few groups in the organization who are truly planning for what will transpire. We are the best trained and best equipped members of the organization to deal with crisis situations and we know not only how to react to them but also to prevent them from taking place. Lastly, we are the best equipped members of the organization to work with different groups as we need to be able to speak the languages of finance, tech, health care or what ever group you might have so we are able to offer a concise and accurate statement regarding the brand in virtually any situation.

Protecting the brand is no small feat. It is the organization's most valuable asset but sadly many executives fail to see just how valuable it is, until it is damaged by a crisis they could have prevented. If protection of the brand is left to competent marketing and communications professionals and they are allowed to develop a coherent and far reaching strategy then the organization will thrive. The greatest brands on the market now have one thing in common, strong and exceptional marketing departments. As the old saying goes if your neighbor is digging holes in the ground and finding gold each time he digs then its time you start to dig in your yard.

Are Communications People Tough Enough?

2010-08-03T04:58:00.000-07:00

There was a very interesting scene in the season premier of MadMen. Be prepared for a spoiler you haven't seen it yet! During a meeting with a client who was trying to market a two-piece bathing suit for modest people, Don Draper had enough and threw the potential clients out of the office. A lot of my fellow PR and Corp Com friends admitted to enjoying what Don did and wishing they could have done it themselves.

I bring this up because it focuses on the concept of toughness and doing what's right in Corporate Communications. I will also stick my neck out and say hurray for Don Draper. He went to his clients with an intelligent and well-thought marketing campaign. He obviously knew the market better than they did and when they balked at his proposals and he saw they were being stubborn for no reason than to be stubborn and closed minded, so he ended the relationship. Granted, it was for the sake of television he threw them out of the office, but ultimately, he did these people a favor by pointing out how deeply flawed their brand premise was. We can only wonder if they got the message or just went to another agency who was happy to smile, cash their checks and do what they want regardless of how wrong it is.

Now of course standing up to a client, be it internal or external is always worrisome and dangerous. Many people think that by giving us a check we surrender all intelligence and basically become some type of puppet for them to manipulate. Others, think that since they have hired a communications professional or a team of pros, they need not worry anymore about the issue of communications.

Sadly, there are a great number of communications professionals who tend towards being more reptilian than mammal. They will also do what is solely in their best interests and will tell the client what they want to hear and will focus on personal advancement to the exclusion of all else that makes for an effective and dynamic team. For some reason, the communications community focuses on people who make us feel good and tell us what we want to hear than the ones who tell us what we need to know.

Put it into a different perspective, if you're 30 pounds overweight, smoke and eat the wrong things, do you want a doctor who will keep telling you all is well and that you look great. Of course not. Now doctors HAVE to tell you the truth but communications people SHOULD do so. It is interesting when communications are direct and honest because there are two initial reactions generally speaking. The first is that the executive or client jumps back like they have received an electric shock and the look on their face is like they've been given a dose of some terrible medicine. The second reaction is that usually within 24 hours one of the snakes in the grass will offer reassuring words that all is well and try to endear themselves to the client.

We all need to understand and agree that pleasing a client is not the same as servicing their needs. Just as we need to say no to a child to help their growth we sometimes need to say no to a client to help them grow. The stock answer by the appeasers is that clients can always find someone else to do the job if you're too harsh, mean etc. That is true, but if they can find a communications pro who is willing to be bold enough and offer them the honest opinion which will make the brand stronger than the organization will be the better for it.

The question we need to ask as communications professionals is are we willing to do what is right or what is expedient? Are we going to be a profession bound by some type of ethics and guidelines or are we simply going to collect a check and do a job that requires the minimum amount of both risk and morals. These are tough questions we need to think about in our profession because the past ten years have been so brutal that survival skills have trumped good management skills. The next ten years should either be really interesting or quite scary.

How to better use communications as a strategic tool

2010-07-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

One of the great weakness of communications is that it is often seen as a tactical tool with very little value. As a result, excesses of quantity often result and quality greatly suffers as a result. The root cause of this is often not hard to find, we try to please the higher ups in the organization and wish to be popular, rather than sticking to what we consider to be best and recommending those tools.

Now of course I have heard the universal cop-out to this claim many times before. If we do not do it, then the CEO, VP whomever will simply go out and find someone who will. Well the easy answer to that threat is go ahead. There are lots of bad communications people out there and there are lots of organizations practicing communications badly. This isn't a treat or a desire to see some group fail, rather it is calling the bluff of someone who presumes to know your job better than you do. If you were undergoing heart surgery would you question the cardiologist on how they will operate or the anesthesiologist on what medicines will be used? Of course not.

The first, and I would argue most effective way of ensuring management seeings communications as a strategic tool is to act like it is. Fulfill your roll with authority and decisiveness and get stuff done that helps the organization! I know that all sounds easy but trust me, it's about expertise and accomplishment and not about smoke and mirrors. The phonies and charlatans who live and die by smoke and mirror only get so far and are exposed for what they are. Still their lack of professionalism causes harm to the rest of us who know what we are doing.

Second, the subject of metrics is always a dodgy one in communications but turn the fear and anxiety about this to our advantage. Put firm goals in place and use them. For example when some VP or even the CEO wants to use communications for some irrelevant task like trumping the latest tiny business deal tell them no. In fact, go one better and put them on a strict regimen of so many announcements during a given period so that a strong strategic evaluation is given to the use of any communications tool and it is not done on a simple whim.

Lastly, keep score of what you have done and let the results speak for themselves. If there is an increase in traffic visiting the web site, sales leads, media hits most, if not all of that can be traced back to a well-run communications program. Remember that it is not about feeding massive egos or making an adult feel like a child by being offered a treat. The goal is to build, secure and communicate about a brand and to help secure more business for it. This beats any and all other reasons a communications program exists.

Being a communications person is not easy. There are a few who do the job very well surrounded by those who are not up to the task. It is for those who do the job well to be the leaders and to set the high standards that the rest of the profession can aspire too. By acting professionally and by letting all around us know that we are the best, and most importantly backing it up, we can ensure communications is rightly seen as a strategic tool. Lastly, and most importantly, don't be smug or dismissive. By doing that, you will ensure that are dismissed as someone who is all talk and can not deliver the good. Be confident but not over confident. Be a teacher but not a lecturer. Most important, do the right thing for the job and the brand first and foremost.

Why can't most communications people communicate?

2010-07-27T04:05:00.000-07:00

Being a sole proprietor has one great advantage. Yes the commute is great and all that, but what I am referring too is that I am a review committee of one. There is nothing that destroys a great work worse than the review of dozens of people each of whom wants a change to the document. Often this results in a weak and diluted piece of work, much like a painting, hit with a fire hose.

There is a great story about how when Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel in Rome, one of Pope Julius's Cardinal's told him to paint as if God himself were painting the Chapel. Supposedly, Michelangelo told the cardinal that if the Pope wished for God to paint the Sistine Chapel he should have given him the commission. The point I see in that story is that many of us in communications are used to receiving the input of others, sometimes welcome, other times not. Often the worst type of input to receive comes from those who think they are helping and the worst type of advice to give is to those who we are trying to help.

In my experience working with and for communications people we often see advice presented as fact. For example a document we produced edited as if we didn't know what I/we didn't know what we were saying when in fact it said exactly what the edited copy did but in a different format. Of course this is indicative of another long standing fault with communications people and that is that we do not offer strategic alternatives to senior level executives but rather position communications to meet their expectations which is nearly always tactical. (The news release for example.)

I once had the opportunity to see an advertising team brainstorm and it was a very impressive feat. While it was as far from Mad Men as you can imagine, it was still a very impressive feat. For 30 minutes ideas were freely offered, discussed and debated. No one idea was dismissed out of hand and, in the end, the solution was really a group effort and quite impressive. Sadly, communications people seem to think that they are too busy or, too important, for such niceties. A document isn't considered perfect unless someone higher up has marked it up, changed yes to no and made 100 other unnecessary changes more to appear busy than to accomplish anything else.

Lastly, what's also missing in most communications environment is the idea that once a person has reached a certain level that he or she is now above the nitty gritty world of writing and editing. In certain branches of the military there is the concept that every service man or woman is a rifleman first (forgive the sexist terminology) and everything else second. Besides helping to project a certain esprit de corps, this also keeps people focused on what the job really is about and keeps people's eyes on what needs to get done and how to set proper priorities.

There is a woeful gap of internal communications within the world of communications. Most communications professionals see the profession as back and white and really believe that they know all and there is nothing they can learn. That is sad when you compare it to fields like medicine and engineering which believe the exact opposite. The best way to manage our profession and better guide what the executive levels think of us is by realizing we are a profession and not just a bunch of people fumbling around in dark. By working, sharing and collaborating more, we can actually turn communications, (PR and MarCom mostly) into a real profession.

Sometimes a deadline can really kill you!

2010-07-22T04:12:00.000-07:00

The term deadline originated from the American Civil War. In the infamous POW camp at Andersonville, GA there were no real fences early on. Instead there was a line drawn in the red clay. Any prisoner who approached it would be shot dead without warning. So for those who find deadlines impossible remember that in times past, they were quite literally lethal.

I am thinking of deadlines and their nature today due to the recent flap over the Obama administration's handling of the Sherry Sherrod case. For those who don't recall her case or haven't heard of it, Ms. Sherrod is the U.S. Department of Agriculture employee forced to resign for supposedly acting in a biased fashion towards a department client some 25 years ago. There was a leaked video in which Ms. Sherrod claims she found this main to be racist and condescending towards her so she chose not to give him less than full service. Upon seeing this on Fox News the Obama administration forced her to resign.

Well the real story is coming together now and we are seeing that what was shown was actually a heavily edited video from a conservative blogger trying to not only push his own agenda but to demonstrate the Obama administration was racist. The unedited video shows Ms. Sherrod saying how she over came her feelings of anger towards this man and helped him out. In fact, she did such a good job that the man himself went to the media and called her an angel.

I find this a very interesting story for several reasons. First, it shows the absolute worst aspect of the rush-rush 24 hour news cycle. Run with the story, without first getting facts checked. Second, it serves as a warning to any and all communications people that news can not be spun or managed. The best spin is always and will always be the truth. Granted it takes longer to take the truth, but I am guessing that this mistake by the administration is not what they had planned to deal with this week.

This story also shows a break down by the communications people who failed to protect their product and in effect were made to look foolish. They acted out of fear and were in a purely defensive mode. No attempt seems to be made to check on the veracity of the story and prepare a rebuttal of it. In many respects, senior management has decided that communications people exist to answer the phones from reporters and book interviews. Sadly, this incident serves to reinforce that argument.

Lastly, we have yet another example of communication people rolling over and doing what ever management wants regardless of the implications. At some point, we need to gather together and say no that is not the right way to do things and let the CEO's or department heads or whomever know they need to trust our judgment in matters regarding communication. Sadly, too many of our brothers and sisters out there seem to think we are like that cute puppy dog who is always willing to please so I am not holding out hopes a united front will appear anytime soon.

We are the front line troops in brand protection and message development. We need to say what needs to be said, even if it is unpopular. We also need to make sure that any media opportunity is just that, an opportunity. It is better to let an artificial deadline slip and be accurate than rush to judgment and make a bonehead move. Tripping the deadline can get you killed.

Don't Blame the Weatherman Because it Rained on Your Parade

2010-07-19T04:37:00.000-07:00

I remember the late great George Carlin had a great bit on corporate success and failure. I don't recall the exact words but it was along the lines of, "Do you ever notice that we succeed and you fail?" As we all know success is the child of many parents and failure is an orphan. I think this was on perfect display at the press conference held by Steve Jobs on Friday. I would call this part press conference, part explanation, part near child-like tantrum.

Steve Jobs is well known for having a large ego and a short fuse. In that respect he is like a number of CEO's. He, and Apple of course though it's getting harder to separate the two, have been on a tremendous hot streak. Between the iPod, iPhone and iPad he has been raised to a level few non-deities ever see. Unfortunately, like a lot of diva's, the start to believe their own press clippings and really do believe that they are just an amazing and completely important person.

He made an astonishing mistake in my opinion by laying blame for this not at his own feet, nor his engineers but at everyone outside of Apple especially the media. We heard that this problem was well known within the industry and other carriers had the same problems and no one commented on them. Then he ripped into the news media for what he determined was taking a minor flaw and blowing it out of proportion. As we clearly can see, Jobs is totally tone deaf to keep his customers happy and in the long run that can't be good for Apple the organization.

In a great many respects Steve Jobs is certainly a genius. In others he is a dinosaur whose extinction time may fast be approaching. We saw that he has no interest in working with the media and that he will settle for nothing less than fawning coverage of himself, his company and his products. We also saw his ugly side when, for once, he wasn't calling the shots and showing everyone how great his products were. This is not someone who likes criticism and thinks he can control what is being said about his company without the benefit of mutually beneficial media relations. I watched him on stage and said "thank God I am not in his PR department."

In some respects he is like a lot of CEO types I have met down the line. I always remember one CEO who was interviewing me to head his PR operation. He told me before asking any questions that reporters only want creative stories so how would I pitch his company. I told him, very politely of course, that I disagreed and that the media wants to write for their audiences. I further explained that a PR strategy should target outlets his customers were likely to be influenced. I had to hold back my eyes from rolling when he looked at me and said, "reporters and customers put together don't equal half an idiot."

Needless to say I decided then to not take the job but I did enjoy the chance to try and tell a CEO how wrong he was. Of course there was no changing his mind and I could tell how furious he was that anyone dared question him. So in typical imperious fashion he cut the interview short and they hired someone within the company who wouldn't make any waves.

The lessons learned from all of this is that no company is solely about the CEO no matter how brilliant he or she is. A strategy revolving around that will eventually lead to the organizations failure. Also, it is terrible communications practice to blame the media for your own short comings. Yes the media loves to kick someone when they are down but, often, most wounds are self inflicted. Lastly, as communications people, we are responsible for protecting the company's brand and reputation and that is much more valuable that any CEO and his or her ego.

The loss of communications, in communications

2010-07-15T05:14:00.000-07:00

I was working on a project recently with a colleague and was shocked at some of the writing I was seeing going on. While we all understand and appreciate the need to be proficient in all of the social media aspects that are growing rapidly it is amazing how the long term impacts of these changes in our profession is that we are all becoming weaker. Just as the fast food culture tends to lead to obesity, the style of social media writing leads to weaker writing and communication skills throughout the organization.

Where as in the past communications professional generally learned to write from the same base, be it AP Style or what ever, most communications professionals wrote in the same style and learned to write the same way. This was then shared with new entries into the field and while one could argue about the merits of the AP style, there was a certain standardization which led to a level of professionalism.

Now with the influx of social media into the mix, writing skills have declined sharply and we may be facing a long term crisis in communications. For one thing, the art and skill of crafting a story and turning that into a message is eroding faster than an ocean facing beach. One of the downside of stressing Twitter over traditional writing is that we are telling snippets and not delivering messages. A brief character blurb is often not enough to tell a complete story.

Also, as we all know, proper grammar is simply not being taught. I am thinking of asking for future writing and editing assignments to offer me bonuses on the edits I make. If I were to get a dollar for every split infinitive, missing comma or my own personal favorite the propositional adverb, I could be making something in the low seven figures. I would add to this the over reliance on spell check and the lack of a dictionary in offices. Recently I had to show someone how to look something up in a dictionary and was astounded that they didn't know how to use it.

The other area of failure in communications arises from the managers in both agencies and in the corporate world. More often than not, edits to a document are simply marked and e-mailed back. There are no interactions between manager and employee and no understanding is shared in all too many cases. More often than not the document is hacked to death to make it seem to fit the managers view of the message and not only is no lesson learned, but the message is weakened because the staff member will not wish to challenge the boss.

While I am not going to say social media lacks importance and its role should be lessened, I do believe we need to strengthen the training of staff and managers in how to work to craft stronger messages. This means training, time commitment and the desire to make a uniform commitment to excellence. These are areas where, sadly, we as communications professional are lacking and can improve both easily and quickly.

How Communications Can be a Value Add to the Corporate Mix

2010-07-13T04:58:00.000-07:00

A common refrain from people in marketing and corporate communications is that we are indispensable when times are good but completely disposable when the fickle winds of the business world change. A part of that negative aspect of our role is the fault of short sighted corporate executives who can only see to the next quarter and lack the vision to build their brands. But we are kidding ourselves as a profession if we think that the fault is in everyone but ourselves. Crying like some grumpy child who believes the world just doesn't get them.

Having the experience of having worked in both the corporate and agency side of marketing and corp comm there is one thing that stands out right away. By and large we take the easiest way out and go down the path of least resistance. There is an old story about an older scientist and his young protege conducting an experiment. At some point, the older scientist turns in amazement to the protege and says, "what did you think of that?" The protegee has no idea what he is talking about so he says "hmm,,,what did you think of it." After the older scientist gives a long winded answer about what a profound discovery he's just made the younger apprentice says with a smile, "yes, I saw it too; we're going to be famous."

The point of the story is that we all too often try and give a client what they want rather than what they need. We want to please when we are really supposed to instruct. Would you feel comfortable with a doctor who seemed dodgy and wanted to know if you wanted surgery or tests? Expertise is something we pay for and it is something that we earn. However it is something we very rarely practice out of fear of stepping on someone's toes.

