Bashing Ghosts: The Branding Foundry

The Branding Foundry, which is the brainchild of Rowland Hanson, the former Microsoft marketing "guru" who is credited with coming up with the name Windows, is already facing its first brand challenge.

After a great write-up by venture capital reporter John Cook in Seattle, Kevin Young, president of the unproven and fledgling company, forgets his position and spends more time bashing ghosts (anonymous posters) than he does delivering a message, leaving some to wonder what The Branding Foundry is really about.

"However, in the spirit of our business community, it's sad to see that people take time out of their day to share their venomous comments to feel better about themselves," said Young. "As they say, 'the farther up the flag pole one ascends in life, the more your backend shows.'"

I'm not sure which anonymous post got under his skin more: 1. "This thread is polluted with self-serving tripe. John, you need to weed out the thinly-veiled ads." 2. "Don't see how this adds any value. Looks like a predatory scheme with no risk." 3. [Rowland Hanson] "Looks like a lounge lizard."

Of course, Young's ghost bashing was only met with more ghosts bashing back: 1. "What an incredibly arrogant post." 2. "I don't know what's crappier- the story or the posts that followed." 3. "Maybe the 'guru' and his trolls should ..."

And the debate, whether there "should be" or "shouldn't be" anonymous posters, begins all over again. Ho hum. Boring.

Actually, there is a decent discussion that took place at active rain, which references, among others, Jason Goldberg at Jobster, who asked about anonymous posts a few weeks ago (a great question at the wrong time).

Active rain blogger Barry Hurd made a decent argument, despite taking it a bit too far by questioning the ethics of anonymous posting. On this point, we disagree. Anonymous posting is not about free speech or ethics, in my opinion.

You see, over the last few years, I've seen anonymous posters (and anonymous bloggers) leave as many brilliant comments as they have unrelated, unfunny swipes that are easily dismissed. Their reasons for posting anonymously range from anything and everything from fear (not wanting to lose their jobs) and faux fear (Spocko being 'afraid' of big bad ABC, ha!) to protecting their own brand (I want to say something, but don't want it to rub off on me) and simply being too lazy, or perhaps too busy, to register with the site.

The bottom line is these people have a zillion reasons to post anonymously on sites that allow it. Not all sites do. Cook does. David Maister does not. Seth Godin doesn't allow comments at all, but he does allow trackbacks. Every one of them has different reasons for their decisions.

For example, I do not allow them, but not for reasons that most people think. In my case, I simply grew tired of deleting spam ads, lots and lots of spam ads.

If it wasn't for that, I would allow them (and used to). However, even if I did allow them, I would not personally post an anonymous comment (though sometimes I'm too busy to register and just type in my name). But, for me, it's par for the course. I don't have any reason to post anonymously because I've been threatened several times for working on certain political and commercial campaigns. And in the end, I decided that I would rather be fearless in life than live in fear. (Besides, threats only apply if your candidate loses or your commercial client folds).

However, since most people haven't learned they can live fearlessly, I don't begrudge them for posting anonymously where allowed. In fact, I say leave the anonymous posters alone for some very good reasons.

Cook's anonymous posters always make for an interesting, though sometimes silly, commentary on the events he writes about.

It used to be that way over at Inside Nevada Politics until they disallowed anonymous posters midstream during the 2006 political campaign, after someone called a candidate "dumb as a post" among other things.

Nowadays, most comments on that blog have thinned to nothing, because most people don't want to bash politicians (and the reporters in some cases) publicly. Most don't want such bashes to rub off on their companies. Go figure.

Anyway, what Inside Nevada Politics lost when they made that decision was honest discussion. And, with that, the "subjects" of many posts missed out on what the opposition thought of them.

It's true. When I was working on the Bob Beers campaign, I used to read all those anonymous comments faithfully, weighing their credibility. While I might not have responded to them, I certainly used the negative comments to develop strategies that addressed every complaint, just in case even one of those "ideas" caught fire.

