Advertising Misstep: MoveOn

The best advertising tends to be the perfect balance of art and science. You can usually spot which campaigns lean too far one way or another by the quality of the message, not the production.

Too much science and the message becomes an exercise in bullet points. Too much art and the ad will become the subject of debate rather than the issue.

MoveOn might know what I’m talking about. For all their clever (not really) shock value in attempting to denounce Gen. David Petraeus, they have only succeeded in shifting the debate from whether or not we need to be in Iraq to whether or not their message is fair and their organization credible. Enough so, even Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had to put the usual polarized politics aside.

"The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned,” Reid said in a letter. “No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of Gen. Petraeus' long and distinguished record of service to our country."

As brands are fragile things; not all publicity is good publicity.

Relatively few people can look at the MoveOn ad like Jane Hamsher did in her article in The Huffington Post: “To join with the right and start firing arrows into their backs is both destructive from a movement perspective and displays tremendous naiveté about what it's going to take to end this war.”

She does, and in doing so, demonstrates the true weakness of the MoveOn ad: in or out, black or white, for us or against us. Stand by your “progressive fighters” at all costs. Tow the line. Or, in other words, let’s make a case for polarization.

Around almost every corner, polarization remains a front runner in creating miscommunication. In our country, it continues to distract from solutions because it creates a political environment of distrust and suspicion while offering public spectacle that can be likened to high school debate teams. One team picks “pro” and other team picks “con” (nowadays both sides generally pick “pro” and change the noun).

From a communication standpoint, only one Democratic team seems to have made the mistake of choosing sides as outlined by MoveOn. Hillary Clinton embraced the message as a blunt speaking point for the following day, opening it up for Rudy Giuliani’s team to ask a pointed question: “Who should America listen to … A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org.”

This copy line above is part of a rebuttal advertisement that Giuliani’s team wants to raise money for in order to rebut MoveOn and Clinton. You can see the ad by clicking the copy line on a fundraising page here. It’s not the best ad in terms of political copywriting, but it gets the job done.

Regardless of the issue, the communication lesson is objective: although there are some exceptions, the best messages are those that focus less on polarizing the messengers and more on the issues being discussed. By shifting the message off our presence in Iraq and onto the credibility of someone who was recognized as one of America’s 25 best leaders by U.S. News and World Report, MoveOn buried its anti-war message, made the issue about them, forced would-be allies to distance themselves, and drew at least one candidate into controversy.

If we apply this study to our Fragile Brand Theory, it becomes even clearer where MoveOn went wrong. Rather than stick to the issues, they asked the country to denounce a four-star general or denounce a political action group. The law of gravity, as it applies to our brand theory, suggests that when two brands go head to head (as opposed to point for point), then the one with its collective impressions closest to the middle has more pull and will prevail.

Clinton’s team seems to have missed it. Giuliani’s team seems intent on letting them know it.

Resurrecting Porcupines: New Balance

With so many restrictions being floated around about social media, including who can blog and under what conditions and with what support, is it any wonder some spokes figures are making a comeback in social media? They are more manageable than CEOs, less accountable, and in some cases (but not all cases) are fun and entertaining.

Originally I was going to write about a spokes figure we helped develop, but then I came across JD. JD is a porcupine who gets a second lease on life after a driver resurrects him using the positive energy found in New Balance shoes.

An Ontario native living in Massachusetts, JD’s MySpace page has all the vitals, including the :30 second back story, his own song, and about 163 friends. If that and his “chipper” attitude aren’t enough to make you feel good, pop over to the interactive Web site, play around with the signage, and enter the enter the balloon-popping contest to win a Jeep, sports equipment, and cash.

JD and the campaign is the brainchild of Almighty that aims at influencing culture. You can find out more about the creators at Ad-titude.com. Like many very creative ideas in advertising, we’re not sure if the ads translated into shoe sales.

That question will best be answered if JD has three lives instead of two. New Balance has named five finalists in an ad agency search that includes Arnold, BBDO, BBH, Cramer-Krasselt, and Element 79 to oversee the $15-20 million ad budget of New Balance. The Almighty could easily retain JD’s piece ... or not.

For the sake of feel good social media, we hope JD survives — even if one of the new shops creates a campaign that aims to bring us back to reality. The concept of the spots, by the way, is linked to NB Zip’s “high performance cushioning technology.” Yeah, okay, sure, the defibrillator shoe soles idea was a bit of a stretch in terms of connecting the dots, but we still like many of the campaign elements that came out of that idea.

Spotting Convergence: Procter & Gamble

When I began writing that company-driven digital media was an emerging trend to watch with tangible income marketing potential, some people weren’t too keen on the idea.

Two days ago, Brian Steinberg with Advertising Age reported that Procter & Gamble (P&G) is in the early stages of producing a pilot focused on sketch comedy and the travails of the comics who devise it, which it hopes can become a primetime reality series for broadcast or cable. While this doesn’t connect all the dots between Internet-based digital media programming and traditional broadcast television, it does raise interesting questions around the concept well beyond the Cavemen.

"If it's not entertaining, then it's not going to engage, and if it doesn't, then it's a failure," said Peter Tortorici, president of WPP Group's Group M Entertainment. "Consumers aren't looking to be entertained by brands. They are looking to be entertained by characters and stories."

Tortorici is right. Under the existing model, advertisers rely on networks to develop and nurture entertaining shows to capture an audience. Then, assuming the measures are right, they buy time around those shows. However, most people agree that the old model is broken.

"The market is so fragmented, and because you have DVRs out there, we know that people are fast-forwarding through the commercials,” contributed Pat Gentile, head of P&G Productions, to the article. “If you can create something that is interesting and that resonates with the consumer, for Procter & Gamble, that's a pretty big deal."

It is a very big deal. P&G is among the biggest spenders on network television despite steadily shifting away from television advertising since 2005. Considering P&G currently commands an advertising budget of $6.7 billion, producing its own pilot it seems like a modest investment.

Some might say it’s almost a necessity. Even Fortune’s Geoff Colvin framed up his question to P&G’s James Stengel this way: Fortune’s Geoff Colvin: “Now that mass media is losing its dominance, what's the new model?”

“It's about understanding these consumers in a complete way. Our research has changed a lot. We do much more immersion research, much more anthropological research. We really try to get at what we can do through our brands to make a difference in people's lives,” Stengel said.

Although P&G is developing a pilot for broadcast or cable this time, we would not be surprised to see even more immersive experimentation in digital media, which provides better tracking through analytics and an ability to nurture niche markets. (We can think of hundreds of programs that P&G could develop to engage audiences on the Internet.) As Steinberg pointed out in his well-written article, P&G already has precedents.

Hmmm … suddenly, company-produced programs doesn’t seem so silly anymore. And while I am not suggesting that company-produced programming will or should completely replace broadcast penetration, it does make a lot of sense to consider programming as a viable part of the marketing mix.

Thinning The Workforce: Those People

With increasing fervor, some bloggers are thinning America’s workforce into desirables and undesirables. Who’s undesirable?

Those people, of course.

“Those people” are people with kids, according to Penelope Trunk. When she shared ten tips on how to start a business, she wrote “In general, when I have started companies, I tried not to hire people with kids because they are less able to jump for investors, more torn between where their head and heart are at any given time, and anyway, today’s parents generally do not work insanely long hours.”

She defends her statement here, a contrast that doesn’t appear on her own blog. But “those people” are not only people with kids. Fat women have to go too.

“One thing I learned is that fat women don't have a lot of empathy and defendants usually try to strike those jurors,” Trunk said as quoted by David Maister, who defended her statement by surmising she was not advocating anything (Maister, she advocates all the time) before pointing out the obvious.