So many people in communications value the fact that we have the ear of the CEO. But in many cases the CEO is like Cesar of old who claimed he makes the sun rise in the east and set in the west. Cesar could do it the other way he once claimed but the roosters would all die of fright. Well the CEO is not the organization and any half way well run organization has a plan to succeed the CEO so that is another blow to the idea of the CEO as a deity.

So back to the question at hand, what can communications add to the corporate mix? First and foremost we should be the truth tellers in the organization. One term I have used to executives time and time again is that, if you lie, you die. This doesn't necessarily involve some grand conspiracy of competitors out to get you; instead it involves building mutually beneficial and open relationships with key stakeholders. The reason they need be mutually beneficial is that there will be a time when the organization will need the help of a stakeholder or maybe even multiple stakeholders. It's best to have them think kind of you before you ask for help than having to go, hat in hand to someone who is lukewarm in how they view.

The other way that communications can be of value to the overall success of the organization is by being a fair and just counsel. While that may seem obvious, it is very rarely practiced. Too many communications people seem to think that their job is to follow orders without question. If I had a dime for how many times I have been told, well, so and so pays the bills so we do what they say, I could retire now. This is the wrong type of mentality that I am talking about. The fact that we are being payed for our expertise is proof we need to offer opinions which may fly in the face of what the client wishes to be told. It's business, not a nursery school!

Telling someone they are wrong is neither easy, nor pleasant but it is often times necessary. If an organization has any hope of success it will be run by people who realize they do not know everything and who trust those beneath them. Sadly, as we all know, most organizations don't function this way. The best course of action is to fight hard for your view and when it is rebuffed, make it clear that this is happening against your counsel.

The long and short is that corporate communications can add a tremendous value to the corporate mix if we, as corp comm professionals, are willing to be brave enough and bold enough to take a stand. There will always be the shallow careerists who think that by kissing up to the client they will be rewarded. But by and large they damage us and damage the profession. We should try and avoid them. We should offer the value of our expertise and experience and let it be known our views are as correct as those of a doctor or a lawyer. You are welcome to ignore them but you do so at your own peril. After a few experiences being burned by poor judgment, perhaps the decision makers will realize we actually know what we're doing!

Where is the leadership in Public Relations

2010-07-08T04:55:00.000-07:00

A friend sent me an interesting article showing that a Chief Petty Officer in the Coast Guard who was responsible for crafting the government's message about the BP spill also worked for BP's PR agency. While the article was unclear regarding the exact role of this person and if they worked on the BP account it did raise some distributing questions about the roles of public relations, ethics and leadership.

One issue PR people deal with is the concept that we are nothing but spin masters. Basically, many people both outside and, quite sadly, inside the organization, think it is our job to take manure and turn it into lovely fertilizer. The sad fact of the matter is that the PR profession and many of its leaders are the greatest factors in ensuring this is not simply a stereotype, but, sadly the state of affairs in PR.

Going back to the case of the Chief Petty Officer I was reminded of an ethics question posed to both doctors and lawyers in law and medical school respectively. They are basically told that if they need to ask themselves, "is this ethical?" comes up, then it is most likely unethical, or at best a gray area and they should avoid it. While lawyers are hardly seen as the paragons of ethics and doctors can be compromised, the fact is they have a set of rules in their professions which say what is and what isn't wrong.

What's also missing in PR that is found in both professions (legal and medical) is that young professionals entering the field are thrown into the field where they are required to make decisions, act professionally and deliver results. In this respect, PR is quite similar, where we diverge is that the doctor or lawyer is also given the benefit of constant feedback; good, bad or otherwise.

Sadly, in public relations, and marketing too, we see virtually no mentoring like what is seen in most professions. Rather we see an assumption that the person who has been hired at an entry level knows what they are doing and it is up to them to do it right. There is also what I would call a twisted sense among senior levels that this is how they learned it and if you can't swim you shouldn't be in the pool.

This all circles back to the issue about the Coast Guard CPO and BP. No one in an agency setting I have seen conducts anything even approaching real training for their staff. Very few people give honest and educational feedback to a junior PR person so they may learn. Senior PR people do love to bring junior people on the carpet and dress them down and self serving lectures are all a part of office politics but genuine and true leadership that challenges PR people to be critical thinkers and to engage in dialogue is very rare indeed.

I do wish to be clear this is not simply an agency problem. In some respects, the corporate PR world has a greater leadership gap than agencies. For one thing, they are usually held responsible for stroking the ego of a CEO or some other senior executive and telling them what they wish to hear and not the truth. Corporate PR tends to be about turf and privileges and not about doing the best job possible. It does mirror agency life in that junior people are expected to not make any mistakes but, at the same time, avoid asking any questions, even if they may learn from it.

The sad fact of PR is that there is a vacuum of leadership in the PR industry. Yes, that's a broad brush statement and I know personally there are very good leaders in public relations today. But compared to other professions we lack leaders who are willing to be mentors, teachers and to lay down a series of rules that will help define us as a profession. Would you trust a lawyer who wasn't a member of the bar? Would you trust a doctor whose license to practice has been revoked? Then why do we trust PR people who owe their positions to being able to survive the various business cycles. Remember the old story about what survives a nuclear war? Cockroaches and Twinkies? Well PR deserves to have its leadership be true leaders and not just cockroaches and Twinkies.

The Crisis in Crisis Communications

2010-07-06T07:17:00.001-07:00

I have noticed lately that companies seem to be more interested in hiring PR and corp. comm people with experience in crisis communication. It seems odd because I can speak both as one who has experience in both handling a crisis and writing a crisis plan that corporations want nothing to do with crisis planning. The intent does seem to be there but the desire to actually execute a plan and then have a meeting to discuss roles and responsibilities is non-existent.

As I mentioned I have written the plans and I have noticed that once the plan is written the final aspect of the plan, regarding regular meetings to discuss its execution never takes place. I am reminded of the scene in the movie "Airplane" where the sign to the passengers is saying, "Don't Panic," and then gets overloaded, burns out and says, "Okay, Panic." Needless to say bedlam ensues.

This is exactly what happens in most organizations when it comes time to actually deal with a crisis. The road way is littered with the corpses of organizations who have dealt badly with crisis and their lack of a working, and drilled upon, crises plan becomes obvious. BP is the latest proof of this and I can think of several more if not by name then by the fact that their crisis over came the spin that the organization was trying to maintain and eventually buried them. Think of all the bacteria outbreaks in various food service companies or lead in toys as a prime example of this.

The goal of a crisis communications program is not to protect the CEO from looking bad, nor is it really to protect the company from law suits. If you sneeze wrong in this litigious age you get sued. It is to protect the organization's relationship with all its markets, it is to protect the brand and most important it is to protect the company five years from now.

Sadly another factor that hampers crisis communications in this day and age is that organizations think quarter to quarter and rarely think as far in advance as they should. Therefore in many cases crisis communications is seen as something reactive and not proactive. It is that prize rose bush you only water because it looks like it's wilting in the sun.

One example of crisis communication done well was the recent incident involving McDonald's and the promotional glasses from the Shrek movie that had lead in them. This could have been a very serious issue for McDonald's as they could have been accused of endangering children, something many interest groups believe they do with the food the sell. Once the story broke, McDonald's jumped on it, announced they would accept a return of all glasses and issued a prompt apology. I am sure that a few gift cards or free Happy Meals went out too.

The point here is that McDonald's was ready for an incident, any incident, so when something happened, they were quick to act on it and limit the scope. They also controlled what was said by spokespeople and they provided both a resolution to the danger and had people on message and seemed to show genuine concern for their target market. I have checked and as of now I can't see any class action law suits against them. If only BP had been so upfront.

So as PR and corp comm people it isn't good enough to have a crisis plan or say we have experience in crisis communication. Like any good athlete we need to stay in shape and we do this by reviews and planning for ideally an event that will never come. Corporate types may not wish to participate but of course you can always tell them don't worry, when the storm hits, you wish you had!

Why does anyone ever see the business potential for PR?

2010-07-01T04:34:00.001-07:00

One thing that I often harp about is how agency's make this type of mistake or corporations make t his other type of mistake. This is true! However I have discovered, what I believe is one strong commonality between the two and what is ironic is how similar it is, yet how completely different it is at the same time. Neither businesses, nor agencies, fully grasp and understand the powerful role that a good public relations program can play in growing the organization.

Let me start with corporations since I have more first hand knowledge of how they run. Let's be honest CEO's and other senior executives do love PR to a degree. They love to use PR as an ego tool to make themselves look good and show the world how smart they are. To most CEO's, especially at publicly traded companies, unless they are being quoted extensively by the CNBC's and Wall Street Journal's of the world than PR is not doing its job. Of course, who among us hasn't been told to think up a "press release" because the stock price is under pressure and we need to do something about that.

I should also mention PR agencies who by and large have no clue about the full business potential of PR. Some of the advice I have received, and seen, from agencies is similar to when my dental hygienist tells me I need to floss better because my soft tissues bleed when punctured by sharp metal objects. There is a part of me that says well that's obviously canned, prepared and something everyone hears. By and large agencies are only interested in the hit. Just like the CEO who wants to be on CNBC or in the Journal, the agency wants to place them there because when they go out to recruit new clients they want to show how they have delivered hits in big name, well known publications.

Sadly, not all companies are Apple, Coke or Starbucks who have these well known brands that are bound to generate copy in well known consumer oriented publications. Most companies are in very esoteric markets and need to be in front of publications that are read by key decision makers in that field. If for example, you have found a new way to turn the remains of corn husks into cattle or pig feed than you are not going to get a call back from the Journal but farming industry publications, read by decision makers at Monsanto or ADM, would probably be very interested in what you have to say. Sexy publications, probably not, but they will drive sales!

That's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Public relations exists as a tool to drive sales. Its goal, among other things, is to raise awareness and then raise interest so that when the sales team comes calling they are a known quantity whose value proposition is well understood. This is not to denigrate such vital PR functions as crisis communications but these other functions of PR will not happen if no one has heard of you! The business potential for PR is huge and it should be seen as the match that lights the fuse which is marketing. It does not exist to boost egos or land trophies.

One other thing I would add is lets keep in mind that this is often unglamorous but necessarily so. I have surprised people by comparing PR to a heart transplant. They are messy, require lots of planning, lots of help, excruciating commitments of time and resources and mind numbing attention to detail. But when done properly, they can bring life to an organization.

Agencies please do your client a favor and let them know how you can help them grow their business, develop a brand and gain market leadership through the art and science of communications. Corporations, please see PR and communication as a tool every bit as important as that MBA in helping you grow your organization. Remember a smile and hand extended in aid results in a positive response.

How are you an expert on something that is brand new?

2010-06-29T04:21:00.001-07:00

I find myself amused when I see in job postings, mostly agency but sometimes corporate, that they seek a social media expert to run their Twitter, Facebook and usually Blog portals. Now what makes me laugh is that, more often than not, I see they are looking for expertise in these fields. I find that not only funny but a tad ironic because it really does fly in the face of what is generally considered expertise.

Think of other areas in our society where we want expertise. For our doctors they have to go to 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and then serve various residency and attending programs that often go for another 4 to 6 years. At that point they are considered a doctor but are still the low man, or woman, on the totem pole. I remember reading about Japanese fugu chefs who have to study for 7 years in how to prepare what is considered one of the world's great delicacies. Of course fugu comes from the liver of a puffer fish and, if prepared incorrectly, can quite literally kill you. Even a restaurant sommelier needs to demonstrate extensive knowledge of wines before being certified.

What all of these groups also share is that they need to keep their skills current to maintain their status. In PR and Marketing sadly, the opposite is the case. We seek people out based on a perception of skill and not a proven ability to deliver the goods. This differs from the development of the Internet when you could show demonstrable programming, and/or design skills. We tend to put people into slots (tech, media relations etc.) and keep them there for the balance of their careers.

Of greater concern, a lot of organizations are treating Web 2.0/social media areas as a separate field of marketing. I am of the mind set that this is wrong headed and will pose problems for the organization down the road. For one thing, the organization, in order to be effective, needs to speak with one voice. You can not have the social media guru, I do love that term , sending out messages that either will contradict or disrupt the corporate messaging strategy. Most importantly, you need to have someone who appreciates the role of corporate communications and public relations and bases their decisions less on something being cool and more on how it will impact the organization positively or not.

The simple fact is that this technology is too new too hire someone off the street as an expert. What is more important, and in my opinion likely to be more successful, is to have an experienced PR or Corp Comm person assume oversight and manage the program conservatively to start, and then with more increasing amounts of risk taking as familiarity and experience grow. To do otherwise risks the disruption of the corporate message and worst case scenario, damage to the corporate brand.

Should PR and Corp Comm People Have Liablity Insurance

2010-06-25T04:05:00.000-07:00

There is an old joke about a doctor who saw a patient and told him that in order to stay healthy he needed to quit drinking, quit smoking and quit eating fatty foods and exercise more. The next time the doctor saw the patient, not only was it obvious he hadn't done any of what he said but had actually gotten worse at it. The doctor, fuming and exasperated asked why the patient hadn't done what he asked. The patient looked at the doctor puzzled and said, "oh were you being serious.?"

Sometimes, when you work in Corp Comm or PR you can see situations like this. If the patient in the case dies from a heart attack most people would say that he had lived an unhealthy life. If you are a PR person, you or your organization has committed a public relations gaffe. Recently, when BP CEO Tony Hayward went sailing while oil surged into the Gulf of Mexico, it was referred to as a PR disaster. OK, first of all, I Mr. Hayward told his PR person what he had planned and then had it approved before he went sailing. Granted, BP has committed more than its share of PR errors which can be attributed to PR but this was not one of them.

Keep in mind that in general when an organization does something stupid or just flat out wrong and then mishandles the response it is often called a PR gaffe. The usual problem is that we're seeing an organization trying to "spin" its way out of trouble. That is they are trying to set the agenda and decide what is, and what isn't, relevant to the discussion.

So what is the solution to this issue? Well there is actually an easy one. It's called telling the truth. Well it's a bit more complex than that. My parents used to call being punished "taking your medicine." A throwback to the days before Nyquil when medicine actually tasted poorly and you had to brace yourself before taking it.

McDonald's is the sign of an organization who took their medicine earlier this year and very quickly the problem was gone. It's amazing how quickly stories enter and exit our news cycle but you may recall that when the most recent Shrek movie was released, McDonald's had some glasses it released as a product tie in to the movie. Of course it turned out that the glasses were tainted with lead. McDonald's quickly issued a recall and about 4 to 6 weeks later the issue has been almost forgotten. They didn't spin, they told the truth, took their medicine and as a result will move forward with little interruption.

So I come back to the issue that made me write this little tome. Should PR and Corp Comm people have liability insurance. Well of course I was being somewhat factitious when I said that, the truth is we don't. What we need to do is remember that our first goal and highest calling is to tell the truth. While lawyers and bean counters think we should "spin" the news the fact remains when an organization listens to them, or has a culture that encourages that, you have a situation like BP. If you encourage the truth and "taking your medicine," you are like McDonald's where only a minor hit disrupts your path to ongoing business success.

How to survive a game changing application!

2010-06-22T04:14:00.000-07:00

There is the old expression, "be careful what you wish for." This is very true. I don't know if it has an ending but if it does the ideal ending in my opinion would be, "be careful what you wish for, it may come true." One thing that every marketing and communications professional wishes for is to be there at the beginning of a potentially market changing application. We would all like to think this is very exciting and filled with moments of breathtaking, heart pounding thrills.

Well one analogy I could draw is what it must be like to be the pitcher of a no-hitter. While everyone remembers the no-hitter and we all see the players dancing around once it is over, imagine the last few minutes before the final out. That is what it is always like being with a company trying to launch a product that can change the marketplace. With one step you could reach immortality and hey, based on what players make, maybe you can make a lot of money off it as well. But there is also the potential for having a miscue mean that you're going to miss out on the opportunity and soon be relegated to the trash heap of soon to be forgotten history.

Marketing and communicating the benefits of a game changing application are simply put, brutal. For one thing, every company thinks they have a game changing application. I remember seeing an electric fly swatter being sold as a "revolutionary pest control device." Let's be honest, restraint is not really a facet one tends to see in most marketing and communications people. Nor is a judicious temperament.

But often when you have a product that is set to radically alter the landscape that is exactly what is needed. For one thing, no brand new, market altering product can be successful without properly educating the media and analysts' who follow the market. Basically, they are both the gatekeepers as well the individuals with the knowledge and insight to see if something really has the potential to change the marketplace or is once again, more hot air.

So the best way to survive a game changing application is by realizing that if you truly have a unique story to tell then you are in the drivers seat and can choose, when, where and how you wish to tell it. But remember that there is truly, very little out there that hasn't already been done or said or told 50 times 50 before. Restraint will help you, but passion will fuel you.

What's so great about experience?

2010-01-14T05:33:00.000-08:00

In looking around at the very few job postings out there, I see a lot of strange postings. One was looking for someone to work the front desk of a hotel but they had to have experience working in suburban hotels and anyone who has worked in downtown hotels would not be considered. Now I will be the first to admit that I read job postings I have no interest in applying for because I find them amusing and because job postings are often so poorly written that they are amusing. I have never found a great difference in the job skill set needed to work down town than out in the suburbs.