Heck, in one case, an "anonymous poster" outlined a good portion of our opponent's strategy, making the point that for those reasons we would lose. So while other campaign members were up in arms about it, I calmly smiled and saw it for what it was: GOLD!

But then, Inside Nevada Politics disallowed anonymous posts and we were back to flying partially blind. Our window into the minds of our opponent was somewhat diminished. Oh well.

Chalk all this up as lesson number one for Young and The Branding Foundry. It's better to see what the opposition is thinking than to think you are untouchable on your very high horse, er, ladder, as you call it.

The second lesson is for everyone questioning the validity of anonymous posts. Simply put: "Whether anonymous posts (or anonymous blogs for that matter) should be allowed or not" is the wrong question.

The fact is that anonymous posts exist. And the question you could be asking is "What are we going to do about it?"

Well, we could run around the Web chasing ghosts, responding to them (which only gives them more credibility, by the way), and attempting to crush their credibility while looking like we take them ever so seriously ... or, we can file them away as insight into the opposition, maybe using them as another opportunity to get our message out, whatever that might be.

The Branding Foundry, unfortunately picked option A, and for all it gained by a well-written and flattering post by Cook, Young erased almost all of it by trying to be a "ghost buster" rather than a "brand master." I'm sorry Mr. Young, but you cannot hit something that is not there.

Besides, ghosts tend to multiply when you swing at one. I think it has to do with the "whoosh" sound people make, swinging at nothing.

Anyway, in closing, I would like to add that there is no venom here. I wish The Branding Foundry all the best of luck in sticking to a message rather than trying to bust ghosts. Hopefully, they will even share a few lessons with future clients...

No positive news is exempt from criticism, no matter where you think you are on the "ladder" of life. And bashing ghosts is an exercise in futility at its best. Almost always, you'll end up looking silly.

Writing Web Sites: AP Stylebook

Last night, I was caught a bit off guard when one of my students opened up the AP Stylebook to inform me my take on "Website" was wrong, according to the Associated Press. So naturally, today I started doing some homework on this particular rule in what many, myself included, call the writer's bible.

Kudos to Debbie Weil over at Wordbiz Report for doing my homework for me and the rest of us back in 2003. She wrote Norman Goldstein, AP Stylebook editor, after 65 percent of her readers claimed "website" to be correct over "Web site." Goldstein wrote back...

"Style, in the sense we're talking about, really means a preference (in spelling or punctuation or capitalization or usage) when there is a choice to be made. AP made the choice of "Web site" for what we thought were very good, language-based, reasons. Others are free to use their preference - as long as it is clear to a reader and consistent.

However, none of us can claim to create a "new language," for the Internet, or elsewhere. (Every generation of teenagers, for example, comes up with its own "language," but it fades quickly into oblivion.) More creative writers than I have said - wisely - that "usage will push new meanings into currency no matter how many authorities hurl themselves into the path of change."

Weil then goes on to list several solid cases made by her readers, who would prefer AP change its ruling and give us the evidence we need to write Website or website as one word. Add me to the list of miffed writers. Web site needs to be fixed up for the times, giving way to Website or website (I don't care about caps).

I appreciate where Goldstein is coming from in his answer, but for those of us who preach that AP is the style of choice in today's world, using it as a higher authority for clients, students, and others, we need some help here. Too many allowances will undermine the original intent of clear and consistent communication, especially if we teach public relations practitioners to conform to AP Style as it is the style most embraced by newspapers and magazines worldwide (with exception, it seems, to the word Website). Too many allowances will toss more toward the Chicago Style Manual, which is being revised online with new vigor, causing the rest of us to study two sources (ha, I do anyway) as opposed to having one held high.

Sure, I suppose making up some hubub about the word Website seems a bit much, but the time has come for AP Style to revisit its ruling on "Web site" for what was thought to be very good, language-based, reasons. The reason I say this is because it has put us in the awkward position of either violating our trusted Style source or joining what appears to be an ever diminished percentage of readers who agree that "Web site" is right.

Killing With No Comment: Interference, Inc.