Some companies are hiring people based on looks, which means “those people” may as well include anyone who is less attractive. Playing the appearance game isn’t always as easy as that. Stephanie Bivona wrote about a talk show conversation she heard on the radio, where one caller “even said she ‘uglied’ herself, just so she could be taken seriously.”

So, as crazy as it sounds, let’s toss the “overly attractive people” into the mix of “those people” too. And, based on the comments alone in another Trunk post, men, because they cannot handle assertive women as several Trunk readers pointed out. Especially those who choose to stay at home. And women. And Hispanic people. And Black people. And White people. And conservatives. And liberals. And reglious people. And atheists. And those of differing sexual orientation. And Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby Boomers.

Those people.

Sometimes I wonder — as each group based on race, gender, lifestyle preference, and appearance all try to outdo one another as the bigger victim — if we’ve learned anything.

In the 1930s and 40s, Nazis, originally under the banner of being discriminated against, also armed themselves with statistical information. It’s not hard to do. “Those people” also veiled their words as simple observations and personal experiences like Trunk and now Maureen Sharib, who wrote: “Speaking as one small voice, I can tell you this, I have run a company and I have experienced the mind sets of those with kids and those without.”

To all of it, I say gumballs. Give someone a statistical study and they can vilify or victimize any group you want to pool together, even if it is based on something as ridiculous as blood type.

Discrimination in our country not only exists, but it is much more pervasive than we like to admit. Anymore, the truth is that “those people,” the victims, have become each and every one of us.

If we are ever going to break away from this apparent need to label each other, it will take a general willingness for individuals to make the decision not to discriminate based upon whatever divisive characteristics people dream up. As Geoff Livingston said in an unrelated but pointed post, maybe we all need to lighten up.

Not just in this country. Americans aren’t alone in labeling people. It is a Korean problem, an Australian problem, and a Nigerian problem. It is a human problem.

(Note: Orignally, every label and descriptor was linked to article published by major media outlets, but those articles are all gone now. Maybe it lessons the points not to have those illustrative links. Maybe not. I hope not because the point is we're all people.)

Acting Responsibly: Crime Bloggers

Communication remains one of the most powerful but underutilized tools for any business, organization, or community. And while most have remained slow to embrace it, I anticipate some sweeping changes as more best practices and fewer abuses receive public attention.

Just one story that caught my attention last week demonstrates the positive power of communication, community, and social media in a very profound and personal way. Joy Roy, who maintains Southern Sass on Crime, Robert Bush, who publishes American Proud, Warriors for Innocence, Perverted Justice, and others have all played a role in tracking Jack McClellan, a self-labeled pedophile who has avoided prosecution to date.

McClellan originally came to the attention of authorities because of the Portland-based organization Perverted Justice. According to the Los Angeles Times, the group began monitoring McClellan because he had created a Web site on which he posted photographs of children in public places and discussed the best local places to watch little girls.

While the Web site was eventually shut down by his provider, McClellan still managed to publish his information for months, placing information in the hands of those who might abduct children even if McClellan himself never intended to. After being exposed and ordered to stay away from minors, McClellan decided to leave his last state of residence because, he said, “I can’t live here under Orwellian protocol.”

Since he has never been charged as a sex offender, he does not have to register with the authorities, leaving it up to private citizens to take matters into their own hands. What McClellan doesn’t realize is that what he did might even be worse than committing a direct crime against children: his original Web site and subsequent actions make it easier for criminals who are more likely to take action against young women and minors.

This is a growing problem that requires immediate attention. It is also one that I am increasingly sensitive to given our Las Vegas headquarters, where stories of missing persons and human trafficking is becoming all too common. One immediately comes to mind: Glendene Grant’s daughter went missing from her home in Las Vegas in March 2006 after living in the city for about 10 months. (You can read the story here).

Better use of social media might have made a difference in this case (and it is still not too late) if citizens and authorities begin to develop dedicated social media applications across the country, funded or supported by social networks and other technology providers. While some steps in this direction have been taken, much more work needs to be done.

Specifically, notifications of missing children and missing people need to be actively promoted beyond missing persons. Recently Missing Children is one example of what can be done They have a national widget that is a step in the right direction, but more state-by-state public-private widgets need to be developed (we’re adding Wayne Wirs’ Recenty Missing Children widget to our community service blog and space for Ad Council public service campaigns soon).

For additional information about missing persons in Nevada, please visit PINow.com. From there, you can access information for other states.

Writing Fan Fiction: Myles McNutt

On August 31, we announced the winners of an unofficial Expanded Universe Short Story Competition fan fiction contest to promote Jericho for the fans, expand its universe (outside of the town where it largely takes place on television), and demonstrate the possibilities of its rich story line. Today, we’re proud to present the work of Myles McNutt, who also writes about television on his blog Cultural Learnings. We hope you enjoy the story that takes the show's universe far forward. And congratulations to Myles McNutt!

Dear Journal by Myles McNutt

Dear Journal,

People tend to exaggerate things when they talk in the post-bomb era. They don't have statistics or facts; it is commonplace to hear people throwing around statements like "everyone's lives are more difficult because of the bombs."

I stand an exception to this statement, a constant reminder that blanket statements are still a faux pas, even in our new nation. In all honesty, my life was easier in the wake of the attacks. Business was better than ever, in fact.

A world traumatized with fear is a psychiatrist's dream come true.

I won't deny being opportunistic after the bombs dropped. Before I had always approached my job with the greatest of care, treating each patient with my utmost attention. However, I was lured in by the curvy temptress of “opportunity,” who provides a bright, bountiful, and selfish future in this time of great turmoil.

Hundreds of patients walked into my office suffering from fear and anxiety. Before, I had to dig deep to find the root of their issue. Now, I listened to their concerns, nodded my head, and informed them that I thought their problems stemmed from the bombs. It was always the bombs.

Off they would go with a prescription that might never be filled, thanks to the government’s tight control of the drug supplies. I sat back with my cheques and wondered whether I was being honest with myself.

It was when I sent poor Ms. Gillis back off into the streets of the Big Apple with her worthless prescription, knowing full well I did little to earn the $500 sitting in front me, that I heard a noise.

"Excuse me, Dr. Forest?"

The voice at the door startled me. Her silhouette was tall and curvy. I swallowed.

"That's my name," I said in the disinterested voice I didn't have before the bombs. "You here for an appointment? There's a long waiting list, I'm sure that my reception…"

"I've already spoken to your receptionist, she said you'd be free," the woman informed me as she stepped further into the room. Electricity being at a premium, the lighting is always dim. I could make out her long brown hair and business suit. She didn't look or sound as if she was damaged goods.

"Well, I guess I could see a patient during my lunch…"

"Actually," she interrupted again, "I'm not a patient. My name is Keri Thorne and I represent an agency doing work in the … relief effort. We were wondering if you would like to assist us with a project."

I was intrigued: I had heard of some psychiatrists going out with relief teams to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder, but I had never been approached.

"What kind of project? I have appointments booked for a month or so, but I can head out into the field at the end of…"

"Actually," Thorne said with a bit of an impatient tone, "We don't do field work."

"Oh. Well then…"

I was too perplexed to guess at just what she did, but too nervous to ask. She was standing dangerously close to my desk.

"We work with those individuals who are getting in the way of the relief effort, if you will."

I still didn't know what she was talking about, so I simply nodded and she continued.

"It has come to the point where communities that once fought one another are turning their eyes toward the government's actions or, as it may be, their inactions," she said. "And so, we need to keep them from becoming a problem."

"So, why do you need a psychiatrist?" I managed to spit, the question burning in my mind.

"We're having some troubles in rural areas and some of the radicals are becoming more difficult to deal with. They are fiercely led, and those that we are capturing are … anxious, if you will."

I could have sworn she winked at me when she said it.