Yet we are conditioned to think that having some experience or familiarity with a certain market segment is essential to succeed in that market. While I can see that to be true in some areas I have to say that I believe it to be very short sighted in others. Now of course, if we have a heart condition, we all want to go see a cardiologist and not a ophthalmologist. There are dozens of examples just like this. But I find that for the majority of us who are working in service industries, we posses a certain skill set which is transferable and which in some cases may bring a fresh perspective.

There was a great example from an exercise run by the Army towards the end of the cold war. They were gaming what was generally believed to be how the war between NATO and the old Warsaw Pact forces would play out. In one exercise a group of ROTC students defeated a ground of Army War College graduates by using new tactics not previously in the planning. Many of the War College graduates had seen combat in Vietnam and needless to say were upset that they had lost. They protest claiming the ROTC students used unorthodox tactics to win and should forfeit. When Adm. William Crowe the then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff found out about the dispute he commented that the enemy isn't supposed to do what we expect it to do. They are the enemy.

Experience often leads to a certain level of intellectual laziness and a comfort that with the experience comes a certain level of entitlement. Experience only works when it is constantly being challenged by a new and changing environment. The person who looks at the situation and claims, "that's what we have always done" is poison to the organization. This is not to argue for change for the sake of change, but it does argue for constant motion to stay ahead of the curve that is always changing.

Speaking as a public relations and marketing professional, I have to know not only what is going on in my own industry, but I need to understand how my profession is changing. I need to understand how this impacts my clients and what threats and opportunities it offers. In other words I need to keep moving. The major conclusion I hope you can take away from this is that experience itself is not anything great, it is how you evolve along with the environment and continually re-invent yourself as someone who offers a set of relevant skills. Experience is less impressive as how you react and deal with change!

Some goals for 2010

2010-01-12T04:54:00.000-08:00

For those who don't know me, I have never been a big fan of resolutions. I personally consider them jokes and something that people make, fully knowing that they do not intend to achieve them. That being said, I am a very big fan of goals and believe that every person and organization needs to have goals in order to succeed and most importantly, the goals need to be something that can not only be achieved, but will result in a stronger person and organization.

So what can we set as goals for the individual in 2010? Well there are always the personal goals such as losing weight, quitting smoking, exercising more and so on. Let me say that each of these are excellent ideas but we should be doing them anyway. These are life choices and really not what I had in mind. Rather, I would suggest we all try and find a way to improve ourselves professionally in the coming year. There are a number of ways we can do this. Some of which include:

Education-The world is changing faster than ever before. I find myself amazed that my 12 year old nephew can often explain things to me that I have never heard of before. I thought my parents were bad for not using one of those old answering machines with the tape that needed to be replaced every six months or so. Now I am in fear I may be reaching that level of technology illiteracy. Even social media presents an interesting obstacle for most professional who have been in the industry for more than 10 years. It is a fascinating world that is always changing and we need to make sure we keep up with the changes or risk being left behind.

So the first goal for 2010 should be to educate your self on the latest breakthroughs in technology. While I write mostly for marketing and communications people, this goes for anyone in any field. Either you learn when the train leaves the station or you're left on the platform.

Network-Everybody knows that networking is important to success in today's hyper-competitive job market place. Sadly, one of the inverse or negative results of social media is we believe we can sit back at the key board and meet people that way. Let me be crystal clear in my own opinion. Social media is not networking. In order to network you need to be out and meeting people and learning more about them and engaging them in conversation.

There is a big difference between between knowing someone and being a friend with someone. Your friend is someone who brings a smile to your face as you recall a funny story or a great conversation you had with them. They are someone you know right away is intelligent and whom you can assess nearly immediately their strengths and weaknesses.

Persevere-It is easy to say things are too hard and move on to something different. Speaking as a former hiring manager, if I was looking at two people and one person had better technical skills than the next, but the latter had stuck to their guns through thick and thin my first instinct would be to go with the one who persevered. There is a lot to be said for people who have passion and love what they do and don't see it as simply a pay check. These are people whom you can count on when times are tough to provide you with solid advice.

Having said that, you need to be sure you are not sticking to someone who for lack of a better word is the typical cockroach. Every organization has one. They survive ironically not because they are good at what they do, but because they spend as much time on self-promotion as helping the organization succeed. Fortunately I have found two sure-fire ways of warding off these people. Much like cockroaches and vampires, they hate direct sunlight. Ask them one or both of two questions, tell me about your greatest personal failure? When did you help the organization succeed but let someone else receive the credit.

Stay optimistic-This is one of those things that will be easier said than done! Being optimistic in tough times is extremely difficult but equally important. Discouragement can result in mistakes and missed opportunities. Remember that every opportunity is a gift and by opening it, we can achieve great things.

Go for it-I know HR people will hate me for saying this, but if there is a job you think you are qualified for then go for it. What is the worst that can happen? They can say no which as well know is more likely in this day and age. But if you do your homework, and prepare a well thought out appeal and present yourself as the problem solver they all need you will be surprised at how strong the positive response is.

This is only a partial list of my own goals for 2010. I am sure once I post this I will think of several more. But the important thing I believe is that we need to focus on what is going to happen, what we can contribute and most importantly why we are needed. To quote the Kink's "The past is gone and ain't coming back no more." Focus on what you can bring to the market and pretty soon you will be bringing them to it!

Let's get this decade right

2010-01-05T05:49:00.000-08:00

Well I am sure we all agree that the first decade of the century and millennium was a failure by even the most optimistic measure. It is pretty obvious that it was a total failure of leadership by government and business. The short sighted CEO's who managed the economy into the gutter by thinking they work for Wall-Street share the blame alongside the fat cats on Wall Street who thought their bonus checks were their IQ's and let's not forget the total lack of leadership in Washington where the idea of, "If I don't admit wrong then I am not wrong" prevailed along side a total lack of interest in the national well-being.

So now we're in a new decade and hopefully we can turn things around. It may seem highly unlikely now but with the right set of circumstances we might be able to do so but like any task it will take work and sadly thanks to reality TV, government officials and Corporate CEO's we've been taught that hard work is wrong and we should be going for the fast and easy buck. Well thankfully for all of us the days of easy money are over so let's see if we can get the teens, my name for this decade, right.

First of all the biggest change needs to come from the corporate world. Corporate leadership in America does not exist and is driven by really stupid people who think they work for Wall Street and don't care about anything beyond the next quarter. Believe it or not there was a time when companies cared about things like customers, products and yes employees. Companies like IBM and Dow used to brag about how they hired only the best and the brightest. We need to get back to the days of treating employees as valuable assets rather than expendable tools. Employees need to be treated as an asset and not a liability on the balance sheet.

Companies also need to realize that they can anticipate events but can not control them. More effort needs to be put into flexibility and planning rather than trying to cover all possible scenarios are just working under the assumption that we know everything and that events will just work out perfectly because we're super smart and can plan anything again. The goal for the coming decade is an idea I call planned flexibility. Let's be ready for the changes in the marketplace but lets also keep in mind that despite all media hype, the world does not change all that quickly.

As for the other two legs of this stool of stupidity, we need to restore a sense of balance. I laugh at the concept that these firms need to pay these bonuses because if they don't they will lose these oh so valuable souls to the competition. That would be like your local baseball team looking at the player who consistently failed in the clutch and gave up home runs or struck out with the bases loaded and saying, "we really wouldn't want the competition to have this gem." Actually, I think that is exactly what you want! Strengthen the gene pool by getting rid of the weakest link. On the Serengeti in Africa if a gazelle is too slow or gets too close to the watering hole then the gene pool is preserved because the gazelle is some lion's or croc's lunch.

As for Washington, can we tear it down and start over? I think Nebraska gets it right, no parties. Everyone is non-partisan so they have to work together! Let's do that and maybe if we can get people to work together and set one seven year term for all members of congress maybe we can see some real reform.

I hope that we can see the errors of our way during the past ten years and make the changes that are necessary. Sadly, the people best in position to make the changes are the ones who got us here in the first place so forgive me if I am not overly optimistic.

Strategic communication planning for 2010.

2009-12-01T05:18:00.000-08:00

There was a great article in the most recent Time about how the past decade was one of the worst and how we will be happy to be rid of it. Well, the new year always bodes well for new and exciting things as we shake off the dust of the old so it is time to start thinking about what to do in 2010.

There are several things you need to do to prepare for the upcoming year. The first thing is to review not just the most recent year, but the past few years before hand if your business has been around that long. You need to take an honest and hard look at what has worked and what hasn't worked. It is time for hindsight to do its thing and tell you what would you do different if you had to. It is also important to remember what went well and what you did right. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from success as well as failure.

There is also the need to find out how marketing and communications will help drive the overall strategic goal to its successful completion. Every organization plans ahead usually quarter by quarter, but there is also the need to project out annual goals for the organization as communication goals tend to span several quarters. Strategic planning of communication is every bit as critical to the success of the organization as the strategic planning of capital spending. Planning on communication and marketing is often seen as what I would call an "oh yeah," category when in fact it requires some of the most strategic planning of all the organization's groups in order to succeed properly.

Another aspect of planning communications strategically is to have both hard and soft goals. Communications tends to fluff off the concept of hard goals and that to a large degree is why marketing and communications are seen as expendable in turbulent times like this. By developing hard targets for accomplishments and then being able to benchmark these accomplishments over a period of time and versus company success marketing and communications individuals will be able to clearly demonstrate the role they play in the success of the organization.

The time for strategic communication plan is not only here but it is long overdue. Like all other professionals marketing and communications professionals need to realize that while we are relied on as creative individuals, we also need to join the rest of the management group as people who work in a numbers based environment. Doing this will solidify the role of marketing and communications as an essential role player in the organization!

How to really measure your PR results?

2009-11-19T04:29:00.000-08:00

I was looking at a site for a company that was interested in hiring some PR help lately. Based on an initial conversation, they seemed to take a great deal of pride in what they had done up until that point and were seeking someone to come in, take up the baton and carry forward. I had to be a bit of a spoil sport when it came time to ask questions and ask them why they were so proud of what they had already done. I was not trying to lessen their accomplishments, rather I wanted to understand why they believed their PR program was in excellent form.

I told them in my opinion they had an impressive amount of coverage. I saw a number of very well known publications, including some very solid business coverage. What I did not see however was publications which may be read by individuals who are interested in purchasing their services. In other words I saw the very evil shadow of trophy hunting and nothing that would help the brand to grow and excel.

Let me give you an example. Say your company invents a robot that can fit into your garage and diagnose problems with your car in layman's terms and even perform minor repairs like oil changes. Now this is cool stuff and of course you may wish to get it covered by Time and the Wall Street Journal and your local big business publication. But I would argue that Car and Driver and maybe even Simple Life may be more appropriate as this is where people would go to make buying decisions regarding these products.

The issue boils down to the fact that one hit in a solid industry publication is one that will go to deliver your message to your customer base. They are not always glamorous, but they are highly influential among the consumers of your product. A hit in a big business publication like The Wall Street Journal may feel good and may give the impression of success, but it will prove to be an empty victory.

Remember that people do not turn to mainstream media for information on specific industries. They usually go to specialized media outlets, web sites and so on. The best way to measure the success of your PR efforts is by monitoring how much of an increase you see in a tangible factor such as web site hits, contacts or leads. Of course, you need to factor in the role of the other elements within the marketing mix such as direct mail,advertising and the web in your calculations.

The strongest advice I can offer to any organization who wishes to measure your PR results is determine what you hope to accomplish from public relations and then base all measurements against that. Avoid the pitfall of thinking that a big name will result in a flood of new business and realize that, ultimately, the goal of your PR efforts is to work with the marketing team to drive sales and create revenue!

Start off right when it comes to marketing

2009-11-17T09:55:00.000-08:00

Funny thing about marketing, we are often called upon to deliver results without being given a chance to do the actual ground work to support the demands placed on us. I like to put myself into another profession and wonder, would we say to an architect that it's OK to design half the building because we want the plans done by 4 or to a farmer, hey, we want crops by June even though we only planted in May.

Of course, the big issue is that marketing has become far to compliant when it comes to dealing with the expectations raised by senior executives. All to often we wish to be the ideal of the team player and meet or exceed any demand regardless of how realistic it is. What the situation calls for, but where marketing and communications people fail to come through, is in providing and honest and fair assessment of what we can do and when we can do it. It is far better to be honest and say this will take until next Friday to do right rather than say when do you want it.

By releasing the ability to start off right in the marketing program, we are automatically in the hole. The marketing team has sacrificed the ability to become an effective team and has established that its role within the organization is to supplicate to any demand that is placed upon it. The legitimacy of marketing as a contributor to the success of the organization is virtually negated.

By establishing itself as an independent entity within the organization, capable of standing on its own and providing legitimate input to the success of the organization. By standing up immediately and expecting to be counted along with sales, finance, HR and the other departments within the organization, marketing garners a seat at the table and becomes a value added team to the group and not an expense to be corralled. The latter course, as we all know, leads to disastrous results for the long-term success of the organization.

The Public Relations Diet: Sure to help your company grow

2009-11-12T05:41:00.000-08:00

The news media is constantly reminding us of how poorly the health is of the American public. While numbers vary, I have heard that between 1/4 and 1/3 of Americans are obese. If one were to develop a way to gauge PR programs regarding their level of fat, I would argue that at least 90 % of them are obese. Bloated by needless releases and wasting time and resources chasing vanity clips and not focused on what any good marketing person should be, growing the company.

Thankfully, I have come up with what I think is a good PR diet. Sadly, I compile this without having a book publisher yet so I guess I will have to win the lottery to make my first million. But seriously, there are ways to run a lean, mean and highly effective public relations program. Let me try and spell out a few of the basics here and we can build off them.

Establish the independence of PR and the unique benefits it brings to the organization-PR does not stand for press release, nor is it a vanity project for the senior executives. It is up for the PR team, especially the managers to put a stake in the ground and defend their PR expertise and knowledge. As we all know, being a PR person is often like being the coach of a sports team. Everyone can do your job better than you. Don't be afraid to take a strong stand and tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. This is by no means being rude or cruel it is being honest.
Limit the use of news releases and banish the word press release all together-A news release is just that, the release of information of value regarding the organization to the public. It should be used rarely and when information of great value needs to be disseminated. Releasing version 2.0M does not qualify. I have found that like with any training regime, setting limits is the best way to ensure that you receive a quality product. Do not be afraid to set a quota with a bit of leeway. If you commit to 4-6 releases per quarter, or better yet, per half year, hard decisions will have to be made and the result will be better news releases.
Be creative-Most PR people, especially agency people, seem to be like the old milk horses who go the same path because they were trained to do so and don't know any better. It is amazing to me, how many PR professionals talk about Web 2.0 and how skilled they will be in those areas, yet 90% of their time will be spent writing releases and pitching media that will help them, not you! Look for ways to be creative, heck contact editors and ask them if they have any holes coming up that maybe filled nicely by some of the bylined articles you already have in the bullpen ready to go. That works out exceptionally well!
Find time to meet with editors-Times are tough now and budgets are the tightest they have been in years. But there is a great opportunity to build exceptionally strong relationships with key editors by face-to-face meetings held at conferences or other events. By doing this you become more than an anonymous voice on the phone but a smiling face and a good shared laugh.

The Public Relations Diet will serve the true purpose of PR. It will not give you vanity hits, nor make your CEO a rock star, rather it will help you to do what all marketing and communications people should do. Build up brand recognition, which will ultimately result in greater revenue!

Break senior management of PR candy!

2009-11-10T05:16:00.001-08:00

In working with a number of smaller companies, and some small minded senior execs, I have noticed the unmistakable desire to achieve front page coverage in big name publications. They all want to be featured in Business Week or Fortune or on the cover of the Wall Street Journal. Telling them that is not a good idea is often like telling a child they can not have candy for dinner.

Still it is important that if you are to run a public relations operation you keep your eye focused on what the goal of the program really is. At the end of the day, public relations is a function of marketing and its goal is to drive sales. If you are not bringing more money into the organization then you are not succeeding as a marketing communications person.

One thing normally boars senior management to tears but it is for the good of the organization. It is vastly more important that you work to build relationships with analysts and reporters from influential media reporters. I remember one CEO who thought it was great that his start up was quoted in the Boston Globe. It was what PR people call a mere mention and really said nothing about the organization, its goals or why anyone should buy their product/service. Needless to say the CEO was angry that I was not impressed.

The relationships with analysts and other influences is essential to the future growth of the organization and is much more important than The Wall Street Journal, New York Times or any number of media organizations. Why do you ask? Well it is for the simple reason that when one is in the process of making a key buying decision you do your homework with those you think are thought leaders in the field. Buyers want to make sure their investment is going to pay dividends. If you're buying new networking technology, you want to be sure you are taking advice from someone who knows networking inside and out, just as you want to see a cardiologist if you have issues with your heart.

So as a PR person it is your job to tell your senior management what is best for the organization regarding communications. Much as a child needs vegetables to grow, an organization needs solid and strong relationships with key editors and analysts in less glamorous organizations in order to grow the organization and establish both a steady revenue pipeline and a clear, distinct message. If you do this, then you will succeed. If you try and chase after the big names you may end up chasing a dust trail and even if you catch it, what you end up with is a lot of useless coverage.

