Stopping The PR Spam: Jason Falls

”In my opinion, the way the public relations industry responds to the problem of PR spam over the course of the next six to 12 months could make or break our profession for the next decade. Why are our professional organizations not prioritizing this?” — Jason Falls

I love this punchy prediction tucked inside the post on Social Media Explorer because it challenges an industry that never considers their own work spam. It’s always those other guys and gals who are bringing the industry down.

Sure, not everyone in public relations is a spammer, but it often seems that more of them play the numbers game than anyone will ever admit. At minimum, more play the number than those who will spend several hours searching for news inside their clients’ companies.

Falls says Jeremy Pepper is right. The industry needs education, but it’s not just up to professors to teach it. (Considering how many public relations professionals studied this profession in school, I tend to agree. Not to mention, for every instructor who advises against spamming, there is one or more who liken pitch calls and press releases to the return on a slot machine.)

Falls says a lot of it has to do with developing relationships over lists. In truth, he is part right. But what the novice public relations professional never seems to be taught is how to develop those relationships in the first place. So rather than recap his well-thought post in entirety, I’ll cut to the chase.

It’s easy to develop relationships. While I am oversimplifying, there are three ways to establish connections with bloggers and journalists.

1. Go to work for a company, agency, or organization that the bloggers and journalists are already interested in. It seems tongue in cheek, but it’s true. If you work for Apple or Microsoft or the district attorney’s office, they’ll contact you fifteen minutes after you introduce yourself as the new go-to person.

2. Become engaged in events, activities, networks, and organizations that bloggers and journalists care about, er, assuming you have a common interest. Much like business, many relationships develop outside the bubble.

3. Skip the blast emailing people about the company’s next balloon popping and find some real news. Once you find it, invest some time into writing a great release and sending it to only those bloggers and journalists who might be interested. When the blogger or journalist follows up, you then have an opportunity to deepen the relationship based on your ability to help them.

The third point is where people get mixed up because many of them struggle with determining what is news and what is not. Personally, I think it takes some time to develop an appreciation for what might make the news. I tossed up ten items that help determine news last year.

But sometimes the answer is even simpler. Start by asking yourself if you would want to write about the topic you are sending to the blogger or journalist. Based on the effort put into some releases, I would guess that many public relations professionals would say no. So if that is your answer, there you go!

Advertising Trends: Devaluing Taglines

The average lifespan of a tagline is about five years. And while there are some short and long exceptions, five years seems to be about how long it takes for marketers and advertisers to call for change, even when they don’t need to.

Why?

That’s the question Citibank seems to be asking as it has decided to revive its "Citi never sleeps" tagline. According to AdWeek, Lisa Caputo, CMO for Citi, said that testing with consumers "confirmed its strong recall and favorability. And one of the great benefits is we already own it; it's trademarked." (Personally, I like the Live Richly series better.)

The article also speculates that the trend to return to old taglines could be tied to any number of reasons: harkening back to better days, capitalizing on boomer nostalgia, or admitting that creativity is diminishing.

While there is some truth to all three points presented by AdWeek’s Gregory Solman, it seems to me that many companies are simply realizing that they had a great tagline and were too quick to give it up with the next big advertising campaign.

Sure, change can be good, but it really depends on how the tagline is employed and whether or not it ever made a powerful connection to the brand like “Diamonds are forever” “Just do it” and “Good to the last drop” have done.

There are others. “Where’s the beef?” and “Look Mom! No cavities!” also come to mind. But unlike those earlier mentioned, these taglines did need change because they were much more campaign-centric despite the fact that neither Wendy’s nor Crest has ever succeeded in introducing something stronger.

It’s not for lack of trying. In 2004, Procter & Gamble Co. invested $100 million to rebrand Crest, which included a “healthy, beautiful smiles for life” positioning statement. But frankly, the tagline was just too generic to connect.

So when does a tagline need to change?

It depends on the tagline.

At the end of a campaign. Sometimes it might be painful, but Wendy’s and Crest both had campaign-reliant taglines that had to end with the campaigns.

At the end of an era. "Does she ... or doesn't she?” is anther classic tagline, but it’s not timeless. It wouldn’t really resonate today unless it was a nostalgic campaign but only because it was brilliantly attached to the era.

A shift in direction. This was the case for Wal-Mart when it shifted from “Always low prices. Always.” to “Save money. Live better.” While the reasoning was sound because it represented a shift in the company, the new tagline still doesn’t stick. Miller Lite is attempting to do the shift as well.

Because it sucks. Mobile once sported the tagline “We want you to live." Ho hum. Enough said.

Never. When it works, assuming it is not tied to a campaign or era, then it doesn’t need to change for the sake of change. For example, American Express still scores higher with “Don’t Leave Home Without It” than the more generic “Do more.” or “My life. My card.” or “Are You A Cardmember?”

Working For Funny: Derrie-Air Airlines

Philadelphia Media Holdings, which owns The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, and its advertising agency, Gyro, had a clever idea. They decided to create a campaign for the fictional Derrie-Air airlines with the idea being to test the results of advertising in their print and online products, and “to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens.”