"Um, so, what do you need me for? If you're working for the government, which I think you are, surely you have access to…"

"Oh yes, Dr. Forest, we have all the tools we need to keep the situation under control," she said. "We just need to make it seem more, you know … official. Having a doctor present would make all the difference in, well, closing their prying eyes."

I finally understood what they were asking. They wanted me to be the doctor who gave them permission to destroy the minds of the people fighting for their communities, their livelihood. I swallowed loudly, again, and I think she noticed.

"I'm sorry," I said slowly as a shiver came over my body, "But I won't be able to do it. I, well…"

"I'm disappointed, Dr. Forest. From what your receptionist said, you've been willing to take advantage of these people before. I figured that serving your country might be…"

"You call that serving your country?!"

I was shocked by my own outburst, but Thorne simply frowned and started walking toward the door.

"Dr. Forest, this conversation never happened. Someone else, someone luckier than yourself, will benefit from our new future," she said, walking out the door. I never saw her again.

The next day my medical license was revoked and I learned that my colleague a few streets down had resigned from his practice and headed west with the government. I lost my job and my livelihood in that moment. But I regained something greater — my conscience.

I write this from a refugee camp in the Midwest. In front of my tent, there is a line of people waiting for me to ease their fears and help their condition.

They are no longer cheques to me, but people. And my job, in the post-bomb era, is to make their lives easier.

Dr. John Forest

Disclaimer: "Jericho and its related characters are the property of CBS Paramount Television Network and Junction Entertainment. This contest is solely for entertainment purposes. Neither Myles McNutt, Richard Becker, nor Copywrite, Ink. is affiliated with CBS or Junction Entertainment.

Challenging Reality: Jericho Jinx

The first to feel the sting was Mark Burnett’s failed reality series, Pirate Master. The show ended with a whimper on Aug. 28. The final episode aired online, more than a month after CBS had yanked the first program to be targeted by Jericho fans.

Now, Kid Nation, which is CBS’s second attempt to put up a new reality show, this time into the 8 p.m. Wednesday timeslot, is at risk of becoming an advertising ghost town, according to Advertising Age.

Procter & Gamble Co., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Pepsi-Cola Co. and Anheuser-Busch all have taken a pass on the program that begins Sept. 19. P&G offered the most pointed comment: Kid Nation is just not in our brand strategy at this point. Several more advertisers would not comment.

While media buyers and advertising gurus expect the first episode will generate respectable ratings, companies are beginning to wonder if low cost reality shows have oversaturated the market. Critics are wondering too, with some mentioning that CBS already has a backup for the public relations marred Kid Nation, which has been plagued by questions of the legal, moral and ethical issues arising from its unconventional production.

Will the show prove its potential as a child star marker or simply cause more headaches than it is worth? Looking back, one can only imagine that CBS might feel drained by the decision to ever cancel Jericho, which, ironically, is its number one most talked about show despite an insecure start date and only seven episodes being produced.

Even though the show supposedly lost steam, it still managed to pull in better numbers than anything else CBS has since thrown up in its place. Not to mention, many Jericho fans are quick to point out that the midseason break, poor marketing, and the lack of a suitable rating system — not the show — all contributed to what now seems to have been an erroneous perception.

On CBS’s side at the moment is the simple fact that Jericho fans are becoming comfortable that one day, their show will return to a different time slot (while Pirate Master was unlikely to succeed, the premiere had also suffered from a Jericho fan boycott just prior to the decision to reverse the cancellation). CBS is also looking for more ways to market while creating unique revenue streams. Recently, it purchased SignStorey, a US company that broadcasts advertising-supported television in retail outlets. The price: $71.5 million.

The acquisition may make sense as a short-term investment. In many ways, the increasingly popular concept of in-store advertising that targets shoppers just before they make a purchase is an early predecessor to mobile advertising. Hmmm… maybe they could market shows when other advertisers aren’t buying up the time.

While sometimes preempted reruns on Friday nights haven’t necessarily convinced everyone that Jericho’s return will be able to outperform its initial run, there is no question that everybody, even critics, are hoping for a Cinderella story. So one question remains: if Kid Nation does flop (which we don’t know that it will), what will it take for CBS to end what might one day be called the Jericho jinx?

Targeting Toys: Mattel Recall

Last November, Mattel, Inc. received some praise in its handling of a recall of Polly Pocket Assortments. This year, as Mattel has endured a third major toy recall in a single month and we’re starting to wonder if frequency might erode its “Premier Brand Toys” positioning statement.

"It will have an impact. People will be looking at it, it will be in the back of their minds," Andy Brisebois, president of the Children's Safety Association of Canada, told CanWest News Service. "lt's a natural reaction and I wouldn't blame anybody to be very, very leery."

Really? So what is happening at Mattel? How are they handling it and is the media covering the story responsibly?

Having low expectations despite last year’s findings, we visited the Mattel Web site to see for ourselves. We were not disappointed. Mattel seems to be doing its best to test and retest toys made in China and most recalls have been made as the result of voluntarily retesting toys (as far back as 2003) under its new guidelines. The testing includes a 3-stage safety check:

• Mattel is testing all paint on all toys. No exceptions.
• Mattel has significantly increased testing and unannounced inspections at every stage of production.
• Mattel is testing every production run of finished toys to ensure compliance before they reach consumers.

"In August we promised that we'd continue to focus on ensuring the safety and quality of our toys through extensive testing of finished products, thorough investigation of our vendors and the implementation of a strengthened three-point check system,” said Robert A. Eckert, chairman and chief executive officer of Mattel. “As a result of our ongoing investigation we discovered additional affected products. Consequently, several subcontractors are no longer manufacturing Mattel toys. We apologize again to everyone affected and promise that we will continue to focus on ensuring the safety and quality of our toys."

Eckert also elected to publicly address Mattel customers via video, much like JetBlue’s David Neeleman addressed everyone last February. There are considerable differences between the videos, which is why we expect Eckert will have a longer shelf life than his digital media predecessor.

Why? Mattel confined the video to Mattel rather than launching it to a larger YouTube audience. While Eckert’s presentation is a bit stiff, his message is accurate, concise, and to the point. The message is that he and Mattel are sorry, concerned, and committed to safety.

During the video, he avoids over apologizing, reenacting problems in vivid detail, or infusing emotionally charged language like ”appalled” as Glenn Renwick, CEO of Progressive, did in his company’s crisis communication statement.

As Mattel has done in the past, it also places its recall prompt on the front page of its Web site. In the recall section, it makes it as easy as possible to identify the affected toys and how to obtain prepaid mailing labels for the return of those items. In some cases, Mattel identifies the single part of any play set affected (as illustrated in the picture above; only the cat’s brown paint contained lead) and they are offering replacement product vouchers.

Although some members of the media claim that recalls might dampen holiday shopping as 80 percent of all toys in the United States are manufactured in China, we're not so sure. The holidays are still months away and many stories smack of sensationalism. In fact, if Mattel continues to take the lead in setting safety standards, and other toy manufacturers follow suit, it doesn't seem likely that there will be fear-infused holidays ahead.

In sum, it seems to us that Mattel is once again effectively handling the hurdles of crisis communication. And while we cannot give them as much kudos as last year (only because of the sheer volume of toys recalled), we’re still impressed. I cannot say the same about some other players. In descending order…

We are less than impressed with any media outlet that asked parents leading questions like “So, how do you feel about toys that could harm your kids?” (Kudos to those who published the recall contact information.)

We’re concerned that some child safety advocates and consumer affairs spokespeople are making emotionally-charged statements like “This is America and it should never happen here!”

We raise our eyebrows at any competing toy makers too eager to talk about how this will give their toys a leg up this season.

And last, but not least, we’re disappointed that China’s ambassador to Canada resorted to the blame game: “it’s unfair to blame Chinese companies alone for the recall” and called for more international cooperation between producers in China and importers in other parts of the world to catch potential health hazards.