Why activity is often the worst thing in a PR campaign

2009-11-05T05:31:00.000-08:00

I have had the chance to speak to a lot of marketing and PR people of late and one thing I have noticed is that there is a lot of pride taken by smaller and less well informed individuals that they have achieved regular interviews with the news media. In most cases they are like a kid with their first credit card and only see what they can buy. The don't realize that sooner or later, the bill is going to come due!

I have seen so many companies run a laundry list of all the big names publications who have supposedly covered their organizations. I still laugh when I think of the start up CEO who actually took offense when I disagreed with him and said that publications want interesting stories and aren't really interested in the cult of the CEO. He felt that business was personality driven.

No the sad but true fact is that as far as business publications are concerned, hard news is what sells. As a result, going out for a lot of "puff" pieces that do not clearly communicate to your market, who you are, what you do and why that matters are of no good. Many organizations invest vast sums of money and time in trying to get covered by big and prestigious publications like the Wall Street Journal for example and all they end up with is a waste of both time and money.

The smartest course of action is what I call the sniper's route. In the military, they train every soldier in how to care for and fire their weapon. However they take time to see who is the best sharp shooter in the bunch and then train that person even further and turn them into a sniper. Of the many elements of their training, one of the most important is how to identify the best target from a sea of possibilities. One of the great sayings among snipers is that any sniper can hit the target, but only the great ones can select it!

So picking targets for your PR campaign is one of the most essential elements to its successful execution. Trying to bring in a large number of busy bee results or picking some publication without a clear line drawn from story to customer to sale is the needless type of PR activity that is all too common among PR agencies today. Clients need to realize that it is up to them to go to the agency with marching orders and to expect in return results based on your expectations. Otherwise, you will see a bunch of busy work that in the long term, six months or more, will result in no net gain of sales.

How to wean your CEO from a PR addiction

2009-11-03T04:52:00.001-08:00

One thing is very true in public relations today, far too many press releases are being issued. Furthermore, no one is reading them! The sad part is that many corporate executives see the way to dig out of a hole is to dig deeper into the earth.

The appeal of the press release is not hard to see. It allows senior executives, in most cases CEO's to pontificate on what they believe is important news that the entire world must hear. Sadly, in many cases, they are speaking to an empty church. So many releases are going out and most are of such dubious value that important things like messaging and reaching customers is often overlooked in the interest of simply issuing another release. Keep in mind that it is in the best interests of your agency and the wire services to have you issue a release any time you sneeze.

So that your public relations can accomplish its real goal of delivering your message to your target audience and ultimately helping you sell more of your product or service you need to manage your PR program the way you would protect family valuables. There are some steps you can take to ensure that your PR program is run properly. Some require basic steps but like a lot of things in life, the simple things lead to the greatest result. Here are some of my key tips to reduce PR addiction.

Bar the use of the term press release. Instruct your management team that the company only issues news releases. It may seem like splitting hairs but it forces you to ask such questions as, what is the news value of what we are saying? Will this help us sell our product or services? Will this help reinforce our message to our key target markets?
Put the management team on a diet when it comes to issue news releases. Pick a number and limit them to roughly half a dozen releases per quarter. That is an arbitrary number but what it does is it forces prioritization on what is really valuable. Hard choices often need to be made and rather than take an easy out by issuing a press release, make a tough choice and issue a news release.
Look for non-traditional means of connecting with target audiences. While we are evolving in our use of technology, not to many companies are using Web 2.0 technology, such as blogging, Facebook and Twitter among others, to successfully disseminate their message to their market at large.
Use more established methods in new ways. For example, opt-in email distribution services are vastly under-utilized and as such do not people who are interested in hearing about new developments within your organizations to hear from you. Therefore in a sad irony, information is being distributed to people who don't care or who are not an appropriate target.

Many senior executives believe that they know what is the best way to disseminate information and as a result hijack the PR process. Sadly many communications professionals allow this to happen because they place temporary job security over the long term success of their careers. The ones who truly succeed at public relations are the professionals who establish a rigorous program. The organization's success is the ultimate goal and only through this type of rigorous program can the success be assured.

Getting it right the first time!

2009-10-27T05:36:00.000-07:00

One thing is sure, we live in a deadline oriented universe. This is sometimes a good thing but not always. There is an old football adage I remember that a player fumbles because he focused down the field, not on securing the football. Many companies do this because they are focused not on marketing the best product possible, but on meeting some arbitrary deadline or some financial goal and draw the proverbial line in the sand.

So then what is marketing supposed to do. Well marketing still has the role of being the defender of the brand. It is the role of the marketing professional to ensure that any actions taken by the organization have the long term effect of enhancing the brand and ensuring that in the long run, sales will be increased. Marketing should also be the voice for ensuring that the product is truly ready for market. Yes there are engineers and product managers who are responsible for ensuring that the product is ready, but they are more susceptible to deadline pressures which exist only to push a product out.

Marketing and communications need to have a pulse on the market and know what is happening and most important what may happen if the product is pushed out too early. The tunnel vision that can often overtake an organization during the push to get a product out and meet some deadline can often be persuasive and frequently intense. It's tough to fight this headwind but by doing so you actually help the company in the long run survive the urge to make poor decisions.

Think of it this way, by doing this marketing is acting like the good parent who makes their child eat vegetables and keeps them from only eating snacks and treats. While the result isn't always a happy child it is a healthier one and the ultimate parental responsibility is a healthy and productive child!

When the boss is the cause of the crisis!

2009-10-22T05:23:00.000-07:00

Boy oh boy, there seem to be a lot of cases lately of people, almost all men, in positions of authority using their positions to undertake improper relationships with subordinates. What is amazing about this is the sheer stupidity of these people who partake in these hi-jinks and the fact that a number of them knowingly do so, fully understanding, and in some cases having crafted their organizations policy regarding sexual harassment.

I say this as a marketing and communications person but it is never in the best interests of the organization for the CEO or president or what ever the title to step out and have an affair on their significant other. Doing so, not only opens up a tremendous can of worms from a legal stand point, it generally acts like setting off a bomb as far as employee morale. Think for a moment, how does someone given a reprimand for making a stupid comment feel when they see that the CEO is getting away with far worse. How does a member of the opposite gender feel when they see someone promoted whom they feel is much less talented then they are?

Most importantly from a marketing perspective, think of what this says to the customer? If you are an advertiser on the Late Show with David Letterman, are you in the long term going to keep your product with him, if your demographic is married women? I would say probably not. If we're talking about a B2B organization it could cause serious concerns about the judgment of not just the CEO but of the entire senior staff. The simple fact of the matter here is that the personal behavior of senior executives does directly impact how the organization is seen within the marketplace.

The past 25 to 30 years have been focused on building the cult of the god like CEO. As a result, the luster of the CEO can, and often times does, outshine that of the organization. In most cases, this is what the CEO likes to see even if they do not say so. Sadly, there are a great number of negative effects to this change not the least of which is that the behavior of the individual, now impacts the entire organization. It is now the requirement of the marketing and communications person to have in place a plan which will focus on how to deal with the misbehavior of senior executives.

Tabloid PR has entered the building!

Preparing for when the rain will end!

2009-10-20T05:25:00.000-07:00

I have spent time speaking to marketing professionals and senior executives and have found out something I consider very interesting. About 10 percent are very excited and believe that we've made it through the storm and in the midst of a recovery which will be quick and robust. The other 90 percent think we are in the middle of a terrible storm and that any recovery, if it comes, will be weak and tepid. As you may guess, only one group is actually planning for the future and investing in marketing.

I was thinking of an analogy which would describe these two opposite opinions and am struck by how successful one may be and how the other may miss the boat entirely. Imagine two companies which sell personal care products. The first company is always pessimistic about the weather and when he/she looks outside and sees gray skies all they see is rain. So they have the stock team move all of the sun glasses to the back of the store and instead fill the front with all types of umbrellas.

The store across the street sees the gray skies and knows that while there are gray skies today, the skies will not always be gray. As such, they put out some sunglasses and sunscreen along with the umbrella. While it might be raining that first day, some people will see the wisdom of being ahead of the curve and will respect the second company for being strategic enough to not only weather the storm, but also to plan ahead for the days when the sun comes out. No one wants to buy an umbrella on a gorgeous sunny day. But if you're selling sunglasses, you can almost name your price.

The point here is that the companies best prepared to prosper from a recovery are those who don't mind being on the starting line before the other fellow is finishing their warmups. In fact, the truly wise ones are willing to sacrifice a few sales in the very short term but see the opportunity to drive sales in the long term. They realize that it is better to give up a few inches now to gain a yard on down the line. Sadly, very few of their contemporaries see this goal and as a result will pay the consequences.

Keeping the message inside the box!

2009-10-13T04:55:00.000-07:00

We are all familiar with the tired old cliche of "thinking outside the box." Well there is one area where we need to stay within the box and just as we were told when young, to color inside of the lines. This comes with the development and execution of the corporate message.

More often than not the corporate message is an afterthought when the brand is developed. I have seen, and been depressed by, other marketing professionals who will focus on minor details such as what shade of a color to use. Cardinal Red versus Vermilion is one argument I can remember going on for hours. These people think that all of these components will subtly influence the target audience and the result will be greater sales. Sadly, this is not the case and a marketing plan that does not revolve around a strong message is almost guaranteed to fail.

A strong message leaves the targeted consumer with a clear idea of what the end result of the purchase of their product will be. Who can forget Coca-Cola with the "Pause the Refreshes" or McDonald's saying "You Deserve a Break Today." I can remember buying services from a vendor who were more or less equal in all aspects such as price and ease of use. What ended up being the decision maker for me was a very direct marketing message. The winner said, "We help you do your job better." That was a very direct message to me that told me my life could be a lot easier if I used them.

Of course the hardest part of keeping the message in the box is that higher ups will always want to tinker with it. As many of my dear readers know, one of the most lamentable occurrences in business has been the emergence of the shortsighted mindset which only sees from one quarter to another. Great American companies tend to become that way not because they manage earnings better, but due to the fact they have a vision which extends beyond one quarter and a deep seated faith in what the organization is doing.

In addition, a good CEO listens to their smart marketing person who will tell them that changing a marketing message is similar to painting a house. You check on the damage, you make repairs along the way and maybe every ten to 15 years you do a complete overhaul in the message. In this day and age you have to fight to keep the CEO or some other senior executive from changing the message every quarter out of fear they are not meeting next quarter's numbers or even worse, out of boredom with the current message.

The corporate message is what helps influence your customers. It is something you need to keep an eye on for threats and the need to change but you also need to keep a spare eye on the number of elements who would like to change it for the simple sake of change. The message should always reinforce the mission and by doing that you're ultimately helping to sell more product.

Why fear failure?

2009-10-08T05:06:00.000-07:00

No one likes to admit failure. That is something I find ironic because not only is failure a fact of life, in some aspects it is a cathartic action which allows for self examination and for the best to be made of a bad situation. Sadly, due to the mismanagement and in incompetence of many leaders and CEO's failure is seen as something terrible but irrational risk is not. Now that is a truly head spinning contradiction one could only suspect coming out of Lewis Carroll.

That being said, there is a point where despite all one's best efforts and every possible positive step taken, a certain product or initiative is just not working and needs to be killed. Now current corporate dogma says avoid blame and find someone to pin it on. Sadly, very little time is spent saying what did we do wrong and even more important, what did we do right? Failure unto itself is often a tremendous learning experience and something that, in the long term, can benefit the organization.

Now this is not an ode to the glories of failure. It goes without saying that an organization needs to succeed much more than fail in order to achieve its goals. However the path to success often comes from what at first glance seems a failure. Think of it this way, were it not for a failure, we would not have antibiotics or the microwave oven or teflon. In many regards, failure can be the first step on a different path to success. The irrational fear of failing is indicative of a short term viewpoint which says that only immediate and unquestioned, chest thumping success is appropriate. Sadly, that means that even a success which is 90 percent of the goals expected is often seen as a failure.

In order to succeed one can not fear failure. There is no need to aim for failure of course, nor should one just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well I have tried my best." But inversely, failure should be seen as an opportunity for self examination and quite possibly for the chance to create future opportunities down the road which will far and away dwarf the failure you have just completed.

How to market your organization if you have a service and not a product?

2009-10-06T05:33:00.001-07:00

This country has made a dramatic shift since the end of the Second World War. We have been moving more and more from a country that builds things to a country that relies on intellectual ability and the marketing of services. Politicians and editors spend a great deal of ink deciding whether or not this is a good thing but for marketing and public relations people, it is something we need to deal with.

First of all, speaking from a purely public relations standpoint, being a service organization is a very unique and promising platform which will allow you to establish yourself in the market place based on your own terms. As an organization founded and reliant on your intellectual abilities, you have a great opportunity to meet a huge need of many media organizations and event organizers. Due to the well known seismic shifts we have seen in the marketplace during the past ten years, there are huge editorial holes to fill and, as a result, media organizations are eager to meet intelligent and thoughtful industry leaders who can not only provide insightful commentary, but can also provide them with a much needed article for their publication.

Also worthy of mention is the proliferation of speaking opportunities. This is a two-fold advantage for service organizations as they can reach out both to potential customers and intellectual contemporaries. As many of us know, media organizations, desperate for new revenue streams have opened up a wide variety of events designed to bring together industry professionals. These events can offer the potential for tremendous brand exposure when used properly.

The first rule is to select an event where you can connect with the most customers. While this may seem obvious, keep in mind that this may be a new event or one without the pedigree of some events, the goal is to maximize brand exposure amongst key decision makers. As a result you need to pick an event that will allow you to reach your target audience. Be willing to participate as a panel member or panel head but in any case be willing to start as someone further down the food chain. Once you have demonstrated both leadership and insight you will find that further opportunities will come your way.

Finally, one way service organizations can stand out is by winning awards. When you start winning awards, your organization will begin to see a much stronger upswing of recognition and openness to your ideas. You will be seen as an expert on your subject area and the end result of that is that you should be able to sell more of your services since you are now the expert.

Remember that when you are a service based organization, you are selling your expertise. Anything that demonstrates how smart you are, your leadership and most importantly, how you are offering new and distinct ideas will result in an upswing in your business. Smart sells!

Please don't mistake action for strategy!

2009-10-01T04:52:00.000-07:00

In the world today where every company seems to fear losing market share and is looking over their shoulder their are two things going on. The first is that some companies are just frozen by fear. Let's call them dear in the headlights and say that they will not be with us long. You can be frozen by fear and expect to last too long. The second type of company is far more interesting and I think worthy of examination.

There are companies who believe that in order to succeed in a business environment they must do something, anything to take that next step. As a result they are taking ill advised short term steps which in the long term will cause far more harm than good and will ultimately result in a weaker brand. The usual scenario with these organizations is that someone in a senior capacity is getting restless and wants something done so he or she can feel better about themselves. This is usually ends up with a useless news release or some silly cutback that does nothing but eliminate an avenue for potential growth.

Senior executives, including the CEO, are by nature a nervous lot and generally speaking only see out one quarter in advance. They also do not see issues of branding or that a long term strategy result in anything because the current obsession is for short term results. Sadly, this leads to long term failure.

One company that proves the point that strategy trumps action is Amazon.com. Several years ago, they gave up on briefing analysts and decided that they wanted to run the organization with goals 5 years out as well as progress marks on the way to those goals. What is most amazing is that this program has been a spectacular success. As you might have guessed, there was a lot of snickering by the so called experts, but the last laugh was by Amazon. Now they can focus on how to fix any problems with their company and don't need to take the myopic view of needing to meet quarterly numbers.

From a marketing stand point this is bliss. Marketing can only succeed in an environment where there is a long term plan and a set of achievable goals. Marketing is about selling goods to the customers, not trying to please the blood suckers on Wall Street who are the greatest road block to a company's success.

So many companies need to reshape how they do business and realize that managing quarter to quarter is in fact counterproductive. It promotes myopic thinking and rewards short term gains while destroying any chance for long term success. Hopefully the success of Amazon will help promote the ideal of managing for long term success but the real agent of change will be when MBA programs learn to value both ethics and a global vision of corporate success. When that happens we may actually see a renaissance in global business.

The overlooked and often most effective PR tool!

2009-09-29T05:04:00.000-07:00

Most PR organizations will ever be mistaken for nimble industries who are ahead of market developments. Quite the opposite of their own spin, the PR industry is often very reactive and tends to grab a certain topic they believe is hot and bite onto it like it is the second coming. As a result, legitimate ways of helping to build a client brand can be overlooked.

One clear cut example of this is my opinion is the use of speaking opportunities. I never cease to be amazed at how PR people will nearly froth at the mouth when one mentions social media, yet if the topic is speaking opportunities you get the confused puppy dog look. Yet in this age where the big books are dying and where personal, face to face, time is considered an essential for an organization to succeed in this marketplace a well placed speaking opportunity can have amazing implications for your brand.

First of all you need to understand the hierarchy of the speaking opportunity. Regardless of how great your brand concept is or how super a speaker you are, unless you are a well known organization already you need to set your sights low to begin with. You will NOT be the closing key not speaker your first time out. Sorry but that is just how things are! But there is a way that can work if you have true vision and long term goals for your organization.