After several days of offering "no comment" about its part in the Cartoon Network's Boston bomb scare, Interference, Inc. has replaced its entire Web presence with with a single statement.

"We at Interference, Inc. regret that our efforts on behalf of our client contributed to the disruption in Boston yesterday and certainly apologize to anyone who endured any hardship as a result. Nothing undertaken by our firm was in any way intended to cause anxiety, fear or discomfort to anyone. We are working with Turner Broadcasting and appropriate law enforcement and municipal authorities to provide information as requested and take other appropriate actions."

From a crisis communication standpoint, the company might be dead. Dead for what it did not say; dead for what was said.

Sure, right now, there are ample bloggers out there attempting to defend the “Aqua Teen Hunger Force" mooninite character (as if the delinquent animated figures need defending), but for as much as CEO Sam Ewen of Interference, Inc. thought he knew guerilla marketing, he knows nothing about crisis communication to manage the mishandling of Turner Broadcasting's campaign. When bad news happens, the messenger is the message and Ewen is nowhere in sight.

It was different in 2001. Internetnews.com interviewed Ewen back then, with Ryan Naraine asking him questions like "What's the trick to make sure it's appealing and not annoying?"

"If you put the effort into the campaign, it isn't obtrusive at all," said Ewen. "Of course, there is good and bad marketing. The goal is not just to be there but to be there at the right time and in the right place."

Unfortunately for Ewen, some six years later, Boston turned out to be the wrong time and the wrong place, with the mooninite infiltration becoming one of the best examples of bad marketing out there. It caused panic, wasted resources, and sent Turner Broadcasting scrambling to prove it is a responsible company despite the scare (they've been handling it well enough).

Where Interference, Inc. is going wrong today is that it continues to allow Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, the two freelancers arrested, to act as its unofficial spokespeople, one of whom mused that what he really wanted to talk about was "haircuts of the 1970's."

Assistant Attorney General John Grossman, on the other hand, wanted to talk about something else. "It's clear the intent was to get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location," he said.

You don't have to read between the lines to know that "intent" will mean the difference between a prison sentence and freedom for the two men, and quite possibly some employees at Interference, Inc. Since Interference, Inc. won't talk, its best message yesterday, also spun by Berdovsky, was that "they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed."

In other words, no one noticed. In other words, until Boston became sensitized because of an unrelated bomb scare, the marketing was nothing more than a waste of money. Of course, that pales in comparison to the money that will be wasted by Turner Broadcasting to make things right. I suspect Interference, Inc. will be footing some of the bill too.

To me, the real crime here is that Turner Broadcasting was sold a bad bill of goods when a much more effective campaign could have been created. Sure, the company didn't have to buy into the idea (so it too is the master of its own destiny), but nonetheless, Interference, Inc. abused what would have otherwise been a worthwhile tactic.

Getting back to what people like Seth Godin and Jay Levinson wrote about ten years ago, the real idea behind guerilla marketing was "helping small businesses break out of the helpless rut of leaving advertising to the big guys."

Today, it hass turned into something else. Big companies now employ it because they're getting a lower rate of return on traditional advertising dollars. (Hey, maybe it's the ad message and not the method. You think?) But in this case, I can think of dozens of things that might have worked just as well without the panic factor.

Considering it owns the network and controls the promotion time, Cartoon Network could have launched its mooninite invasion campaign on television, reinforced with direct mail (miniature mooninites, maybe, assuming they didn't tick), Internet marketing pop up banners, and a few cool billboards with big ones from the mother ship or whatever they use to get around. Sure, I'm only playing at a 5-second solution and not developing a real campaign here, but at least it doesn't terrify when it isn't being ignored. At least it's a sliver of thinking instead of hype, pomp, and ineffectiveness.

Not thinking, you see, is what will likely kill the Interference, Inc. folks even more than Boston authorities want to. They didn't think when they launched the otherwise forgettable campaign. They didn't think when they offered no comment. They didn't think when they took their site down and replaced it with a generic apology to no one from no one. And they certainly aren't thinking by allowing a freelancer—a wannabe comic—to be their primary spokesperson.