Huh? Maybe toys are not alone in needing a recall.

Killing Digital Heroes: NBC Universal

“Unfortunately, Amazon Unbox videos and the Amazon Unbox video player are not compatible with Apple/MacIntosh hardware and computer systems.” – Amazon.com

And as Amazon goes, so goes NBC Universal’s ability to put top-selling shows like Heroes and The Office into the hands of iTunes consumers. The losers, undoubtedly, will be consumers in what some are calling one of NBCU’s worst decisions since it entered the digital media arena.

According to Apple, NBCU had reportedly sought more copy-protection controls as well as more pricing flexibility. Apple said that NBCU had asked for “more than double the wholesale price for each NBC TV episode,” which would have resulted in a $4.99 per episode price. The episodes are now listed on Amazon for $1.99.

“With the addition of NBC Universal TV content to Amazon Unbox, fans now have the ultimate convenience for enjoying their favorite shows whenever or wherever they want,” said Jean-Briac Perrette, president of digital distribution for NBCU, neglecting to mention that only Amazon Unbox customers (which exclude Apple portable media owners) will benefit from this convenience.

The post-negotiation public debate being played out between Apple and NBCU reinforces an increased trend toward companies airing disagreements in public, knowing that if the media does not pick it up, then high profile bloggers will.

“What they’re going to have to realize is that out of all the dozens of shows available out there, most people only want the four or five most popular shows,” James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said (as highlighted on Terry Heaton’s blog). “And if those aren’t there, those consumers are just going to walk away.”

McQuivey is right. As much as I like Amazon, I won’t have a choice when it comes to Unbox video player. Since we work on Macs, play on Macs, and own iPods, NBCU’s decision is clear: if we miss a broadcast, our only option is to watch something else. How’s that for content protection?

Apple seems to be doing its fair share to protect NBCU content as well. Apple decided it will no longer sell new NBC shows, including those that will premiere next month. Fortunately, iTunes has other shows to consider, including those that might distract the fans of Heroes and The Office.

Targeting Nomads: Social Networks

“MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIN: Social networking is probably the biggest change in how people use the web. With nearly 100M visitors there is something going on here, yet it hasn’t taken off behind the firewall.” — Paul Pedrazzi, OracleAppsLab

Pedrazzi is not alone in wondering just what social networks might do for business. Geoff Livingston, on his new Now Is Gone book blog, noted that Facebook doesn’t build communities as much it reconnects existing relationships. Michel Fortin concludes “it's not a viable marketing tool. At least, not for me.”

So why all the hype? Enough hype that the Trade Union Congress (TUC) in Britain felt the need to issue a release defending worker on-the-job access to social networking sites. That eight percent of businesses report they are actually afraid of employee backlash if they ban social networks. That some claim social networks are an integral ingredient in our cyberspace environment.

Social networks present a viable and worthwhile consideration for any social media mix, but they do not seem well suited to support a sustainable communication strategy or meaningful content. More often than not, they are consumer-generated content billboards for traditional and new media (blogs) hoping to capture online nomads as they wander their way to watering holes for individual conservations, gossip, fun, and games.

Sure, a few have worthwhile applications like the questions/answers at LinkedIn or BlogCatalog discussions, which do lend well to creating a sense of community. Open niche networks like RecrutingBlogs.com work well too.

These examples aside, social networks seem best suited to be what early blogs hoped to be — a place for individuals to connect and have two-way conversations when they aren’t trying to out-scoop each other on finding new online content to talk about. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet, sooner or later, the mad rush for numbers will be over and people will stand around asking themselves did I invest all this time in the right social network? Probably not.

It makes sense for me as someone engaged in social media to check out all the new applications that are readily and frequently available (about 100 times more than most social media gurus actually write about). But if it wasn’t for this reason, I think I might have a different message all together … call me when the nomadic online wandering is over and I’ll bring by a house-warming gift.

Exploring Social Media: Semi-Public Youth

“… just as science reveals how crucially important nourishing relationships are, human connections seem increasingly under siege. Social corruption has many faces.” — Daniel Goleman, author of Social Intelligence

When most people think of consequences associated to youth and social media (MySpace, Facebook, and blogs), the first thought that comes to mind is sexual predators infiltrating the Web. Yet, most consequences seem more subtle, despite growing out of a spoof about society’s fascination with addictive behaviors.

Sure, Dr. Ivan Goldberg may have coined the phrase “Internet Addiction Disorder” as satire but other researchers like clinical psychologist Kimberly Young, Psy.D. used it to set a new pace in launching exploratory studies that looked at online addiction (read a sum up here). In one such study, she concluded as many as 396 of the 496 Internet users could be classified as dependent.

More recently however, John Grohol, Psy.D. pointed out that most of these studies are less than reliable. In fact, many skew toward proving a threat to modern society. And others, such as the impact of Internet harassment, seem too thin to draw any real conclusions.

So maybe we need better questions: What are the long-term personal ramifications of participation in these networks, particularly among youth, as Marc Aniballi, managing director at Crack Method, offered up to me on Linkedin as one question we don't ask enough about social media.

Although I am not deep enough into the book Social Intelligence to provide a proper review, I do believe Goleman has set the stage to answer questions like the one proposed by Aniballi. Some paraphrased highlights from the book include: substituting daily interactions with online activities may not provide children enough experience to cope with face-to-face interactions; constant digital connectivity may inadvertently disconnect them from the world around them; greater connections may provide more forums to justify anti-social behavior rather than reinforce moral values being taught at home; and emotional outbursts online that may spill over into their surrounding environment.

They are interesting observations. They make me wonder if some answers are right under our noses. Maybe Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Jason Wahler have the answers.

All of them were subjected to an inordinate amount of adult content and choices, a displaced sense of self-worth as it is based on public input, a disproportionate amount of public critique and ridicule, an inappropriately high level of aggressive public outbursts, and a general disconnect from interacting with the world around them; experiences that are indicative of social networks and the Internet.

So where does that leave us? As much as I would like to say that the solution is simply better educating youth before giving them the freedom to engage in social media, I sometimes wonder if most adults understand that one of the personal and professional consequences of engagement means becoming a semi-public or public figure. Nonetheless, here are three observations that youth might benefit from before becoming more immersed in social media:

Balance. Social media is best used to augment education, expand social networks, and create conversations. It was never meant to replace them or infringe upon them. Forget friend counts and get out more.

Responsibility. Written communication has significantly more impact than verbal communication. It is often permanent. Despite this, social media dramas are generally more inflammatory than in-person disagreements and discussions. Diffuse it instead of lending to it by insulating yourself against becoming emotionally engaged. In most cases, name callers say more about themselves than the person they attack. In some cases, they aren’t even real people.

Selectivity. Unless we can look at the world as disconnected observers, information can and will influence our behavior. It pays to be selective in what we expose ourselves to, how we interpret that information, and to take care not to project it into our own lives.

To be clear, I think social media is one of the finest communication tools available for any number of individual and business applications. However, the Internet is much like the world: you can find what you look for. So what are you looking for? And your kids?

Staking Claims: Social Media Borg

The most humorous aspect of staking claims in social media recently came to me from a post made by Jeremy Langhans at RecruitingBlogs.com. It was a sum up of a Pete Cashmore quip about Facebook.

“In light of recent controversies over who exactly invented Facebook, I think now is the time to come clean: I did. Not Mark Zuckerberg, not the ConnectU folks and certainly not the latest claimant to the idea: Aaron Greenspan … I was considering a way to include high school or college photographs in a printed book, and came up with a concept I called Faces Book.”

I saw it again at Geoff Livingston’s Now Is Gone blog as Steven E. Streight attempted to set our discussion — when flogs might work and when they might not — straight. The statements rang loudly, perhaps with a hint of seriousness.