First of all, when you are getting started, offer to take spots on the panel discussions. These positions are the hardest for event organizers to fill as there are much more panel discussions. Sometimes, if you make a good case that your speaker is talented and thoughtful you can get in as a panel moderator. Once you do this, and assuming you do well, you are then well positioned to move up the food chain the next time there is an opportunity with this organization. You are also well placed to offer to help out at other events and now you have the beginning of a CV that will demonstrate your thought leadership on your area of expertise.

One other area I would recommend is the use of bylined articles to demonstrate thought leadership. This should be done in coordination with the formula I listed above. Byline's are great because you can expound on a topic that rests within your area of expertise and demonstrate the innovative and creative ideas you can offer. Ideally the byline should be published first but even if you wish to present it as a "pending printing" or something like that you should be good. What you want to do is to show you have creative ideas and can present new ideas to the discussion pool.

So remember that one of the most effective PR tools, more so than releases and pounding after the media, is being a member of a speaker's panel at an event. Your organization should make a speaker's panel a key part of its organization and as a result you will see a very quick rise in the name recognition of your organization within your industry.

Marketing goes on outside of the marketing department

2009-09-24T04:43:00.000-07:00

Marketing is a role that the marketing department in many organizations guards ferociously. There is good reason for it, not the least of which is the fact that many others try and do marketing's job or act as a type of grandstand manager to tell marketing and communications how to get the job done. But there is some education that companies need to make regarding the fact that all external facing groups are in fact marketing ambassadors if not part of the marketing department.

No one needs to be told that times are tough now and that there are greater pressures on employees now than anytime in quite a long while. However many employees who face the public usually act in a fashion that is counterproductive to a companies long term success. This runs the gamut from sales representatives who only return phone calls when it is time to renew a license on a product, to technical support who insist on only electronic communication to an HR representative who makes a candidate feel like a leper.

In difficult times like this it is doubly important for a company to take advantage of market circumstances and avoid the bunker mentality. Rather, they should be using the downturn to reach out to clients and customers and reinforce not only how important they are to the organization, but how well the two of you work together. By teaching employees the value of marketing as a positive growth tool for the entire organization, you can ensure that you are uniquely positioned for growth once the recession finally ends. Also, you can ensure the long term and steady viability for organization with consistent talent development.

In the long term, marketing strategy and execution is the role of the marketing and communications department. However any public facing facet of the organization is part of the marketing organization de facto. Each group that deals with the public should be reminded of their role as brand ambassadors and what that means to the long term health, success and viability of the company.

Why not to hire a vendor!

2009-09-22T05:31:00.000-07:00

Most start up organizations are often in a race to hire someone to do this job or that job because they believe it is a necessary part of the start up process. This often takes the form of hiring either a public relations agency or some type of marketing consultant. What is ironic is that the process behind tends to be mostly knee jerk. If you ask you will most likely hear some MBA textbook, product marketing answer but if you dig you will find they did it out of the belief that they HAD too!

No for most start up organizations that first marketing discussion needs to come within the organization. Every start up will have, or should have, someone whose role is to develop brand or even in a broader sense to be the person responsible for building the sales and marketing role. During this initial phase it is critical that the first focus be on does the organization have a product or service that can be sold. Initially this can be handled by someone whose focus is on selling a product but at some point there needs to be a transition to a professional marketing person.

Still to a small start up organization where money is scarce there will be a need to spread roles just outside of the marketing organization. While marketing people are rightfully opposed to abdicated the marketing decision making process there may be a need in small start ups to cede some territory normally assigned to marketing and to other professionals with specific tasks during the initial launch phase. As the old cliche goes you need to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty.

A first hire within any start up organization should be someone who is focused fully on the product. While that doesn't mean a full fledged employee at first, it should be done with the idea of hiring a freelancer that will be brought on board as a full time employee at some time. The need is for someone who will wrap their brains around the product and become fully invested in its development.

Also, the single greatest reason to avoid hiring a vendor during the start up process is that you run the risk of working with someone who enjoys the cash flow you provide and will in turn provide you with the most junior staff to do the grunt work and will provide you with results in tune with their philosophy and their desire to improve their own standing among future clients they are trying to recruit.

So to anyone building a start up or thinking of starting on. You should not consider hiring an agency until you are well into your start up process, if you hire one at all.

Do you need a PR freelancer or an agency to get going?

2009-09-18T05:50:00.000-07:00

As most marketing people know, the first step in selling the product begins with the PR program. It helps you refine your brand and introduce yourself to key influences out there who you are and why your product/service is relevant. Of course, public relations help does not come cheap and, if not properly managed, can be a huge loss leader for your young organization. So then the question becomes who do I hire to help me manage a PR launch for my product? A full fledged agency or a sole practitioner?

One thing to keep in mind is your relative size and how that matters to anyone you are going to hire. If you are dealing with a large PR agency or even a mid to small size one, the smaller you are, the less care you will receive regarding your account. As normally happens with agencies, you are sold a wonderful bill of goods when you are applying for the agency and you see a really strong team of A plus managers who many will insist will be your account team. Once you sign that contract however you will notice that in world record time your account is being by managed by people that you never met and before you know it you are being spoon fed the normal palladium of press releases followed by the by the rote school of one size fits all, non-creative PR.

Generally when you hire smaller freelancers, you are getting motivated and, if you have done your homework intelligent and experienced, professionals who rely on your support to fund their continued success. In addition, you are most likely dealing with one or two people who represent the organization. Your work is not going to be passed onto the new hire since, most likely, there will not be a new hire to pass the work onto. You will also find someone more open to making your vision work and seeing your ideas get a shot at some sunlight.

A freelancer succeeds by taking risks where an agency fails if they do so. The agencies main goal is to have you renew the contract so they will ensure you do that. A freelancer's goal is to ensure that you succeed since that demonstrates that they can help an organization succeed. A freelancer usually does not have to pay for an office and the non-essential staff that is common among PR agencies so with that lower overhead, they can bring you a greater focus on your core PR needs.

It is pretty obvious in my opinion that a PR freelancer is the way to go when you are starting up your organization. From both a fiscal sense as well as a more product driven one a freelancer is a more common sense approach for an organization that is just building its PR program. The level of customer care and ROI is almost certainly going to be higher. The influence you have with a smaller organization can not be over estimated and can/should be leveraged for your organization's benefit.

Why social media isn't always a great idea

2009-09-17T05:18:00.001-07:00

Well companies are jumping on board the social media bandwagon with the same ferocity that they decided that the web was the way to go about ten years ago. It is funny but many companies believe they have to use social media. The reason I am hearing most is that if they do not, well then their competition might and gain on them.

Sadly, this is a fear based logic to planning and as a result you are reacting to market potential and less likely to gain by the situation. Smart companies figure out that they can gain from a certain action and act accordingly. Not so smart companies see where the heard is going and follow according because that is what seems the right thing to do.

Having said that, there are boundaries to social media and they should be explored by any company that wishes to profit from what is certainly an area with tremendous potential. One issue about social media I have addressed in the past but it bears repeating because it is so critical. In fact it is so critical I think it should be put up on the wall like school rooms show the U.S. Constitution or the map of the world. Workings within the organization should under no circumstances be allowed to speak about the organization on a social media outlet without the full and complete authorization of the Corporate Communications office. Furthermore, all of what they intend to post should be approved in advance and should then only be posted verbatim, without so much as a comma changed.

Social media should not be seen as a lazy way to do corporate communications. There is still going to be a need for news releases and media tours; analyst briefings and webinars. Marketing will not grind to a halt nor even be pulled back due to social media. If anything marketing efforts should have social media built into them so that social media is an element in the market effort. As with most corporate communications roles, a properly managed social media program can be of tremendous help to an organization in delivering its message to a mass audience.

One way that social media should never be used is for crisis management. Nothing seems more pathetic than when you see some misbehaving celebrity decide to apologize for their latest misdeed by apologizing on their Facebook page or via Twitter. The same holds true for an organization. One that apologizes via a press release alone is an organization that not only didn't care for the customer but doesn't really care for any misdeed which may have gotten them in trouble. The hackneyed news releases we have all become accustomed to seeing become even worse in the clipped off world of Facebook and Twitter and their cohorts.

Social media is a great invention for the reason that it lets the organization talk directly to its audience and stakeholders. However it should not be seen as a way of bypassing traditional outlets or even worse, bypassing outlets that may not be as receptive to the message as we might like. It is more important to allow for an open and honest exchange of ideas and feedback than it is to have a simple and fun discussion. Discussion and honest feedback are far more valuable than light, breezy conversation.

So in conclusion, social media is a great tool and makes a wonderful addition to a well armed media and customer relations platform. It is not however designed to be the sole means of communications or for that matter, even the main focus of your communication program. It is a tightly controlled aspect of your program and one that focuses on bringing in different and direct communications from stakeholders that you may not be able to engage otherwise.

Is your brand dying because you are trying to save it?

2009-09-15T05:43:00.000-07:00

There is an old back yard gardeners adage that the one that kills a garden above all else is over attentiveness. Some people obsess over the slightest details regarding their gardens and as a result the garden suffers. The same can be said about brands, in some environments the corporate senior executive be it a division head or a CEO can be so focused on saving the brand that they may end up being blind to the fact they are in turn killing that which they are trying to save.

I have seen with my own eyes many otherwise strong, or relatively strong brands, which are hacked to pieces because someone higher up believes the brand is in some type of danger. Either from competition or complacency but in danger non-the-less. What is both sad and ironic is that when these people take drastic and, often unnecessary steps, to fix the problem the result is greater loss and more disruption. This reinforces the first impression that they were right about the need for drastic change and results in more change.

This second wave of change is often unneeded and even more destructive than the first wave was. More importantly it results in both customers and employees questioning the future of the brand and if management really has solved a problem or is fighting some type of hydra where two problems will emerge for each one fixed.

Obviously a brand needs to be nurtured like any plant in a garden. It needs the right materials to grow on and most importantly needs patience to reach full maturity. A farmer does not go into his or her field and pull tiny corn stalks out of the ground. Rather, they wait until the product is primed for market and that is the philosophy that today's senior executives would be smart to take as their example.

A brand will succeed if given the right amount of care and devotion. You need to take the appropriate steps and consult with the right experts to ensure both brand survival and long-term health. But you also need to let the brand grow on its own accord and be careful not to smother the brand with over attentiveness. Make sure that your cure is not worse than the illness in question.

How to test your start up brand?

2009-09-14T04:51:00.001-07:00

Building a brand is something that takes time, patience and, of course, money. To use the old adage, "Rome was not built in a day." That is certainly relevant when it comes to building ones brand. Start up companies today are faced with the dilemma that they need to build to build a recognizable brand as soon as possible and get it to market even quicker so they can establish themselves and begin to generate revenue.

So with any product the question becomes how do you test a brand especially if it is one that hasn't seen the light of day yet? Certainly if you are Microsoft or Coca-Cola you can conduct focus groups and have test audiences to try out your product and see how it works. A new start up has maybe a half dozen individuals to share the information with and, assuming they have a new concept, need to be discrete in who they inform regarding the product.

To that end it is very difficult for a start up company to test its product and get a sense of its brand. Still, it can be done if appropriate measures are taken to protect the brand. First of all, you do have the option of selecting a small group to serve as your control and use them to test the product or concept. By doing this, you are bringing in people you believe you can trust. They need not be people you know personally but they should be screened for reliability and you should be comfortable with who you are working with.

You can also work with organizations and do a blind test. These organizations bring in people and serve as your focus group and tell you what they like about your concept and what they do not like. They are blind in every sense of the word and have no idea what your product is and in many cases may have no idea about your market. While you benefit from feedback, you are getting this feedback from an ill-informed group who may not fully understand the nuances of your brand concept.

Lastly, you can try and run your own research so that you need not work with a pay-to-play organization. This is very dangerous as you do run the risk of exposing your brand to a public audience before it is ready. There have been many incidents where companies tested products before they were ready and the bad press leaked out as most bad press does and ended up causing the type of attention that most companies would prefer to avoid!

Testing your brand before launching it is a sensible and intelligent means of not only determining the brand concepts and strengths but also in easing the product into a position before its target audiences. Sensible precautions and reasonable planning will allow you to test your brand and either adjust the concept before releasing it to the public or, in a worst case scenario, go back to the drawing board. Either way using a control group as a sounding board allows you to build a stronger brand and one more in tune with what your target audience is looking for.

The importance of thought leadership

2009-09-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

A theme in this blog is the idea of standing out from the crowd. Yes we all know the market is crowded with this person and that person who all think they have something of value to add to the discussion so it goes without saying that getting yourself heard requires extraordinary efforts. While there are many short term solutions such as news releases, media events and bylined articles there is one way you can ensure consistent coverage and that is by building yourself as a thought leader.

Roughly defined a thought leader is more than simply an expert on a topic. He or she is someone who is not only an expert on a topic but rises above that and becomes an expert's expert. Someone who clearly and sufficiently defines the issue and then offers a range of possible solution to any problems being addressed. In addition to offering a solution, a thought leader is someone who can argue for a swath of solutions but then offer a single best possible outcome for people to follow.

There is more than simple knowledge to being a thought leader. One needs to be bold and decisive and offer ideas and solutions that people may find controversial and will certainly find worthy of debate and discussion. Furthermore, they need to be people who for lack of a better term, make good copy. A thought leader needs to impress an audience with not only their intellect, but their ability to in a non-abrasive fashion engage their audiences in lively debate.

Thought leadership is also not about lining up a large trophy case of publications and awards. In the case of a thought leader, speaking at an industry group or appearing in an industry publication is often far more important than being on the cover of the Wall Street Journal. The other key difference for a thought leader is that they need to always be out and proving they are relevant in today's market and with today's media. Thought leaders grow old and atrophy unless they continue to offer insight into the changes in the world. Tiring yes, but essential if they are to succeed.

But if they do succeed, the thought leaders offer an organization a tremendous resource. A successful thought leader is someone who the news media will turn to time and time again once they are comfortable with the bona-fides of your thought leader they will come to the well again and again as long as it is reasonable to do so. This is like having a virtual press conference and you will see your organization appearing in a wide range of media outlets and the perception among your customers will be that you are an organization who is a leader within your field.

The one down side to thought leadership is that it can not be done with only one person in the role of thought leader. A first class organization with hopes of achieving long term success needs to have a team of thought leaders ready to address the diverse challenges a world class organization needs. A deep and well trained bench of media ready thought leaders will solidify your organization as a thought leader.

How do I make my copy stand out in a flooded copy world?

2009-09-10T04:49:00.000-07:00

One thing is for sure, there are a lot of companies issuing a lot of press releases which seem entirely to say nothing at all. Sadly the issue at hand has a lot to do with a term I used in the previous sentence; press release. A press release is a misnomer, it is something of a fake to use a boxing term.

One thing I recommend to all of my clients is to get in the habit of saying news release. While this may seem a matter of terminology I see it as much more. By using the term news release we are forcing the client to ask themselves, what is the news here? Why does this matter? Who does it matter too?

I also recommend setting a hard cap on how many news releases the organization will issue during a set period of time. This solves a number of strategic issues. For one thing, this serves as an exercise it what I would call message discipline. What do we need to say? How do we need to say it? Who do we need to say it too? This practice in self discipline is a great tool in how to manage your brand and how to speak to your audiences in a professional and refined fashion.

Another way to make your copy stand out in the market place is to know your audience. I have seen too many pieces of copy that are watered down because they are supposed to serve the needs of an overly diverse group of market segments. A news release is targeted towards the news media and as such can not be watered down to be some type of sales tool. It may have uses when dealing with customers or potential customers but that is not whom it is designed primarily for. Good copy is designed for a target audience. It's not some catch all and lazy way of approaching the market at large.

Lastly, good copy stands out because it tells a story that someone wants to read. I remember reading an interview with Russ Meyer, the director who did a lot of B-Movies who said "the critics hate me, the public loves me. Who are you going to believe?" The point here is that if you are going to write great copy, use it to tell a story that your target audiences are going to want to hear. Yes you will be informing them during the process, but you will also need to tell them a story they will want to hear so that you don't lose their attention and have them quickly forget about you in all that white noise that is out there.

Too Busy to Succeed!

2009-09-09T05:17:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of feel good stories about the number of startups that began life during a recession or downturn. Home Depot and Microsoft are two examples that come to mind. So it is not surprising that a lot of the organizations that I deal with now are in fact start ups. It goes without saying that a lot of these organizations need a lot of help with developing and executing a strong branding and marketing program.

But there is one thing that amazes me about a lot of the start up executives. They all complain about not having enough time. I had one executive lament to me that he had too many things on his plate and would not be able to succeed. I have to be honest and say that I find this entire thought process laughable. If you are too busy to succeed I can assure you that you need not worry about success.

The first issue I believe is that we are dealing with people who have an overdeveloped sense of mission. They believe that the product they are selling is so important that its success is a linchpin of the future success of society. What is really required of these people is to step back and achieve proper prospective. They may have a great product, but they are also in a crowded market so it is important that they work smart more so than work hard to succeed.

