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!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Driving social media in 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
How best to integrate social media into organization marketing
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!
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!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Is the Press Release Dead?
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!
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!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Time to stop falling for the latest fad
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!
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!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Why are we so afraid of failure?
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.
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.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Using Marketing to Lead the Way to Better Times
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