“The core values of blogging, as set by the early bloggers from 1992 to 2004, include Transparency, Authenticity, Passion, Integrity … CEOs and others can have pro writers polish up their blog posts, or suggest topics, even write a few sample posts to get them going … The peer to peer recommendation system of the Trust Web will fall apart when fake blogs, phony Twitter accounts, and PayPerPost type blog whoring invade our realm.”

In other words, sorry but that ground was covered. Please refer to the social media rulebook that it is littered about the Internet in random posts and discussions and cite the appropriate sources.

WARNING. New discussion is futile. You must assimilate.

And yet again by Shel Holtz when he shared his bad pitch experience. Don’t get me wrong, it was a pretty awful pitch from the Washington D.C.-based Adfero Group. It began “I wanted to let you know about an innovative new PR tactic that the readers of the “Shel Holz” blog might find interesting.” (Their misspelling, not mine.)

But then, even Holtz digresses a bit into borg speak while discussing what the Adfero Group calls a new PR tactic: “Funny. That sounds just like the social media press release format I’ve been touting for, what, a year? The same concept that has a home on the web and a working group. It was introduced by SHIFT Communications well over a year ago in response to an appeal by journalist Tom Foremski.”

Yeah, I remember that. I called it a buffet template, meaning no offense to Todd Defren. As I pointed out then, at least Defren had the good sense to do something when everyone else was dragging their respective professional heels. But back then, credit was less important than building upon the social media framework so more people would take it seriously. But now that we have established social media as viable communication tool, and some newcomers are starting to make their own paths, times have changed. Didn’t you get the memo?

WARNING. New tactics are futile. You must assimilate.

Humility. That is one term that the early adapters forget to include in the core values drafted in 1992 to 2004. As professional communicators or others shaping social media, we might remember that much of our early work will go unnoticed by the greater body of people who will eventually employ it in some fashion.

What do I mean? Well, as much as Holtz seemed to chastise the Adfero Group for not knowing the history of social media before making wild claims (and they were wild), nowhere on Holtz’s blog will you find any reference to Jorn Barger or Brian Redman, who were among the earliest bloggers.

For that matter, maybe I should lay some early claim too. I had a daily news update in the 1990s to augment a bi-monthly print and online publication. Does that count too? Technically speaking, minus comments, it was a blog. Or maybe my regular forum postings on AOL before that, as AOL was one of the first social networks (despite everyone claiming social networks are somehow new). No, I'm not that presumptuous. Besides, I have better ideas to hang my hat on.

Funny. There always seems to be predecessors to the predecessors and we all might be well served to remember that. In fact, sometimes similar ideas come from different places with the originator having no knowledge of what the others might be doing. Sometimes they are borrowed upon and made better. Sometimes borrowers give credit. Sometimes they do not. Sometimes they don't even know to do it.

Usually, but not always, the only reason early concepts are stolen away is because the original idea didn’t stick well enough to hold. But that’s the price of progress. I’m so sorry, but nobody really owns social media or the concepts that are being tried and tested here. Much like some caveman’s family isn’t getting paid royalties for the invention and application of the wheel.

To be clear, I’m not against Zuckerberg, Greenspan, Streight, or Holtz reminding us that little pieces of this and that were developed by others first. That’s admirable.

What I am less comfortable with is beating down new ideas and discussions for want of territorial superiority and forced assimilation. When the collective starts doing that, maybe it's time to remember that there is a whole big world out there beyond the insulated cube one can create online. Or, in other words, social media experts invited the world to participate; don't be disappointed if they accept the invitation as explorers and not as loyal subjects.

Writing Fan Fiction: Nick Lysne

On Friday, we announced the winners of an unofficial Expanded Universe Short Story Competition fan fiction contest to promote Jericho for the fans, expand its universe (outside of the town where it largely takes place on television), and demonstrate the possibilities of its rich story line. Today, we’re proud to present the work of Nick Lysne, also known as Redzephyr at Jericho Rally Point. We Hope you enjoy. And congratulations to Nick Lysne!

Checkmate by Nick Lysne

Under heavy pressure, the knight was forced to pull back behind the defensive line of infantrymen, mere pawns of the kingdom. He had been making progress, but that was put to an end with the introduction of the queen.

The bishops kept a narrow-eyed watch, ready always to intercept any threat to their king. One of the towers had fallen moments ago, and the entire offense had shuddered, pushed back.

Cam pursed his lips, his fingers still resting atop the retreating knight. His eyes swept across the board as he considered his options and those of his opponent. He would be safe for now. His hand left the white knight.

"Almost had you," Hermon chuckled with a kind smile adorning his old man's wrinkled face as he too surveyed the board.

Cam grinned. "Almost."

Hermon advanced one of his pawns in support of his other forces.

"You know, I'm really glad you all showed up, Cameron," he paused, taking a sip of his tea. "I've not had this much fun since before the Day! Hell, it was some time before ... and now Julia has someone to play with, too. Things were getting tough for her."

"Come on, Hermon... You're the one doing us a favor!"

The white queen advanced two spaces.

It had been a couple of months since the Day. Cam had been lucky; his family and most of his friends had not.

If the bombs had gone off even twelve hours earlier, he would have shared their fate. He had begun to think of his survival as a complete and total miracle, despite being non-religious.

The day before, he had been out of state, picking up his long awaited prize from eBay: a military surplus Humvee. It had cost him about twenty grand, and he could barely afford it. But Cam had always wanted a real one — none of that glamorized civilian stuff. When he returned to the apartment, he had been greeted by his friend Mike, and Mike's daughter, Natalie.

The old man shook his head and shifted one of his knights to the side.

"It's nothing, honestly. We have more than enough."

The television had gone out first. And it was when Cam had gone to turn it back on, he saw the cloud, far in the distance. He realized it would take much more than a another push of a button to make his TV work again. Natalie, barely eight years old, was very curious about the big, bright spectacle out the window. Mike had been unable to find adequate words to explain it to her. He hadn't been able to explain it to himself.

"We can't stay here forever, though," Cam said, taking a pawn and covering his attacking bishop with his remaining rook. Hermon took the bishop anyway, sacrificing a rook.

"There are a few places you could try that aren't that far away."

After a tense conversation, they had taken as much as they could carry from Cam's apartment. His rifles, handguns, ammunition, food, clothing, blankets. All of it was stowed in the back of the Humvee before they locked up and headed to Mike's own apartment.

"There's Jericho if you continue north."

Cam tilted his head. "Jericho?"

Collecting what else they could fit, they had hit the roads and started on their way. The plan had been to check on family and friends, starting with the closest ones.

"Julia and I made the trip up a few weeks ago ... they're hanging on pretty well, from what I could see."

It took longer than they wanted, running into traffic jams and roadblocks. Over the course of the next several days, conditions spiraled away from the shrinking number of police and mobilized guardsmen. Cam and Mike both had had to shoot bandits; lucky to avoid being shot themselves.

Hermon pushed forward in an aggressive strike that cost Cam dearly.

"Hah!"

"Damn!" Cam laughed. "Would they take us? Jericho, I mean."

After almost two months, they began to get desperate. They were lucky enough to find an abandoned house with a large fuel tank and extra gas cans. They stocked the Humvee again. It had served them faithfully, running long after most other vehicles failed. Running after taking a few bullets for them.

"But with that new mayor, I'm not so sure," Hermon frowned, continuing his attack. "Check."

Cam's heart fell. He was almost hopeful for all Hermon’s talk. He moved his king out of danger, but lost his second bishop for it.
They had been starving when they found the house, nestled in a thicket of trees. It was off the road by a good margin, and one could not actually spot it from there.

It was the aroma of baking bread that had caught their attention next. And Natalie, being the child she was, went right up to the door and knocked.

Their concern for her turned out to be needless. Hermon, a baker by trade, and his granddaughter, Julia, wouldn’t harm anyone.