I have also found that based on my own anecdotal observations it seems people who want to become successful with startups also seem to have a form of attention deficit disorder. Their minds fire off at 100 miles per hour in 100 different directions and as such they lack the focus and discipline to concentrate on any one area for too long. All to often the result of this is mixed messages, missed appointments and a failure to clearly define what they want to accomplish. I have also noticed they have achieved boredom with a project in a relatively short amount of time and are always looking for the next great thing.

Now normally, I would like to tie this up with a nice neat ribbon and say to do this in order to succeed. What I think needs to happen is that the start up staff needs to have people who think and act in the long term. Not only does the marketing person need to be able to provide the necessary brand and messaging guidance required of all reorganizations to succeed, but you need finance to have its eye on the ball regarding long term fiscal planning and designers or engineers committed to the concept of the product and service being offered. A concentrated and long-term plan is the most likely way that an organization will succeed. An organization where the founders and executives are too busy to look beyond their computer screens is unlikely to ever succeed.

Is change good for your product?

2009-09-08T05:08:00.000-07:00

There was a book a few years back titled, "If it ain't broke, break it,". I never read the book because I thought the title was very silly. I have never been a fan of change for the sake of change. Yet a lot of companies charge down that road, without a good vision about why they are making change and what they hope to accomplish in the end. In today's world we seem to have moved away from the mind set of our ancient ancestors where old age was revered and with age came the perception of wisdom and knowledge.

We now live in a culture where youth is almost a pathological obsession. From the hair coloring products to diets and onward, we see nothing but a desire to change our culture so we drop out objects simply because they are old and for no other reason. The corporate world is no different than any other person when it comes to this mindset. The older a product is, no matter how well it is performing, is seen as dull and in need of rehabilitation.

What makes me chuckle to myself as I write this is that if one looks back on some of the greatest marketing failures in history, the Edsel, Crystal Pepsi, New Coke, McLean Deluxe, they were all designed with the idea of reviving a supposedly stale brand. In each case, as we all know, they bombed, but they also demonstrated quite clearly that not only were the brands they were to replace quite strong, but that the leaders of the companies in question were very out of touch with their customers.

Now I am not advocating here for standing pat. Far from it! I do believe that a brand needs to be watched over vigorously and guarded like the crown jewels. Make changes when necessary. But change should not be implemented for the sake of change itself. Change should be done to improve the product and, to a larger degree the brand. .But making change out of fear that the product is some how faltering is counterproductive and a recipe for disaster.

Remember that as the Marketing and communications person we are responsible for protecting the product and brand from any threats and that may include putting a hand up and saying no when some internal party comes hard charging, determined to change the product out of fear of being passed by. That alone is no reason to react and remember that fear is the worst instigator of change!

Protecting the brand from internal interlopers

2009-09-03T05:04:00.000-07:00

The organization's brand is one thing that people cant help but offer input on how to improve. In some regards, managing a brand is similar to managing a sports team. You have every person around you offering you what they consider to be essential input regarding how to run the brand. When something goes wrong, as it is bound to do, these people will see you as the person responsible since you did not follow their advice. Even if there advice was completely ridiculous and silly the arm chair brand managers out there believe that their advice was difference between success and failure.

Another key aspect for brand managers in protecting their brand is to resist the urge to react to events which have already occurred. There is an old expression that goes "you can't drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror." That is ever so true in marketing and communications. But still many non-marketing people will come up and argue that such and such an event has occurred and we need to make adjustments based on it. Now I can not argue in all cases not to make the changes, but there are times when you need to review if the change is being made based on fear or some other type of knee-jerk reaction.

If there is the need to make a change, first off, make sure that the need is solid and dead on. Don't be afraid to say no and to push back on those pushing for change. Remember, you are the guardian of the brand so it is ultimately your responsibility. Review suggestions for change with an open and careful mind. Also, remember that protecting the brand does not mean keeping it away from any changes. If someone were to argue for a particular course of action look at what they are saying and feel free to cherry pick the parts you think might work from those parts you think are not useful.

Lastly, set the ground rules for any changes to the brand. Don't forget that as a marketing and communications person it falls to you to protect the brand. Put the onus onto the person suggestion the change to educate you as to why the change is necessary. Also, keep the participants in any brand change to a bare minimum . There is no need to have a grand meeting involving everyone from the CEO on down to the person who empties the waste baskets. You and the person suggesting change are the parties to the exchange. I would recommend limiting the meeting to just that. From there you can form a solid relationship which allows for two way conversation that will build a strong brand rather than a massive hodgepodge which tries to make everyone happy and leaves no one happy.

Using communcations to plan for growth.

2009-09-02T05:37:00.000-07:00

Many organizations are driven by the idea that they are bringing a revolutionary new product to market and that once the world sees how great their product is, they will stop what ever they are doing and rush to buy it. Sadly, this model hardly ever is the case and in many cases, the world is growing more cynical and sees a new product with wary and cynical eyes.

I also hear a lot of people admiring what Apple does with the IPhone and saying what great buzz they have created. I have to be honest and say that I cringe when ever I hear the word buzz. For one thing, "buzz" has never sold a single product. The pet rock had buzz, so did New Coke and Crystal Pepsi and neither is remember today. What sets the IPhone apart from its market is the fact that it offers a unique and interesting product that differs from the rest of the market. It is quite evident that Apple did their homework here and included key target customers in the development of the product from the beginning and then designed a marketing and communications program around it.

The lesson we can draw from Apple is that when we are designing a product, we should build the marketing and communications plan along with the product. We should also design the communications plan to anticipate the changes in the market so that we can quickly react and adjust our programs in anticipation of the minor alterations that will be required during the life cycle of the product to ensure that we do not fall behind our target audience. Remember, the market will continue to shape itself and unless you move along with it you will be left high and dry.

A good communications plan is one that not only designs what we say to our target audiences, but it helps us to grow within the marketplace and helps shape future growth. Communications can serve the organization much in the same way the coal tender does on a steam locomotive. We provide the fuel that drives the engine. In addition, communications has the role of keeping abreast of market conditions and is superbly positioned to anticipate and react to any potential problems that may arise.

Communications professionals should be positioning themselves within the organization as the primary agents to drive an agenda of growth. By doing so, they can not only increase their influence with the organization, they can ensure that the process is done correctly and that the brand , marketing's ultimate tool, is both protected and enhanced. Communications is uniquely positioned by virtue of their expertise and unique understanding of the branding process to contribute to substantial and sustained growth within the organization.

How to stay focused in a rapidly changing world!

2009-09-01T05:36:00.000-07:00

Today's world is certainly changing at a faster and faster pace. Of course, a study of American history shows you that one of our common themes is the idea that we are, for the most part, living in times of break neck change and need to slow down. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Still, we are living in times of rapid change. Thanks to market conditions and technologies, it seems products are out of date almost as soon as they hit the market. Shelf lives of more than a year for a technology product seems absurd. So how does marketing help build a brand, while facing a market that is constantly moving?

This type of dilemma reminds me of one of my favorite comic book when I was a kid, Spiderman. Of course Spiderman had a lot of enemies but the one that always fascinated me was the Sand Man. He could change his shape almost at will and at times could be either strong as a block of cement or as fine as sand on a beach. The properties one finds in real sand. Naturally Spiderman has his share of battles with the Sandman and defeats him by realizing that any strength can become a weakness and any threat an opportunity.

More importantly, from a tactical perspective he learned to anticipate what his opponent might do next and react appropriately. I think that is a key lesson for all marketing people to do. We are the people whose job is to be on top of things and try and see what might happen in the next week, month, year and so on. A great deal of ink was spilled regarding the supposed technical leadership and management skills of the Japanese in the late 1980's and early 90's. What happened was that the media saw only the positives and did not see the negatives of the Japanese model.

I remember an article from Business Week written just after Bill Clinton became president. It basically said that Japan was not as good as what everyone thought because its culture smothered innovation and new ideas. There were howls of protest about the article but time as shown it to be correct.

So back to the question at hand, how does one stay focused in this rapidly changing world. I believe the first way to do so is to know your market and most important, know your customer. Second, be a step ahead of the competition. That may sound like a cliche but not only is it true, it is also pretty easy to do. It goes back to the first rule of know your customer. The third rule that I will use for now is to have one person responsible for marketing and put all aspects of marketing growth into their hands. This will allow for controlled responsible growth and allow you to keep others, who don't have the same level of knowledge from fouling things up terribly.

Keep in mind that staying focused in a rapidly changing world is both your greatest threat and greatest opportunity. It should be taken with great concern and handled by the person you most trust with the success of your organization.

The Limits of Public Relations

2009-08-31T04:58:00.000-07:00

I remember a funny story I heard a few years back. A man tried to sue a certain auto manufacturer claiming their product was unsafe. When there was a bit of discovery done it had turned out that the man had crashed the auto and was upset that while the airbags had deployed, they had not prevented damage to his car. He claimed that everything he read about airbags spoke about how safe they are and that this resulted in him driving less-than-safely due to the fact he believed the airbag would somehow envelop his entire auto.

I always like this story because I think it does a good job of illustrating the limits of public relations. PR as we know has never had a really firm definition like accounting, nor has it had a strong oversight board like the American Medical Association or the various state bar associations. I think the best way to initiate a discussion like this is to say that PR does have limits and is not a magic cure all that will solve any problems. I will list a very few limits of public relations here but be assured that I will not list them all because that would simply be impossible.

One great limit of public relations and the one I see most often used in publicly traded companies is the idea that PR exists to "goose" a stock price or somehow make a company more palatable for sales. Very simply put, PR does not sell your product. Public relations exists to disseminate truthful and wholly accurate news about the organization. One term I despise is the term "spin," because it is not the role of PR to take information and try and paint it in an inaccurate light. I fully acknowledge that is what often times happens but in doing so you weaken your brand and the organization.

Another great limit of public relations is the concept of damage control. Without a doubt one of our greatest contributions as public relations professionals is in the area of crisis management, we can not be called on to turn lemons to lemonade as a matter of course. Still many organizations make decisions that they know put the brand and the organization at risk with the belief that the PR team can come in and simply clean up what ever may go wrong. That amazingly shortsighted viewpoint is what often results in organizations being forced to deal with crisis that, had they consulted with PR earlier in the cycle, could have been greatly avoided. It is much easier to put out a fire when it is a small flame than if the entire structure is consumed.

The last limit of PR is one that I hope will fade away as a result of the recent market crash. That is the concept of using PR to boost the ego of senior executives. All to often, PR people have been called on to write materials that are essentially irrelevant to the organization but do have the executive in question look like the king of the world. If you take a look at the organizations that have failed, going all the way back to Enron and beyond, you will see organizations who saw PR as a means of protecting them from any pesky questions they don't to deal with. Again, senior executives seem to think that PR exists to dance around like a puppet on a string. It is the role of the PR person to drive the process and as such we can not be expected to jump in and do the biding of a senior executive who feels they are being neglected . Our first opportunity is always to the brand and the organization.

In conclusion, I would say that PR can accomplish amazing things and that there are very few things we can not do. That is not to say however that our boundaries are limitless. Some of the limits on public relations, must be places by PR practitioners themselves because we are in charge of protecting the brand and it is our job to make sure the organization pays heed to correct means of messaging and message delivery. One may argue that if a PR person tries to express limits on public relations that they will be replaced. I can not discount that theory except by saying the following. If you want the best PR people you have to listen to what they say, and the best PR people are telling you that there are limits on PR that you must pay heed to if you wish to succeed.

How do I market my product? Part V

2009-08-28T05:46:00.000-07:00

The final topic I think we need to discuss is the issue of metrics. When it comes to metrics, marketing is always treading across a minefield. For one thing, there is really no linear connection between marketing and sales. Sorry marketing folks, while we may like to pat ourselves on the back and think that we sold the product, we can only make the sale possible. We do not have the ability to actually go out and execute on the sales that is the role of the sales team.

Sales and marketing and joined at the hip and neither can succeed without the other but both can fail if one entity does not fulfill its side of the bargain. So the question becomes, how do we measure success? How do we determine if a marketing plan was good and only failed because of sloppy execution or on the opposite, how do we determine if the marketing team passed onto sales poor materials to do the job.

I have to be honest that the first person who develops a rock solid, unassailable marketing metric will be like the person who invents the better mousetrap. The world will most likely beat a path to your door. That being said, there are some interesting ideas out there about how best to track marketing metrics. One I like is by looking at sales leads that have come in after the roll out of a marketing program and look at these leads at fixed periods of time. This should tell the marketing people how effective a job they have done in peaking the interest of target audiences. It does not make marketing beholding to sales and allows for an appropriate examination of who was responsible for the success or failure of a marketing campaign.

One thing I like as far as public relations is the idea of measure full coverage of an organization during a 3 to 6 month period. A lot of PR agencies are lazy and try to rest on mere mentions and include that as part of coverage. This is a colossal cop out and is simply a way to get recognition for picking off the low hanging fruit that they should be getting anyway. What I would recommend is that we identify one-half to a dozen top tier publications and ensure that we are in constant communication with them. During this period, there is ample time to draft either bylined articles, major pitches or work out from the editorial calendar existing pitches and secure major coverage.

I would recommend setting a floor that would expect at least X amount of pieces of coverage, depending on what you have that is of value. This will require an open and frank dialogue between both parties to ensure that the appropriate targets are set. Obviously, putting out a minor press release does not warrant the same amount of coverage as a major product announcement or business deal. This would require the frank discussions of goals that are all to often lacking in relationships with PR agencies. Clients defer to the agencies, the agencies are too happy to collect checks so they take the path of least resistance.

So in conclusion, metrics needs to be better refined and it will take trial and error. Until then, we will only have a nebulous idea of how successful our plan actually was.

How do I market my product? Part IV

2009-08-27T04:41:00.000-07:00

There is a story that I like to quote a lot to clients and to friends and that is about how in the late 19th century the head of the United States Patent Office recommended that the office be closed as everything that could possibly be invented, had already had. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed. But as we all know, there are hundreds if not thousands of new products coming onto the market on a regular basis. The simple law of numbers tells us that most of these products will fade into obscurity and never become anything.

So how do you avoid having your product become one of the vast majority. Well for one thing, use your messaging to accomplish this. If there is one thing I find amazing, it is how many entrepreneurs believe that the benefits of their product or service is so self evident that no explanation is required. That is not only arrogant but it is stupid. Let me tell you that if think the benefits of your product are so obvious you will not see the bus that hits you and destroys your product.

First and foremost it is essential that you state clearly what they benefits are for your product and what they mean for your target audience. Look at Netflix for example. When they emerged they had a very simple statement of benefit. They mail you movies that you have selected, you can keep them as long as you want and when you send them back, after watching them of course, you get the next movie on your list. No trips to the video store, no late fees, very easy to grasp. What is more important is that Netflix did a fantastic job of telling you why they were better than the competition on the market and why you subscribe to their service. Now they have changed their market and knocked Blockbuster back on their heels.

Secondly, you need to understand what you want your product to say to the target audience. To be honest if you decide to say that you are offering a revolutionary product that will change the world then you had also better get out the no-doze because that is the lame reasoning of every product that can not decide how to brand themselves. You need to offer your target market a declarative statement that clearly evokes what you will do. For example, "we will make better butter because we will refine the manufacturing process and make it sweeter, softer and longer lasting in hot weather." Not, "we are revolutionizing butter."

Third, say something you can believe in. There is nothing more annoying than a startup who this week claims to be this one week and then the next week decides they are something else. When you tell the market you don't know what you are you destroy any faith in your product. Also, you send a clear signal of confusion and a lack of an articulate focus to your customer.

Last, make sure marketing is in the drivers seat when it comes to articulating the product. Other groups, especially senior management will be inclined to offer reams of suggestions which they will naturally want to see followed. However it is essential that you keep control of the marketing process within marketing. Input is always welcome of course, but marketing tends to go astray when dozens of executives stick their noses in. Please pardon the cliche but too many chefs spoil the pot.

There are many ways to differentiate your product and some of it may result in trial and error. Don't be afraid to tinker but make sure that you know what you want to say before you want to say it. Form your ideas and hit the market with a developed and well thought out plan and you will succeed.

How do I market my product? Part III

2009-08-26T05:02:00.001-07:00

OK, so we have set up a web site and we have further developed the brand identity by working on some of the marketing materials. Now we have to move into a more critical step, because it is responsible for influencing market leaders and key decision makers. This step requires the establishment of a solid media and analyst relations programs. This is in some ways a very difficult situation because you will find many people who believe they are qualified to tell you what to do but who in fact have no clue.

Let me begin by telling saying what should be at the very bottom of your list. Do not even think of writing press releases. All too often, senior executives who enjoy seeing themselves talk, will push out a press release that says nothing and is simply nothing but white noise in the field. I always recommend that the term "press release" be banned from organizational lexicon. Instead substitute news release in its place. While this may seem like splitting hairs there is a key difference, press releases don't necessarily have any news value in them. In a news release you are searching for the news value of the story and thus you have something that may be of interest to the news media.

Positive and mutually beneficial relationships with the news media are essential to the well being of your organization. The primary way to stand up and differentiate yourself from the crowd is by being featured in a strong news article in a well respected media outlet. Some PR agencies tend to go for the low hanging fruit of mere mentions or background information. This is a sure road to failure. Don't be afraid to go after the big dogs in your field. Yes you may not get coverage to start, but by having the combination of persistence and a good story, you will eventually receive coverage proportional to how effective you pitch and how interesting your story is.