Oh well. There is a lot of that going on in the communication business lately. Lots of ideas; not much thinking. I call it communication suicide by "blank." For Interference, Inc. the "blank" is no comment.

Creating Panic In Boston: Cartoon Network

The Cartoon Network learned the hard way yesterday that guerilla marketing is fine unless it looks like guerilla warfare. That was the outcome of its marketing campaign as federal, state and local police swarmed around Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge as reports poured in of suspicious devices, closing roads, tunnels and bridges for hours.

In total, 38 battery-operated ads featuring a character called a mooninite flipping the bird for an upcoming TV show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force" were located, turned off, and detonated in some cases. At least 10 caused bomb scares.

“It’s outrageous, reckless and totally irresponsible,” Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty said, after demanding Turner Broadcasting, the owner of Cartoon Network, reimburse the city of Boston for costs associated with public safety. “What a waste of resources.”

Turner Broadcasting was quick to respond with regret that the devices were mistakenly thought to pose any danger. It also said, in a statement, that the devices have been placed in 10 cities for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. Turner is working with local and federal law enforcement in each city to ensure the devices are removed.

The marketing company responsible for the campaign, Interference Inc., said it would need until Thursday before it could issue a comment. Thursday?

Its Website, which bills it as a nationwide guerilla and alternative marketing agency from "idiation" through tactile implementation and staffing, was down this morning.

Unless I'm mistaken, back in 1999 Interference, Inc. was responsible for The Mining Company's name change to About.com, placing the name on park benches, at train stops, and spray painting it on sidewalks. Most communities consider the company's stunts vandalism, but Sam Ewen always felt that the neat thing about his version of guerilla marketing is that the media can buy into it and the campaign becomes the story. Ah yes, crazy publicity stunts. Har, har. Mission accomplished... sort of.

This time, with the whole world watching, two team members were arrested: Peter Berdovsky, 27, of Arlington, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, one on a felony charge of placing a hoax device and one charge of disorderly conduct, state Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with guerilla marketing and publicity stunts, except maybe that guerilla marketing stunts become passe after awhile, leaving agencies to seek ever more creative, intrusive, and destructive means to get their non-messages out.

Non-messages? Yep. Publicity stunts are generally reserved for those who have no message, kind of like “Aqua Teen Hunger Force," another Cartoon Network show that continues to glamorize delinquent behavior and target 8-year-old kids under the guise of cartoons made for adults. The risk is always the same. The more extreme the stunt, the greater the risk that your message will drive up negative impressions.

This time, it seems, Interference Inc., Cartoon Network, and Turner Broadcasting have hit the jackpot in brand damage. Even Gov. Deval Patrick summed: "It's a hoax, and it's not funny." To which, all I can think to add is that "it's a living case study in guerilla marketing gone wrong."

I'm waiting to hear what Interference Inc. has to say beyond the obvious. The obvious being: for all our crazy antics, we have no idea how to do crisis communication. We need at least 24 to 48 hours to craft a statement, which seems to be much longer than it took to put the devices up in the first place.

Kicking Dead Dogs: Tom Murphy

One of the definitions that Tom Murphy assigned to his catch phrase "kicking dead dogs" is the continual wave of posts that declare something as dead. I first stumbled across the phrase when I was curious to see what other communication experts might be saying about the concept that the "press release" is dead.

Well, first I would like to clarify that kicking dead dogs is certainly not limited to posts. It wasn't that long ago that Wired Magazine declared newspapers dead. Before that, of course, radio was declared dead with the advent of television. And more recently, blogs were declared dead by John Pretto, who, not surprisingly, is the president of Mr. Podcast, Inc.

Anyway, after awhile, it does make one wonder just what the heck isn't dead. The answer, very simply, is: nothing is dead.