Hermon sprung his trap.

"Don't worry. You go on and you ask for Johnston Green, and tell him you're my friend. He'll help you. Also, check."

Cam moved his king once more, but he could see that it was too late to save the fleeing monarch.

The old man offered a toothy grin. "Checkmate."

Disclaimer: "Jericho and its related characters are the property of CBS Paramount Television Network and Junction Entertainment. This contest is solely for entertainment purposes. Neither Nick Lysne, Richard Becker, nor Copywrite, Ink. is affiliated with CBS or Junction Entertainment.

Missing Targets: Jericho's Tactical Overload

Not all Jericho viewers are created equal.

Some fans will spend hours over at CBS Jericho every day. Some enjoy a few minutes a week. Some will never go there at all, preferring any number of forum-based social networks instead. And others, once the show was brought back from cancellation, are simply content to sit on the sidelines until the first episode of a short season 2 unfolds on their television, TiVo, or DVR.

“I was one of the first people to send nuts, well before the efforts were centralized,” one fan told me. “But I’m not really interested in becoming involved in a Jericho group or reading about production. I’m especially not interested in social media dramas.”

Even here, some read our weekly foray into the communication aspects of this case study every week (some of those have no intent of watching the show); some have become daily readers; and others are content to read someone else’s take on whatever we might happen to write about.

It all works for me. But not all of it seems to work for Myles McNutt, author of Cultural Learnings, who offered up his “No Holds Barred” post that claimed there are too many blogs about Jericho.

Close, but not close enough to hit the mark. Still, I don’t fault McNutt for his analysis; he’s pretty sharp on his television critiques, a little less so on social media.

For his evidence, he pointed to Jane Sweat’s THREE Jericho blogs (his emphasis, not mine), saying “while each has some good content, it seems as if they all serve the same basic purpose: promoting Jericho,” he wrote. On closer inspection, each blog has details make all the difference.

Without question, Jericho Monster, is about capturing new viewers while providing original content to the fans. Recently, most of the content has centered on interviews with fans, bloggers, cast members and crew. One of her other blogs, JerichoCentral, tends to lean toward educating fans with news you can use, ranging from how to Digg a Jericho story to promoting the inside scoop from the CBS Jericho site. The third, Arabelle’s Alley, includes information on Jericho, but is more free-spirited, investigative, and broad ranged in terms of what it covers.

From a social media perspective, Sweat has smartly divided her content into specialized niches to better serve unique audiences. It's true. While there is some crossover, each audience is unique. I know because analytics on our blog tell me where Jericho fans come from. Add to her blog efforts, an apparent willingness to her team-up with several other blogs like Jericho On CBS or her participation on the various fan boards like Jericho Rally Point or Radio Free Jericho, and others. All of these, by the way, are different.

That's not to say McNutt is not alone in his assessment. On several occasions, I’ve read active fans on the Jericho CBS forum discuss how centralizing efforts on the network’s site might make sense. But yet, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Why?

Because not all Jericho viewers are created equal, but they all have equal value.

The truth is that many viewers, non-viewers, and even fans will never visit the CBS Jericho site. On the contrary, if they are to be nurtured, they have to be nurtured off the network site by dedicated people who manage bulletin boards, forums, and blogs, with each location gaining 50, 500, or even 5,000 new viewers to become interested in the show. Each one of them also serves as an important promotional outlet for CBS, promoting announcements like the upcoming chat with Dan Shotz next week.

Of course, this is not to say that McNutt is wrong. He is close.

You see, as the conflict caused by the cancellation has waned, some have noted that active fan participation has fallen off. And for some, less visitors means attempting to corral those who are left rather than enticing new viewers like we did with a contest. In other words, some have taken to cannibalizing original content of other blogs and then competing with them by duplicating their ideas. It makes you wonder … what good is a duplicated fan interview on the CBS Jericho site when the only people who will read it are existing die-hard fans?

And this, it seems to me, is where McNutt comes close. If there are any failings with the fan base, it is because they still have not structured a suitable central location to tie everything together. Don’t get me wrong, it was not for lack of trying to launch a fan representative central body. It just did not work. Fortunately, however, there could exist a contingency plan if CBS thinks strategy instead of tactically.

The CBS Jericho Fan Central Blog could reset its objective to round up and promote off-site fan efforts (as opposed to on-site forum discussions) rather than competing over same content (eg. duplicating fan interviews). The CBS Jericho Fan Central Blog might also work with off-site fans to nurture better off-site content instead duplicating these fans' best efforts.

The result would provide for the one-stop shop that is needed, allow CBS site fans to see what off-site fans are doing to round up new and future viewers (with links if you want to know more), and ensure network news like the chat sessions gets out to the public rather than being tied to a site that, frankly, non-viewers are not going to visit. It is not all that far off from what I hoped a central representative fan group might do, but didn’t.

Testing Contests Online: Jericho Fan Fiction

On July 29, we launched the Expanded Universe Short Story Competition with the dual purpose of expanding the Jericho universe and promoting the show where it could not otherwise be promoted. Did it work? Consider the mini work plan…

The Objective. Promote Jericho. Demonstrate the potential depth of a storyline beyond the show. Create a communication bridge between the buzz marketing efforts of fans and the start of the new season (which is still to be measured).

The Solution. Launch a Jericho-themed short story contest that asked writers, contest entrants, and Jericho fans to write about the world beyond the town, while encouraging others to learn about the show.

The Results. More than 50 sites, blogs, and social networks (the majority of them not related to the show) promoted the contest, driving more than 2,000 unique visitors to our blog last month.

Approximately 60 percent of these visitors did not originate from Jericho-related sites and sources; thousands more bypassed our blog all together and visited the CBS Jericho Web site direct or Wikipedia entries as suggested material for background information. We received about two dozen entries, which is a solid return given the specificity of the contest and fan-oriented prizes.

The cost per impression, employing only social media, was minimal. About one cent per impression. The promotion for the show doesn’t end here. After we announce the winners, we will run the first three finishers in the weeks ahead.

The Winners. We asked our judges (not all of them Jericho fans) to rate submissions based on originality, clarity, humanity, and vividness. No names were included on the printed versions, ensuring every story would stand on its own.

It was not easy. Suffice to say that we may be announcing winners today, but there were no losers. Toward the end of the selection, even the most finite details were considered, including whether the writers had met the contest criteria.

Looking back, I wish I would have included additional slots for honorable mentions as one theme was persistent across all judge comments: all of the entries had merit. While some stories were better crafted than others, the passion that most submitters had for the show was not only apparent, but admirable.

The vividness of the stories was exceptional. Every perspective was unique, ranging from foreign correspondents covering the crisis and preachers finding their purpose to the comfort found in family pets and being isolated at an archaeological dig on that day. So, even if not listed here, I strongly encourage all of the authors to share their stories as they deserve an audience. With that said, these are the three who will be sharing for the next three Sundays on our blog…

First Place. “Checkmate” by Nick Lysne (British Columbia, Canada)

Second Place. “Dear Journal” by Myles McNutt (Nova Scotia, Canada)

Third Place. “Letters To The Lost” by Ray Hayton (California, U.S.A.)

Congratulations to you all. We look forward to sharing your stories in the weeks ahead and will be contacting you this weekend. We will also be writing about Jericho consumer marketing efforts tomorrow, but please do not forget we will be running the first place story this Sunday. All our best!

Disclaimer: "Jericho” and its related characters are the property of CBS Paramount Television Network and Junction Entertainment. This contest is solely for entertainment purposes. Copywrite, Ink. is not affiliated with CBS or Junction Entertainment.

Going For Backlash: Humane Society & PETA

As covered by The New York Times, The Humane Society and PETA have taken an interesting position on global warming: Hummers are good; hamburgers are bad.

"Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA, who said PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming.