The other key aspect to consider is analyst relations. To be honest, you can not succeed without having some independent third party review of your products These independent analyst can provide you with two valuable sources of information. First of all, they can provide you with an outsiders view of your product as well as your strategy and give you an opportunity to make course corrections before heading to marketing. Secondly, if you are able to secure an agreement, they can provide you with a valuable independent resource that will affirm the benefits of your product and/or service. This is something that will be of tremendous benefit when you are speaking to both news media as well as potential customers.

Lastly, there is a key component to the success of a good PR program that can not be understated. You will not succeed by playing it safe and by going along the path of least resistance. The news media is interested in exciting new players and someone who demands to be viewed seriously and wants their story told is someone who will stand out. Many people will not wish to leave their comfort zones and many will say don't go there because the result will be nothing. The only way the result will be nothing is by lack of trying. Demand of yourself and of any vendors you hire that they achieve results from unlikely sources. By doing that, your product will be exposed to a wide and diverse group and you will be able to differentiate yourself.

Tomorrow: How to differentiate your self in a crowded field.

How do I market my product? Part II

2009-08-25T04:55:00.000-07:00

OK, so as we discussed in Part I you have built a web site and that is serving as the kernel for your brand identity. So now you have to decide what to do next? You basically have two choices, the first being to continue working under the radar and develop your product further or begin the public aspect of your organization by ramping up the public relations aspect of your program. At this point, you are not truly ready to go public since you will need to have stronger sense of who you are and be ready for what may come your way so the best course to follow is to continue defining your brand and image by developing marketing materials.

The development of marketing materials is often given short thrift and more often then not suffers from dual and conflicted roles. On the one hand, they are eagerly desired by sales people who seek them because it is something they can leave or send to a customer that clearly spells out the market advantages of their organization's products and services. The other side of that coin is that marketing materials are often prepared by very creative types who see themselves as the sellers of the brand and focus nearly exclusively on the creative aspects of how best to sell the product.

If you are familiar with the AMC television show Mad Men you know what I am talking about. Sales people offer a value proposition and believe that they can sell it to the target audience as a rational, fact based formula. Creative people are nearly the exact opposite. They believe that the sales decision is made based on emotional stimuli and as such we need to appeal to a person's emotional side and need to have a creative approach to sell the product.

It then becomes the difficult task of a marketing manager to not only balance these two, often conflicting viewpoints out, but to find a middle point. As we all know the definition of a compromise is when everyone walks away from the table feeling cheated. But that is exactly what a marketing manager needs to do, balance the competing desires of both groups.

Successful organizations know how to balance the ideals of sales and creative types and work together to develop a strong brand message which clearly sells their product. A perfect example of a company that marries both very well is Coca-Cola. Coke has an exceptionally strong brand and this is done by advertising which most companies can only hope to achieve. But the strong creative is enhanced by a global distribution system that is second to none. Without this strong sales and support system, Coca-Cola would have none of the global command that it does today.

So you are starting your own company, can you learn anything from what Coke or any other brands do. I believe the answer to be yes! First of all, as I said earlier you need to use the step after your web site to continue building your brand identity within the organization. This is also the time when you should bring your nascent sales organization to the table. Ideally this person will have some knowledge of your markets and sure as heckfire should know how to sell. You will also want them to give you some feedback on the tools you plan to give them to sell the product and service.

It is not uncommon for sales people to try and pull back and say they are not comfortable or that is marketing's job etc. But the fact remains at the end of the day it is up to sales to connect with the customer and convince them to buy. They need to be present for at least the first stages of development. The worst thing that can happen is for you to be six months to a year in, wondering why your product isn't moving and have sales shrug their shoulders and blame marketing.

So part II of the marketing development program is the development of marketing tools to further help build your brand. This is also the time to begin to engage sales and bring them into the loop and see what they can contribute. Marketing will help you increase awareness of your product but it is sales who sells it. Therefore their contributions must not be excluded.

I have my product all set but how do I market it?

2009-08-24T04:54:00.000-07:00

Sadly, great brands do not come with directions on how best to market them. It is impossible to say that this way will work and this way will not in every case. So the issue then becomes, how best to reach my target audience and, in the end, how to sell the product. First of all, rivers of ink have been spilled on how best to market a product, to that end I will refer you to the local library or bookstore to decided how you want to brand and market your product.

But to start off, you need to have some basic idea of how you want to go about the process. Pardon the cliche but you need to crawl before you can walk. First of all, I would sit down with your team or if it just yourself sit down and figure out what you wish to accomplish. Do you want to ramp up brand awareness first or do you want to jump in feet first and create a quick buzz. I tend to lean towards to the slow ramp up because it has longevity and buzz much like the fizz of a soda can fades rather quickly.

I think the best place to start is with your web site. The web site is basically your front door and it gives you a wonderful opportunity to test messages and test the layout of your image. Does your design formats reinforce the brand image of the organization and does it clearly convey what you do, who you or, and/or what you are about? The web site is also a great laboratory where you can test which messages have the greatest resonance with a target audience. This is your best chance to test your concepts and ideas on a limited, but ideally targeted audience.

The development of the web site should only take a few days but can provide your first feedback on the marketing of your idea and can also provide invaluable feedback regarding your marketing message and the value statement you hope to bring to the marketplace. This is your best chance to make the quick fixes needed before you take your product to market or even take it to the next step of the marketing process.

Tomorrow we will talk about the next step to take!

Trying to place a marketing value to social media

2009-08-21T05:18:00.000-07:00

When I was thinking about this topic I am reminded about the story from the late 19th century about the man who ran the U.S. patent office. It would seem he wanted to close the office because everything that could be invented, has been invented. A century and then some on we are still inventing stuff at a breathtaking pace. The question now is not so much one about invention but more about how to make money off of someones recent invention.

Take for example the social media explosion of the past few years. There is a great deal of controversy regarding how to best make money off it. There are as many ideas on how to do so as there are grains of sand on a beach. I would suggest that the only way to determine how to make money from any Web 2.0 technology is to determine if the technology fits your business model and if so, how does it?

As we saw in the late 1990's with the Internet, there was a stampede to get on board with a web site and to start selling on the web that very few people really were successful in doing it. The focus was on the end of the route that no one bothered to figure out how best to get there. The few organizations that were very successful on the web were the ones who spent the time, and money to figure out how best to build infrastructure and in the end marketed not the fact that they were online, but that they were an easier and possibly less expensive alternative to your local book store or flea market or whatever.

The emergence of social media and the potential to generate revenue from it is bedeviling a great many organizations. What brings a chuckle to me is that we are seeing a repeat of the late 1990's without the rush of cash from venture capitalists. Companies all want to be on Facebook and Twitter and Youtube but offer no great value to a consumer there. For example I am a fan of Coca-Cola on Facebook. I am told all sorts of trivia regarding Coke and its products but there is nothing for me as a consumer.

No I think as a marketing person, any new technology needs to understand what it can bring to a consumer before there is a mad rush to add a Facebook following or start putting videos up on Youtube. Ironically, very few organizations reward consumers for following them on social media sites or utilize them to build a stronger relationship. It is in many cases a practice in numbers for the sake of numbers.

It is very simple, social media offers marketing people a tremendous value. They have the chance to reach out to customers who want to be reached out to! The rate of success on a direct mail campaign is at best 5 percent, with social media it should be much higher since it is an opt-in strategy. Design programs that allow you to reach out to your followers online and most importantly, give them a reason to purchase your product and bring more potential customers!

Why the death of managed earnings is a victory for marketing and communications

2009-08-20T04:56:00.000-07:00

There was a story on the news recently that General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt is recommending the company abandon the practice of issuing earnings statements and trying to manage the company to meet those expectations. Coming from one of the great failures in American business during the last several years, this is indeed welcome news for all marketing and communications people. As people who believe in branding know you can know more manage earnings than you can milk a bull!

Actually by way of a history lesson the concept of managing to earnings started with GE and spread to a host of publicly traded companies like a flesh eating virus. Gone were the concepts of doing what was best for the company in the long term. It was replaced by doing what needed to be done in order to meet the quarterly numbers and as a result the long term success of the company was often compromised. This resulted in all sorts of financial shenanigans which played no small role in our current situation of financial distress.

Hopefully this change of heart, assuming it is both true and lasting, will lead to a return to long term vision which in my opinion has tremendous upside potential for marketing and communications. The two parts of the organization best equipped to deal with issues around branding.

By forgoing a short term vision of the organization, marketing and communications people will be able to do what they do best. Design a program which enhances the brand and allows for the organization to be sharply defined within the marketplace and clearly differentiated from the competition both in the forms of other organizations as well as competing technologies. As we all know marketing and communications is a game of inches and success, or failure, is often measured from the vantage point of time, not a few days.

My greatest hope is that since GE started all this foolishness that they lead a trend towards a more sensible form of management and allow for marketing and communications to emerge into its rightful place as the managers of the brand. A brand takes a great deal of time to build and unfortunately for all the MBA's who think the world runs on their clocks, there is no set amount of time we can tell you for when the brand will mature. In fact I can promise you that much like our economic recovery, it will proceed in fits and starts and may even move in a parallel direction for a period of time. Let's hope CEO's get smart and realize you can not manage earnings but you can invest in a brand and finally let marketing and communications people do their job!

What is better for a company, success or failure?

2009-08-19T04:58:00.001-07:00

At first blush this may seem like a no brainer, of course success is necessary for a company to survive. What I am addressing is the idea of risk taking and the concept of being too afraid of failure to take a chance on greater success. Think of it as playing a game of blackjack, I remember a saying I once heard and that is that the brave hit on 16 the stupid on 17. I always liked this idea as it shows there is a fine line between being brave and being foolish.

What is ironic is that just about every company was founded on a strong element of risk. The idea that they could do something better or fill some need within the marketplace. Given the high risk of failure associated with starting a business it is safe to say that risk is a part of the game and you can't help but notice how risk adverse companies become as they mature. The larger a company becomes a very interesting contradiction arises, not only do they become risk adverse, but senior management wants to see a continuation of the rapid growth, associated with early years of success.

As a marketing and communications professional, we are often tasked with walking that tight rope between success and risk taking. I have seen two types of individuals in marketing and communications. Ironically, the ones who tend to have the longest tenure in an organization are the ones who take the fewest risks and as a result deliver the smallest possible return. Again ironically they are able to demonstrate to their higher ups activity which they then interpret as success. It is obvious that activity is not success.

The individuals who bring true success to any organizations are the ones who chart the course that will most likely result in real sales growth. This is usually through the result of an aggressive and yes at times risky program. Sometimes even great programs fail and that is the nature of the beast! A good marketing person looks back and tries to find out why they failed and builds off of that lesson for future plans. A bad marketing person, someone who is risk adverse, seeks to avoid any and all blame for the program and thus learns nothing but to avoid risk and avoid blame.

The fact of the matter is that a good dose of failure is like a refreshing breath of air. There is a great deal to be learned from success. But success can breed arrogance and the misconception of invulnerability. What is worse is the fear of failure can make people avoid a chance at success unless they believe the probability of failure is virtually zero which in the real world is not really the case.

I would argue that good marketing and communications people have no great fear of failure. While logically they would want to succeed, they make their decisions after calculating the risks and deciding if they want to move forward based on the risk/reward ratio. A great number of mediocre people take the path of least resistance and only go the route that virtually assures them of success. Even if that success results in tepid results which will only have an incremental meaning and will have no long term impact on the growth or success on the organization. These are the people who thing in the immediate short term and have no long term vision.

The answer to the question in my opinion is that while success is necessary for a company to thrive, the fear of failure can inhibit and organization from achieving true success. Real leaders and successful people are the ones who fought the tide and realized that there was a better way and that it is worth taking a risk to achieve it. They don't reach for the low hanging fruit and they realize they don't know it all. By doing this, they achieve great things and set standards for the rest of us to follow.

What is not reasonable to do to land a job

2009-08-18T04:42:00.000-07:00

I recently saw a job posting for a PR manager position which by all accounts was very basic in what it wanted and was from a rather unexceptional organization. With the help of a good PR person, they might become a decent player in a small, niche organization. What made my blood boil with this company is they wanted candidates who apply to develop a PR plan, including a press release for their upcoming product launch.

Well I have to say this is a sad example of our current economic times and really says how sad this organization is for taking advantage of market conditions to try and score some free PR help. I know a number of extremely talented public relations people, some of whom are looking for work, they all agreed unanimously that they would never submit to conditions such as this without being compensated for it. It is simply unreasonable to expect someone to do something they would normally be rightfully compensated for. Does anyone believe this company would give their software to you so you can test it for an indefinite period of time? Of course not!

We all know that times are tough and that there are probably 5 qualified candidates for each position that is available. Still, we need to be able to maintain our professional quality and temperament. If we compromise on it, we run the risk of diluting our talent and appearing to our new employer as the type of person who will do anything to keep their job and can be bullied about. It's not easy to maintain ones dignity and pride when bills are piling up. Pride does not pay the bills as we all know.

But we must also be aware that we are our own brand. If we slash rates and let it be known that we are able to be pushed around and willing to compromise on our standards then any chance of being seen as a valuable employee are virtually gone. Quite honestly, we will be seen as someone who is expendable from the word go since we rolled over so easily to get a job.

Let me be clear I am not advocating being combative or disagreeable. I believe it is perfectly reasonable for employers to ask for, and receive, references, writing samples and other examples of your success. What is not reasonable is for professionals to be asked to give away what is essentially our product or service to an organization so that we can "prove" our viability. That is nothing but an end run around hiring someone to fill the job as they will now have the blueprint to do the job themselves. My argument is fight on and keep the faith!

Recepie for brand disaster: Let the lawyers handle it!

2009-08-17T04:44:00.000-07:00

I have seen a lot of cases of senior executives stepping into the marketing arena where they knew nothing a reaping a great deal of damage in the process. If I had to pick one specific red flag it is when an organization goes into crisis mode and right away it is decided to allow the lawyers to handle everything. That is a surefire recipe for disaster.

The reason I say this is that lawyers by nature are a secretive bunch who wish to with hold as much information as possible and then, when it is too their advantage or when they have no choice, disseminate to select audiences. What is amazing is this philosophy nearly always fails! It would be if doctors used hot mustard plasters and blood letting to cure a patient of exposure to noxious vapors.

A score of business histories worst marketing moves have the thumbprints of marketing all over them. Does anyone remember the lawyers telling Ford not to recall the Ford Pinto because it would be cheaper to settle the lawsuits than recall and fix the problem. Or when the Catholic Church faced sexual abuse claims they decided, based on legal advice, to settle with privacy clauses so they could deny responsibility and put off the day of reckoning another day.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Johnson and Johnson and Pepsi and Coke represent the ideal of how marketing and communications should function in a crisis. All 3 of these organizations kept the lawyers in the loop, but let the marketing people do what they do best. As a result they emerged from their crisis and one could argue that they emerged stronger thanks to their foresight.

The company to watch now is Twitter. As you may know there have been two denial of service attacks on Twitter which brought down the service. That is not at all good for the company and you have to wonder how they will react to what for them is a major crisis. I haven't seen much by way of communication from them so I am guessing that the lawyers are saying, shut up and keep your head down. Sadly, if they follow that advice they may end up writing the first line of their obituary.

The response to a crisis is a role that should be handled by the marketing and communications team. We have the firmest knowledge of crisis management and our goal is to minimize damage to the brand. Lawyers will try to prevent the fewest lawsuits and the fault there is that sometimes you have to take your lumps in order to overcome a crisis. The legal method in my view doesn't resolve the crisis, rather it is about avoiding blame and that only lays the foundation for the next crisis.

Earnings are up, so what about spending some on marketing?

2009-08-14T05:20:00.000-07:00

Recent news reports have shown that publicly traded companies are garnering very strong, even record earnings during the first part of this year. To be honest this is not coming from natural growth but from massive across the board cost cutting. Once again we are seeing the short sighted formula of cut costs and make the numbers look good for the quarter end. I would recommend that these companies who intend to avoid irrelevance during the next decade do the following two things.

First of all, spend the money on R&D. As we all know the life cycles of products are growing shorter and shorter each and every year. What was very hot two years ago is now ever so passe. I wonder if Fox wishes they had spent more on researching the market around Myspace before plunking down God knows how much money for a product that is being blown out of the water by Facebook.

Secondly, I would recommend spend money on marketing. This is an excellent time to take advantage of your less far sighted competitors and create a revised and/or deeper image in the marketplace. Most organizations virtually shut down operations during times like this. Planning on campaigns is usually suspended and the planning includes just enough effort to keep some sort of plan going but that's it.

Instead, if you want a company that will emerge from this period stronger and more prepared for the rebound which seems coming quicker than expected than start marketing now. Marketing is an investment and you need to be there to take advantage of what will be a rebound in demand. During this recession a great deal of ink has been spilled about comparisons to the Great Depression. What few people remember is that after the Great Depression and WWII came an explosive growth in all types of demand. That is why the Federal Reserve is so concerned about inflation.