Of course, I already knew this because Bruce Spotleson, publisher of In Business Las Vegas and a self-described "old newspaper" man, is a frequent guest speaker in my Writing for Public Relations class. He has an uncanny way of stating the obvious: no new media has ever replaced another media.

Spot on. Nothing is dead, no matter how much some people might declare it is, press releases included (though I still hate that public relations folks insist on calling a "news release" a press release). What I also find interesting is the number of public relations and communication professionals who are defending the "news release." Most of them, no ill will intended, are speaking passionately enough about press, er, news releases that they are looking at things emotionally instead of objectively.

Shel Holtz is a stand-up guy, for example; he's been in the communication business since the 1970's and I've attended a function or two where he has spoken (we're both accredited business communicators and all). Anyway, Holtz normally defends the concept of a social media release, but backtracked a few days ago by giving Jeremy Pepper's idea some praise:

“What people don't get—especially non-PR people—is that, oh, the majority of PR is done at the local level, where people don't care about blogs or RSS. The local level is done with a press release—sometimes sent over the wire, often not sent over the wire—and done with one-on-one contact," said Pepper.

Murphy jumped on board and says it is the audience that matters "That's why a press release is useful — yes, I know they can be spam — yes I know they can be badly written — but they provide information in a common format that, in most cases, provide the same types of information."

I have to chuckle a bit, not at anyone in particular, but in general. While some public relations professionals are indeed calling for the death of press, er, news releases in favor of social media releases, who really wants this silly issue to become polarized. Is that where public relations is heading? Are we either "for them" or "against them?"

Not here, thank goodness. Maybe we see it all differently. We already know where new media fits in with the old. It's not that hard to figure out.

Here's the bottom line: The social media release concept is a long overdue format to send information to bloggers and social media outlets. The news release still is equally useful (even on the national scale) because, yes, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, etc. continue to evolve, and have yet to be proven dead.

Come to think of it, I know a couple of companies that still have employee communication bulletin boards too, and use them quite effectively. So what? Big deal if public relations folks have another tool. So what if some ad guys like to be cliche and call everything dead? Since when do communication professionals care about that?

The truth is the only problem with public relations practitioners having another tool is that too many of them are not good enough with the ones they have right now. A news release that is poorly written? Why? A news release that is spam? Why?

If you are a public relations practitioner (like the ones Tom Murphy is talking about) who is sending out poorly written spam as opposed to well-written relevant news releases that are only sent to journalists who might actually want them, then please spare the rest of the world and stick to news releases. Trust me. It won't take long before bloggers will be as unforgiving as editors, tossing those e-mails, letters, statements, and pricey media kits into the trash.

In fact, I just received a news release yesterday. It contained "news" about nothing that I write about or have written about, anywhere, for any magazine or blog. It was poorly written, typos and all. It wasn't even news, really, by any definition. It was spam, pure and simple. Well, it gave spam a bad name. You get the point.

All this leads me back to Murphy's second definition for "kicking dead dogs," which is: why people talk about the same thing over and over and over again. That's easy.

It takes 80 impressions before readers remember good information and another 640 impressions to erase any bad bits of information they read 80 times. Great stuff, by the way, Murphy. Enjoyed your new digs, grumpy and all.

Fighting On New Fronts: iPhone

When two companies decide to wage a trademark battle, interesting things always happen. People choose sides. Smaller skirmishes ensue. Loose alliances are forged between unlikely players.

USA Today reports Verizon, probably because Cingular got the Apple iPhone deal, tossed in its hat with Jim Gerace, vice president of corporate communications, saying, in one breath, “We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t reach a deal that was mutually beneficial.”

In Gerace's next breath, he says the demands were “steep,” including revenue share from service fees, distribution rights and much more. “They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support,” he said.

Gee, so much for not having anything bad to say. His message was almost written by Cisco, which also claims the biggest stumbling block between the Cisco/Apple trademark negotiation was about sharing technology. Ho hum, you don't have to be a Fortune 500 executive to know that Apple does not like to be open about its innovations.