While the Humane Society is placing its faith in a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report that claimed the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined, we might point out one obvious flaw — it's not the eaten animals that are contributing to greenhouse gases.

There are others. Disrupting the habitats of animals to drill for oil might qualify as hypocrisy. Alienating increasingly environmentally-conscious consumers by stating they “cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist” seems counterproductive. And promoting the concept of choosing the lesser of two evils seems, well, off the ranch.

While the ad might work in achieving some media buzz for its B-grade shock value, it has no strategic merit. If anything, all it really does is reinforce what critics has been saying for years: they don't care about doing right as much as being right. (In the article, Prescott all but said they are counting on critics to make this ad an issue.)

And that's too bad. Given that 87 percent of those surveyed in one recent study said they are seriously concerned about the environment (though not necessarily ready to give up meat and SUVs), the timing couldn't be worse. Why? Because crackpot creative might get some publicity, but it's often at the expense of credibility.

Playing Politics: Everyone Under The Sun

While most political coverage has shifted to the bathroom habits and hypocrisy of Sen. Larry Craig (reality check: no amount of spin can save this), there is a largely unreported political story taking place that may be more concerning to some and much more far reaching in considering topics such as transparency.

In May, director Oliver Stone, filmmaker behind “JFK” and “Born on the Fourth of July” has produced a television spot ad for MoveOn.org, which featured Iraq war veteran John Bruhns calling on the government to bring U.S. troops home. You can see the spot, along with how the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents responded to the ad in real time at Slate.

ABC News reported on the advertisement throughout the production. It also covered a rebuttal advertisement produced by Freedom Watch. When you compare the two stories, the coverage seems as polar opposite as the advertisements.

Similar to the Stone-produced ads, Freedom Watch produced testimonials of Iraq war veteran John Kriesel, who lost both of his legs but still supports the actions abroad. You can view this advertisement here. CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air the ads outright, which seems contrary to their decision to run a poignant Associated Press story on the indifference to the First Amendment.

You know, there always seems to be ample pressure placed on social media and bloggers to practice full disclosure, but the reality is full disclosure is not a prerequisite to objectivity in the world in which we live. Perhaps Copyblogger is right (which is good, because I've said the same before). We don’t really want it and even if we had it, we most certainly wouldn’t like it. The best we can do is attempt to guide it from time to time.

So, when you look at advertisements like those produced by MoveOn and FreedomWatch, there are a few truths to be found: military personnel are as conflicted about Iraq as the country; the media is only obligated to run and protect the stories it wants to protect and run; tragedy and conflict sell better in the news than charity and camaraderie; and regardless of how we feel about Iraq, our troops deserve better than being paraded around for the purposes of political gain.

Every year, I tell public relations students the same thing: when it comes to existing in the public eye as an individual, as a company, or as a community, perception is reality. And while that might be, please try to remember that it isn’t.

Mining For Communication: Crandall Canyon Mine

It has been weeks. Six men remain missing, likely dead. Three rescue workers have lost their lives. Several have been seriously injured. Many more have suffered.

Yet, the media continues to report in microscopic detail. Everyone from the man on the street to Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman has offered opinion. And mine owner Robert Murray continues to miscommunicate at every turn, including his insistence that a seismic shock was responsible for the collapse despite evidence that suggests otherwise. The mine is unsafe.

"Not all seismic activity is what it looks like," said Jim Pechmann, who has been a seismologist for more than 20 years. "The reported activity was undoubtedly related to the mine collapse."

A few weeks ago, someone had asked that perhaps the Crandall Canyon Mine would make for a case study so public relations students might learn how to better plan for and handle crisis communication; perhaps after our hearts have healed.

With as many communication mistakes as have been made during this tragedy, I’m unconvinced our hearts will ever heal. So, my comment today is with the hope that those involved might handle the conclusion better than they have the last few weeks.

First and foremost, while some principles remain true, crisis communication and disaster response or emergency communication are not the same. Had Murray been advised of this, perhaps some of the communication would have played out differently. You see, in the midst of a disaster, there is no room for speculation, presumption, guesswork, media conference teases, and emotional rally cries that more cause pain and suffering beyond the tragedy.

Without question, an entire book could be written on the many missteps of the Crandall Canyon Mine communication. For us, the best that can offered up are a few tenets in a series of well-spaced apart posts, starting with a few basic principles that were missed during this disaster (and why some communicators will still get it wrong next time).

Situation Analysis. While some public relations practitioners suggest rapid-fire response and up-to-the-minute detail, nothing outweighs accuracy. All too often throughout this crisis, the pressure to educate not only overshadowed proper fact-gathering, but also infused itself into the decision-making process that quite possibly led to increasing the risk to rescue workers. There seems to have been little regard for assessment, which has frequently led to the release of erroneous information and overreaching conclusions.

Identify Crisis Team. Many public relations practitioners conclude that a principal such as Murray should be made spokesman. This is not true. With exception to the biggest news breaks in the story, Murray was not a suitable spokesperson and would have been better served focusing all of his attention on the rescue efforts. A different spokesperson could have kept reporters up to date and stories focused on facts with occasional input from reputable specialists as needed.

Prioritize Publics. In this case, the first people to receive any updates should have always been the families of those affected. Affected families should never have to learn new or conflicting information from the news. The second priority are other team members: rescue workers, and response partners (including medical personnel), ensuring that if they do answer media inquiries, miscommunication is minimized. The third priority is government officials; people to whom the media are likely to turn for additional comment. And then, and only then, can the media receive updates that are centered on major news items and not miniscule detail.

Narrow The Message. In today’s world, communication happens at the speed of light. All publics receive it quickly and react very differently. While all information will eventually be released (it pays to be truthful), a spokesperson must keep the issues manageable and the focus narrow. Wild claims without evidence are fraught with peril: it is always best to remain hopeful for the best outcome, but prepare people for the worst.

Accept Responsibility. Murray’s inconsistent and often emotionally charged communication over the last three weeks has demonstrated one simple truth: all mishandled communication happens from the inside out. Even if Murray was right, that an earthquake caused the collapse, there was never time to angrily defend his company's safety record and its efforts to reach the trapped miners. Doing so only demonstrated a lack of empathy to the families, eroded reputation, and worse, positioned Murray as someone who cared more about his company than the men who lost their lives.

Although most people can understand the pressure Murray must feel, someone needs to tell him that it doesn’t matter who or what is to blame. Sometimes, no matter what the cause, you have to accept responsibility (if not accountability) all the same.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the families. If you would like to lend assistance, read today’s story in The Salt Lake Tribune that includes a variety of funds that have been established. If there is anything good to be found in this story, it is in the generosity and sympathy extended by people from across the country. Well done.

Answering Dumb Questions: Miss South Carolina

Almost anyone can sympathize with the notion that even the most polished presenters can experience stage fright at the worst possible time. Without question, that seems to be what happened to Miss South Carolina during Miss Teen USA.

When asked why she thinks “one-fifth of Americans cannot find the United States on a map, “ Miss South Carolina offered up one of the most perplexing answers and solutions in the history of all pageants.

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps.” — Lauren Caitlin Upton

Upton then went on to offer a solution that included, um, better education in third world countries. Despite the flub, she still finished third, which further demonstrates just how important the question and answer segment was to the pageant.

To redeem herself, Upton agreed to appear as a guest on NBC’s “Today” show where she was given a do-over. “I believe that there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better. Yay!”

Hmmm… I don’t know if that is any better given the do-over drove 1.5 million more people to see the original flub on YouTube (4.5 million and counting). Maybe someone should have advised Upton to say something completely different.

“The question took me aback because I personally don’t believe that one-fifth of Americans cannot find the United States on a map. I’d like to see the methodology of that study because I doubt its objectivity.” Or maybe …

“What kind of propaganda is Miss Teen USA trying to spread about our country anyway? That’s what I’d like to know.” Or maybe …

“Hey, what difference does it make? I was the third runner-up. Yay!”