By planning marketing programs now and having them enter the minds of your target markets, you will be well positioned to seize the reins of future economic growth. If you decide to wait until the market shows signs of growth, you may be like the person who decides they do not wish to be too soon to the train station. By the time you arrive, the train may have left the station.

Tom Peters once said that a company can not grow by cutting and that is very true. In order to be successful and grow your company, you need not only a successful marketing plan, designed for periods of both growth and decline, you need to be in a position to capitalize quickly and ahead of any changes in the market. Market leaders drive what happens; followers spend all their energy trying to keep up!

The importance of ethics in marketing

2009-08-13T05:15:00.000-07:00

In the U.S. right now there is a lot of fear regarding China. Now of course there is good reason. They have a huge army, love selling weapons to dictators, put anyone who looks funny into jail and God knows what else. But the really scary part is China's growing economy. Back in the day there was a term called "Chinese Marketing," which spoke of the fallacy of assuming that because an economy had X number of people you would be able to get them all to agree to purchase your product.

What should be of even greater concern is the concept of a growing move for ethics in China. I was speaking to a colleague just back from China who was impressed by a banner he saw throughout a Chinese company. Loosely translated it read, "Social responsibility is good for our business and our good business is good for you." I laughed when I read it because it sounded so very simple and at the same time was an ideal testimony to what this organization wished to convey to its customers.

This topic reminds me of an article in Business Week last week about a Chinese company whose CEO has made it very clear to investors that they come last in his pecking order. First, is his company's customer's, second are his employees and then come investors. By doing this he has a both a satisfied customer base and satisfied employees who combine to deliver exceptional results that result in satisfied investors quarter after quarter.

Contrast that with companies in the United States who see "flipping," or going public as a quick way to pocket a few dollars and then leave the market. They show no long term interest in growing for the customers and the customer is quite often an ends to a means. I have had the miserable experience of having my sales rep ignore me more or less until the end of the quarter. Then magically we are best buddies if my contract is up for renewal. Sadly this is typical of companies where meeting "the numbers" is what passes for business and as we see from the examples of Enron and so many other companies earlier in the decade, and Bernie Madoff recently, even out and out fraud are often practiced with little regard for the long term marketing problems.

Two companies should be put into the marketing hall of fame for how they handled a problematic ethical issue, which was ironically not of their own making. Johnson and Johnson and the Tylenol issue in 1982 showed how a company should handle any issue that concerns the safety of their customers. They were publicly traded but showed how concern for ones customer can result in a stronger result down the road. Speaking for myself, if I am looking to buy an over the counter medicine more than 25 years after the Tylenol poisoning, I reach for a Johnson and Johnson product when ever possible because to me, they have my best interests in their mind. God knows how many times they recouped the losses from those terrible days.

The second case is less well known but worth remembering as a teaching moment. In the summer of 1993 people claimed they were finding used hypodermic needles in Pepsi cans. Pepsi went back and shut down production to figure out how this was possible and where in there production process something might have gone wrong. They pulled products from any of the areas where the needles were found and then retooled the process so no foreign object can be put into one of the cans.

More importantly, they sat down with Coca-Cola and more or less said, "Today it is us, tomorrow it might be you." Combined, both companies worked out a solution which did two things, it proved the people with the needles were liars but also developed a combined PR campaign which proved that both leaders had worked together to secure their production process from any type of problem,

The take away here is that there is more to ethics in business than simply writing a plan and feeling good about yourself. You need to have a plan in place which will roll in and protect your brand. An ethical breech can cost you millions of dollars if not your entire brand! Act aggressively to be a good ethical citizen and remember social responsibility is good for your business and good business is good for you!

Marketing is a porus medium

2009-08-12T06:48:00.000-07:00

A lot of people like to think of marketing and communications as some type of juggernaut that moves forward and leaves only the crushed competition in its wake. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. There are a lot more similarities between the Titanic and most marketing programs than most of us would like to acknowledge.

For those who are familiar with the ocean there is something known as wash back wherein the ocean water flows around the boat but then flows back, or more precisely is sucked back by the engine. This causes great damage to the rudder and engine over time.

This is something that most marketing people do not think of when mounting a marketing campaign. A marketing campaign does not end on the second Tuesday of the month. Instead, it is an ongoing ever living cycle where marketing and communications done today can have implications down the road.

I recall a former client of mine who wanted to do a campaign which said something that contradicted what was said in the previous campaign. As usual it was a case of a non-marketing person thinking that doing the marketing was as simple as ABC-123. They could not, or would not see that by pursuing this course of action would result in the high potential for reputational damage to the organization's brand. They were only looking ahead and didn't see the big wave coming up from behind.

The reason this one stays with me is that I was told to stop living in the past. That is the call of those who do not understand that in the past is where we learned all of our lessons and where we can find lessons for the future. To quote Cervantes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Sadly far too many corporate types do not take a look over their shoulders to see what has happened and instead plunge forward blindly and, as a result, make avoidable mistakes or even worse repeat old mistakes. The graveyard of marketing blunders is full of organizations who have done this.

The lesson to be learned dear reader is not to live in the past but be sure to pay heed to it. Make sure that the past also serves as a guide post to where you are going in the future. As hikers all know remembering where you came from is the best way to hit the top of the hill!

Dealing with the reliance on technology

2009-08-07T04:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday featured an attack on Twitter which resulted in the service being down for most of the day. The result was wide spread anxiety among the hordes to whom Twitter is as addictive as nicotine or caffeine. I found myself in a state of schadenfreude at how people were lamenting the loss of a service that had not existed five years ago.

This outage proves the point that any technology can be a tremendous value to marketing and PR people in the execution of their jobs. However, the job goes on regardless of what is running or not. You do not delay a product launch simply because Twitter or Facebook are not running at 100 percent. They exist to compliment your marketing service, they are not there to replace it.

My first recommendation to all those who were taken aback by the Twitter outage is take a deep breath. First of all, if you stop and think about it, what is not being said by you on Tweeter? I have seen very few messages that were so Earth shattering that they needed to be sent out immediately, despite what senior executives seemed to think at the moment.

No the Tweeter outage yesterday showed us three things that are good learning lessons for marketing and PR pros. The first one is the most obvious, always have a back up plan. You may decide to send out that press release the day of the next great black out, or you may decide to have your event on the day of the big blizzard. It is essential that there always be a plan B. A lot of managers don't like to have a plan B because they believe that is planning for failure but by not having one, you are in fact planning to fail.

It also proved that new technologies, while helpful and, at times, exciting, are subject to risk. All technology is but the newer ones by virtue of their youth still have bugs to be worked out and are also the target of those wrong doers who seeing them much in the same way that a hungry lion seeks out the youngest prey in the herd.

Lastly, there is an old lesson we need to remember and that is while technology does make our lives easier, it is not irreplaceable. Remember that computers used to be the size of a room and typewriters used to require people who can spell and even on the web we just had basic web sites. So while losing a service can be a headache, it is just that. Having your car in the shop is a bigger one. So keep that in perspective.

Technology is great, but it's loss while a pain is not the end of the world!

RIP-John Hughes

So you have a blog/Facebook and Twitter account, now what?

2009-08-06T04:40:00.000-07:00

Companies are jumping into the social media pool faster each day. What is surprising is no one is saying to them, why? A quick discussion with a few PR and marketing professional's the other day resulted in them telling me that they were basically told to do it, do it quickly and get it done. No reason was given towards doing it, other than we need to do it. It is a case of someone outside of the marketing arena deciding that something needs to be done by marketing so lets give it to them.

Plunging into the social media arena without so much as plan is the dictionary definition of dumb. More over, the fact that one person has a blog, Facebook or Tweeter account does not render them as an expert on the topic. I have poked around more than my fair share of them and have found one or two that I chose to emulate in my own efforts but I was amazed by how few were well designed.

The first thing I tell clients or potential clients is that I am not an expert on social media technologies, but then again I don't worry about it because these technologies are so new that it is impossible for any to be. In fact, I often say that anyone who claims to be is either a fool or a liar.

The next step I would offer to anyone who has made the decision to go with a blog or a Facebook/Tweeter strategy is to look around and try and find someone who does it well. Blogs are becoming very influential as a tool for distributing news and, as we saw recently in the case of Sarah Palin, often become news themselves. One possible strategy is to not just create your own blog but make sure to post on blogs related to your own area of expertise. You should use your own blog to demonstrate your thought leadership and show the world why you are the best at what you do. A blog post should be like giving a short presentation and should be consistent with marketing and PR efforts.

Facebook and Twitter represent different challenges and opportunies. Within the marketing community these remain very controversial in regard to how best to utilize their potential for the organization. There are some companies out there who point blank refuse to use any new or social media and try to wall themselves off from its implications by forbidding any comment on any of these outlets. Essentially ceding the field of battle before a shot has been fired. Others have no policy and that can lead to pure chaos.

Of the two, I believe Twitter has the greatest promise for marketing due to its acessibility and ease of use. It allows for quick interaction, while limiting what can be done thanks to its character limits. Facebook in my opinion is much like a fan page or, alternatively, a bill board. You can post something on there and have limited discussions, but you will not likely see open and honest feedback from participants.

That is why I believe that if you really want to utiilze social media to enhance your marketing efforts a blog is your best bet. If you engage in free and open discussion. By using the blog as a platform to develop a clear pattern of thought leadership in your area of expertise and leave an option for discussion with interested parties, you can become a very influential party within your field and establish both yourself and your organization as THE thought leader in your field.

Marketing and bad news.

2009-08-05T05:37:00.001-07:00

A few days back I told the story of the CEO who was rude in front of a receptionist and how that resulted in a lost business opportunity. Ironically, the same thing happened to me lately and it is amazing how marketing and PR can have direct impacts on business opportunities that are not in a linear direct line.

My own story is that a few years ago I met with people at an agency about a job and during the first round of interviews things went fine. Nothing unusual and nothing out of the ordinary. Apparently the direct hiring manager was out of the office that day so the HR person told me that I would need to meet with her which again is not anything I thought unusual. I was told that the meeting would take place the next week and we set a time and date.

On the following Monday, I receive an automatic email from the company thanking me for my application but that they had decided to pursue other candidates based on the hiring managers needs. I thought this was odd as I had already coming in for an interview later in the week so I called? I never received a call back and I found that to be both very rude and very unprofessional.

So a few years pass and I am helping on a charity event on its publicity committee. We are told by the charity running the event that they have money for PR and would like to hire an agency. I look at the list and see the same agency on the list and I go to the contact from the charity and explain what had happened and she asks me if I can remain impartial and judge them on the merits of their presentation to which I respond, "of course."

Well they come in and to be honest all the presentations were about the same. No stars, but no one really was terrible either. But this agency's presentation was all about how they care and that with them you will be dealing with human beings and people whose caring for one another was at the heart of what they did. Needless to say that was quite the opposite of what I experienced and they did not get the job for that and several other reasons.

The message here is that unpleasant things happen in business. People get laid off or don't get a job or whatever. It is always better to deliver the bad news in person or at least by a personal method. To be cold and mechanical about it says you don't care and in the karmic universe, what goes around, comes around! Remember to let down any source, customer, potential job candidate or whom ever you need to share bad news with lightly, because today's reject may be tomorrow's opportunity.

There is the classic adage about not burning bridges. Sadly, the market for bridge burning tools is a robust one and many organizations seem to be on a mad quest to see how many bridges they can burn in the least amount of time!

The risk of social media

2009-08-04T04:47:00.000-07:00

Social media is currently all the rage in marketing and PR circles. Everybody wants to be on Twitter or Facebook or be running a blog. While these are admirable intentions and, I am very happy to see marketing engaged as a positive force, I do want to express caution as I foresee several areas of concern which are being neglected in a full force rush into embracing social media.

First of all, I believe we may be recreating the same problems that went into developing web sites when the Internet became popular in the late 1990's. Everyone was so keen then on having a web site that sites were designed based on what looked cool and what the latest technology could offer, that very little attention was paid to what was expected of a web site and how the web site would help further the overall marketing and sales goals of the organization.

Similar things are taking place with social media. Organizations are now so keen about being on Twitter or having a Facebook page that very little attention is being paid to how these vehicles can best be utilized to further the marketing efforts of the organization. I know of one company that is up on Twitter and has a number of followers, but what they do is so useless that they receive no benefit. No one is interested in what they have to say because the only reason they set up Tweets is for a customer to chat with a sales person about upcoming product revisions or minor technical issues.

Both Tweeter and Facebook, along with Blogs, have the potential to be tremendous resources for developing thought leadership and establishing clear and solid bonds with their future and potential customers. There are tremendous benefits to social media but they must structured within the larger marketing plan. While you and I may go on these sites for our own amusement, another area to be wary of, for organizations and specifically corporations social media sites are an area that must be managed wisely.

No organization would ever consider allowing an employee to develop and place an ad, or to send out proprietary information to a competitor. Yet with a poorly developed and managed social media policy, you may be doing exactly this same thing. However with appropriate controls, social media can be an explosive tool in bringing the appropriate message to not only a target audience, but one that shares your interest in cutting edge solutions.

How interactions with others can be mean ruin for your organization!

2009-08-03T04:46:00.000-07:00

I remember this story that a sales friend of mine told me about a meeting he went on with his CEO and a potential client. They were waiting for the client who was delayed and while there his CEO started talking about someone back at the office and saying how incompetent she was and how in his organization he has no tolerance for fools and that it was his way or the highway. Well sure enough the client comes in and right away the scowl goes away, the smiles go out and they go in and have their meeting.

Well several weeks later my friend calls up the client wondering why they have not heard back regarding what had earlier seemed such a promising lead. The contact told him that the receptionist had overheard what the CEO had said and commented on how rude he was. The icing on the cake is when this was reported back to the CEO, he didn't take it as a lesson learned, he called up and told the client that they were not interested in doing business with them anyway and if that is how they do things than fine.

The point of this story is that every person who deals with the public from the CEO on down to customer service or even accounts payable is a brand ambassador. Each and everyone of them need to realize that all customers are key and that the cost of finding new customers far and away exceed the costs of acquiring new ones. Yet companies seem to think that the only people who are responsible for presenting the public face is either marketing and then by default sales. And sales gets the task by default only.

Every organization needs to review who speaks to the public and more importantly there needs to be some basic training in how to deal with the public and in many cases customers. It is amazing to me how much money an organization will pour into marketing and how much time and effort is spent on color schemes for advertising and what vehicles to use and then from the minute the contract is signed until the moment the license comes up for renewal nothing happens.

Or you can have a case where there is a problem and you get passed around from person to person, none of whom seem interested in helping you. In my mind it is amazing how little time or money is truly invested into the full 360 degree marketing process. Yet ironically when customers are unhappy and not purchasing or purchasing more renewals of the product, it is often the marketing group that faces the blame.

The take away here is that everyone who deals with customers works for marketing. Customers should be treated like the special beings that they are. The reason being is that if you think it is expensive to keep customers happy, try to find new ones to replace those who are unhappy. Of course, don't forget the old adage that an unhappy customer will tell six people for every person a happy customer will tell.

Protecting the brand from one incident. involving staff.

2009-07-31T05:19:00.000-07:00

Building a brand is often like building a house of matches. It takes a great deal of time to construct, but one small act is all it may take to destroy and it obviously can be destroyed much quicker than it can be built. In many cases it is possible that it can not be rebuilt.

I have been watching the news that came out yesterday about David Ortiz and his being named supposedly as an abuser of performance enhancing drugs. I should say supposedly as this list comes from a report which was to have been kept secret and nothing has been officially verified as of this writing. Obviously for David Ortiz this is a huge blow as he is both a tremendous performer as well as the type of positive personality you don't see all that often in sports.

Still as a marketing professional I have to think about how this effects the corporate entity, that being the Boston Red Sox. In many cases the acts of one individual should and normally do have an impact on the organization either positive or negative. Given the large role that David Ortiz played in winning two world series for the Red Sox in 2004 and 2007 and the near mythic role he assume in 2004 you have to be very concerned if you are the Red Sox.

First of all, I have to assume the Red Sox have some type of crises plan in place for these types of situations. I believe that every organization needs to have a crises plan in place for the possible missteps of employees, especially the critical and publicly visible ones. I believe that the Red Sox issued a statement of support for Ortiz and that in my opinion was a very smart move. They recognized his accomplishments and while supporting him, did not offer him a free pass from any misdeeds he may have committed.

Some companies do not have this option. If you recall a few years back when Boeing hired the procurement General for the U.S. Air Force it was found out that this was a quid pro qo. Boeing realized that in order to protect themselves legally and ensure the survival of their brand, immediate action was needed. They not only fired the woman they just hired, they fired the man who hired her. As it turned out, both were later tried and found guilty of fraud which, thanks to their quick action, Boeing was able to avoid being caught up in the whole mess.

The message here is that you need to have plans in place that protect your brand from the possible mistakes or failings of your staff. The first job of a marketing, communications or PR person is to protect the brand. We are the brand's secret service protection and it's our lives for the brand. I would strongly recommend having a plan in place and I would also strongly recommend that you remember there are people involved here. While it may seem easy and convenient to throw them under the bus doing so may make it look like you are trying to save your own skin and scapegoating these people to cover your own self. Remember, there are 99 ways to go wrong and one way to go right so be wary!