Some people don't like that, but whatever. Frankly, if it did share everything, I'm not so sure that there would be an Apple around to shake up the market like it does. So, I don't blame them. (Besides, they tried sharing once, if you recall, and it failed miserably).

Although Cisco has since backtracked on that idea that all this was about wanting Apple technology, it was part of the equation. Moneyweb published an early quote from Mark Chandler, Cisco's general counsel, saying "Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future."

Was that the deal breaker? If so, then Cisco knew the deal was going to fail all along because I really don't believe such a media relations savvy company would be so naive that it would think Apple is going to jump to interoperate with Cisco. For the reason I already stated above, it would be "silly."

Even sillier is the misnomer being floated by some analysts (those applying for Cisco fan status, I imagine) is that Apple is doing all this for the publicity. Yeah, right.

Apple has never been a company to think that all publicity is good publicity. Given that the iPhone launch was one of the most anticipated tech announcements of the decade, I hardly think Apple needed a Cisco lawsuit to jazz things up.

But, of course, that didn't stop someone at ThinkEquity Partners LLC from dreaming up this non-reality: "As this trademark infringement case escalates, we are taking the stance that 'any publicity is good publicity.'" Oh well, it's an easy way to get your name in the paper, I suppose. File under not thinking in New York.

You see, Apple and Cisco have always understood that there is a fundamental difference public relations and publicity. Neither have been big on employing the latter because it carries more risk and is generally reserved for companies without name ID or brand value.

In fact, the resulting lawsuit has drawn attention to some subjects neither company wanted to talk about: Cisco's recent violation of an open source license (which it has since thanked everyone for, er, pointing out the oversight) and Apple's iPhone mark up (which prompted some sideline banter that Apple has yet to set a final price). Darn publicity. You cannot control it. I doubt either wants it.

Specifically, the license violation made Cisco look not so good about sharing, which was the case it wants to make about Apple. And the profit margin of an iPhone made Apple look a little less "taken advantage of" by Cisco hoping to cash in on the trademark.

Hmmmm. I think Technewsworld called it right like I did when they said this one has "the potential to turn very ugly." Why any company, Verizon included, would want to comment on this is beyond my comprehension.

The bottom line is that Cisco kind of holds the higher ground, but I'm unconvinced it can keep it, especially as other companies come forward to challenge Cisco's hold on the trademark (which benefits one of Apple's arguments that the the term iPhone should be shared because other companies have been using it for years). Besides, as I said before, the public seems to want Apple to have the name.

So what is this really about? More and more, it looks to me as if this is nothing more than a high stakes game of "you're not playing fair so I'm going to sue you, nana nana boo boo." And in this game, there will be no winners, but a whole lot of losers.

But then again, it might seem obvious to me to because as a journalist student in the 1980's, I learned everything I needed to know about law (as a non-attorney) while writing my very first article for The Sagebrush. To the ire of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), I asked what some consider my very first "dangerous" question: "Could UNR find itself caught in a liability suit for injuries related to adminstration-approved events run by private organizations such as fraternities?"

I found my answer by calling every attorney in Reno until one of them gave me the answer. His answer was "yes" (to the chagrin of the UNR). Simply put, however, he also told me, novice that I was in the ways of business at the time, that anybody could sue anybody for anything. He then went on to explain that he could, in that instance, build a strong case against either side.

"Whether or not the plaintiff would win the case would be up to the courts to decide," he said.

This was also my first real lesson in the power of reporting and the importance of public relations. The lesson learned for public relations came from how easy it was to ask questions from the coordinator of campus standards and receive answers that lent well to the story, but did not lend well for her.

My intent was not to harm her (we were friends for heaven's sake). But as I said, I was pretty naive at the time. The fact is, the damage done to her by what was a "good story" became one of the reasons I leaned toward corporate communication and public relations as opposed to reporting. These people needed help, I concluded.

Of course, that's not to say I'm afraid to call a duck a duck either. And the iPhone lawsuit is exactly that. It's a duck. Or, more appropriately, if you are a company thinking of taking sides, you better duck. The publicity is not worth it.