Instead, Upton has become the pageant’s patsy despite her third runner-up position, which may or may not have softened the blow, and the Miss Teen USA pageant has succeeded in deflecting all accountability in asking a question that would have made most people ask: “What the heck are you talking about?”

Worse, as many excuses as she gave for not being able to answer the question (including one that was coached to her by a sympathetic host), one wonders if Upton’s appearance helped at all. Here is the do-over, courtesy of the Gawker, who preferred the first answer.

Granted, Upton had to answer the question because it was part of a pageant. However, we can’t help but to provide some hard-learned lessons for up-and-coming semi-public and public figures: don’t answer dumb questions because it will increase your propensity to provide a dumb answer; if you do answer, make sure you prepare one solid response that addresses the mistake before going on the “Today” show; and, most importantly, never take the “do-over” because while it’s cute for the show, it doesn’t do anything for you.

Driving Ads: FreeCar Media

FreeCar Media, which is a nontraditional marketing company with offices in Los Angeles and New York, seems to have stumbled upon the right guerilla marketing mix by leveraging prime advertising real estate — consumer-owned vehicles.

According to a recent The New York Times story, thousands of motorists are already signing up to have their cars and trucks wrapped in advertisements. While the story said the mentions a stipend of up to $800 a month, FreeCar Media only includes for up to $400 per month on its Web site, which covers some car payments.

In some cases however, drivers may not have to think about payments at all. Some receive a new car to use for about two years in lieu of a cash stipend (insurance and gas is still the responsibility of the driver). As an interesting side note, applicants seem strongly encouraged to consider changing their policy to Progressive, creating a guerilla marketing campaign of sorts within a guerilla marketing campaign.

This might trump the old saying “never look a gift horse in the mouth,” but perhaps just a bit. Pause long enough to know what you are filling out as wrapping the vehicle might not be the only criteria. Those chosen are also asked to refrain from smoking, littering, or swearing in their vehicle (easy); attend a monthly “influencer event” where they hand out samples or coupons (moderate); and send reports and frequency updates that include photos of where the cars have been (hard).

Applicants are not always selected because it is the advertisers who choose the drivers they want. This decision, according to the company, is largely based on how much information the applicant is willing to provide. However, whether the company uses this information for other marketing purposes is also not clear.

What is clear is that it has worked for some products and companies: Pringles, HBO, International House of Pancakes, and Tang are all among them. In the Pringles case study from 2001, a fleet of 25 consumer-owned vehicles were wrapped in Atlanta.

At the inception of that campaign, all 25 vehicles lined up in front of Turner Stadium for a Braves vs. Mets game. All the drivers and their families (which consisted primarily of soccer moms/dads), sat in the back of their vehicles passing out free Pringles samples to 52,000 baseball fans. It was not clear whether the families received additional compensation for their time at the game or if the wraps were removed at the end of the 3-month campaign.

What is starting to interest me is how far consumers will allow advertising to permeate their lives and what are the long-term consequences to the dilution of the message. Already, some studies suggest it takes well over 200 impressions to have the same impact 80 impressions did just a few years ago. (And this doesn’t include any opt-in mobile phone advertising programs that are likely to be introduced in the future.)

Still, mobile billboards (if not consumer cars) does make sense for some advertisers. Although FreeCar Media estimates almost 70,000 other motorists and pedestrians will see the advertisement daily, most mobile billboards offer better reach along planned routes (and use much more conservative numbers). We’ve arranged some in the past; they are exceptionally well suited to targeted location/route advertising.

So how do you top this? If you want some ideas, visit Las Vegas where advertising wraps have reached new heights. EliteMedia, which specializes in outdoor advertising, has placed huge advertisements on several iconic hotels, including Mandalay Bay and the Luxor. You can see some of the recent wraps on their blog.

Seeing an ad cover an entire building seems fun, or in some cases, um, interesting. It also makes you wonder. If your niche blog doesn’t excite people, maybe you can consider how much the average residential garage door might be worth, a yard sign during peak political season, or perhaps spiffy ad wraps for frequent fliers.

Paint By Numbers: Network Ratings

It’s odd to read Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, write about “Anytime Anywhere Media Measurement,” and not just because it closely mirrors the “Anytime, anywhere, from any device” positioning statement that we developed for the National Emergency Number Association’s Next Generation 911 System several years ago.

No, it’s mostly odd because the new Nielsen “everyone counts” concept doesn’t resonate with people who will watch Jericho Season 2, who once watched The Black Donnellys, or who once watched a half dozen other programs that have since been slashed for poor ratings.

“We’re not on the same channel. Isn’t that great! Well, maybe, if you’re particularly fond of revolutions. Remember when were all over the “dial?” Well, there is no dial. Digital took care of that. So we’re surfing with the remote. Not always. Sometimes we timeshift by watching what we want when we want.” — Susan Whiting

Sound familiar? The language reads like the scores of testimonials from Jericho fans ever since we noted Nielsen was feeling some fallout months ago (except the fans wrote better). Back then, it was these fans who learned for the first time that their show was going to be cancelled because the Nielsen system fails the most important criteria of a sample: it is not random in the statistical sense.

Simply put, the ratings game is a crapshoot. The sliver of a difference between keeping a show on the air today or not is so statically insignificant, sliced all the more thinly by targeting select demographics, and completely negating any audience that might watch shows in a group setting (bars, college dorms, etc.). And yet, the rating system is why we watch the Super Bowl in February (during sweeps, when the most viewers are surveyed), dictates advertising rates, and is the fuel for most entertainment columns.

Not to worry, Nielsen says, it’ll have a whole new system by 2011. How well that will work is anybody’s guess. Sure, Nielsen has some good ideas, including its social network buzz network monitoring device “Hey! Nielsen,” which is currently being beta tested by employees.

But at some point, somebody still has to ask what do these numbers mean anyway? Some might live by them, but others are becoming less certain. For a long time, HBO completely ignored the numbers and produced award-winning heavily watched shows, and its message “It’s not TV, it’s HBO” really stuck.

Nowadays, it doesn't seem that way, which is why HBO might find its roots again. Increasingly, HBO is measuring its success both by how many viewers a show accumulates over multiple plays and by how well a show performs with its on-demand service, where viewers order specific episodes. We hope others follow suit with new measure methods, because while we maintain Nielsen does have some relevance, shifting the decision-making process might save us from more paint-by-number programming and nuttier Nielsen concepts.

For example, Nielsen recently released that local people readers (non-sweeps tracking) were employed in the top 10 television markets, which supposedly accounts for 30 percent of all television households. (What’s missed is the tiny number of households tracked in those markets). In other words, Atlanta,
Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. have a little more weight than the rest of the country.

This is especially significant to Jericho fans because looking back over our own analytics during the peak of the cancellation protest, Jericho fans seem grossly underrepresented in these markets when compared to the greater United States (to say nothing of Canada and other countries). When you think about the show, it almost makes sense. It doesn’t seem like an urban powerhouse as much as it captures the rest of the nation’s imagination.

But what does that mean? It means what it has always meant. Attempting to paint by numbers to give shows a leg up in the ratings (or even critical review) is fraught with peril. In the months and years ahead, especially as broadcast-Internet convergence moves forward, networks will be better served by creating and marketing the content that they believe in, which is how some cable players like HBO and even some network shows have succeeded.

If you create a great show and support it, the numbers will follow — with viewers, DVD sales, and Internet engagement. Anything else is just guesswork. Just to illustrate the point, someone looking at Southwest Airlines on Alexa might notice it is down 11 percent in reach over the last three months. Do those numbers mean anything? Not if I count $150 million in ticket sales attributed to the widget that is part of its social media marketing program. Go figure.