Philadelphia Media Holdings spokesman Jay Devine added that the goal was to "demonstrate the power of our brands in generating awareness and generating traffic for our advertisers, and put a smile on people's faces."

The campaign, which touts that air travelers will pay by the pound on the new luxury airline, is cute enough to make someone smile. But does it really accomplish any other goal?

Smiles aside, the campaign employs a value proposition that most companies cannot match (for thin people with light carry-ons anyway). And in reality, most offers are not that interesting. Of course it’s easier to gin up interest on fictional claims. Just ask Steorn. So in terms of generating awareness, any numbers will be nothing more than smoke, fire, and flash.

The same might be said about stimulating discussion on a timely environmental topic. Not many, if anyone, is talking or blogging about the environment because of this campaign. They’re simply talking about the campaign, and not even the cost of the paper needed to print it.

So as much as I enjoy something funny now and again, this campaign needs some sales before it can be called a success. For now, it's only real claim to fame seems to be that is made potential customers work harder for a laugh that any real ad could have delivered for better results. Hmmm ... now that's not so funny.

Confusing Communication: 2.0 Blues

I’ve never been a big fan of attaching 2.0 to everything. Anymore, it seems cliché and tends to cause more confusion than it’s worth. But it is what it is.

Among the latest to get attention in 2.0 game is the Enterprise 2.0, which the Enterprise 2.0 Conference defines as “the technologies and business practices that liberate the workforce from the constraints of legacy communication and productivity tools like email. It provides business managers with access to the right information at the right time through a web of inter-connected applications, services and devices … and makes accessible the collective intelligence of many, translating to a huge competitive advantage in the form of increased innovation, productivity and agility.”

It seemed worthwhile to mention today in light of a study released by AIIM (hat tip: Chapel), which is a non-profit organization focused on helping users to understand the challenges associated with managing documents, content, records, and business processes. AIIM surveyed 441 end users and found that most recognize Enterprise 2.0 as critical to the success of their business goals and objectives, but few had a clear understanding of what Enterprise 2.0 means.

Specifically, 44 percent said Enterprise 2.0 is imperative or significant to corporate goals and objectives, but 74 percent said they only have a vague familiarity or no clear understanding of it. It's interesting to me because it’s almost the same answer from the polar opposite end of the spectrum of the Welch’s ad opinions.

Maybe we really need simpler definitions so people making decisions can understand what they think is critical to the success of their business. Really, all Enterprise 2.0 seems to be is utilizing social media tools for better cross-departmental internal communication. Now that seems pretty smart once you get past the gibberish that does the opposite of what Enterprise 2.0 is supposed to do.

Advertising Surprise: Welch's Grape Juice

In Feb., the Welch's Grape Juice ad campaign featuring a Peel 'n Taste sample inside PEOPLE magazine prompted Folio to wonder about sensory overload, gave one chemist pause, and sparked several to call the concept a “poorly executed idea.” In other words, most thought the First Flavor strip was worth a chuckle and nothing more.

A new study conducted by independent researcher GfK Starch Communications now suggests that if anyone should be laughing, it might be Welch's and First Flavor.

• The ad received as much recognition as an 8-page insert.
• The ad received the top branding score in that edition.
• The ad was the second most noticed, behind the inside front cover and gatefold.
• 59 percent of those who tried the flavor strip were more likely to buy the product, compared to 25 percent who did not try the sample.
• 88 percent of those who tried the strip, which was protected by foil, liked the taste.

"Readers saw our ad, some even tasted the flavor strip of our Welch's 100% grape juice and, most importantly, were more likely to purchase our delicious product as a result," said Christopher Heye, vice president of marketing at Welch's.

This just goes to show that my longtime friend and agency client, Jeff Rogers, vice president of Evolution, was spot on during a recent strategy session. After the new account asked why so many companies reject marketing recommendations, he had one simple answer.

“Too many marketing decisions are based on reasons that begin, ‘I like...'” he said.

It’s also the reason I resigned an account this week for the first time in two years. After noting that every marketing decision was ultimately based upon what the client “liked” or, worse, what was liked by a random passersby, it was time to wish him the best.

Much like those who first commented on the Welch’s ad, it’s always easy to provide a guess. But for the rest of us, the better decision-making process relies on test and measure. After all, who cares if you like it if the results demonstrate success?

In fact, I suspect that until more companies focus on outcomes as opposed to what they like, their advertising and marketing will continue to be one big guessing game with random hits and misses that reinforce invalid conclusions.

Talking Turkey: Andrew Cohen VS. Public Relations

The Buzz Bin is abuzz, providing a snapshot of the "kertuffle" over the CBS analyst Andrew Cohen’s remarks about the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), which was prompted by former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan's new book.

Excerpt from McClellan’s book:

So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

Except from PRSA about the book:

In the wake of the recently published book by former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan, PRSA is calling for government reform and challenging the 2008 presidential candidates to adopt a communications policy engaging principles like those in the PRSA Member Code of Ethics.

Excerpt from Cohen about public relations:

Show me a PR person who is "accurate" and "truthful," and I'll show you a PR person who is unemployed.

The reason companies or governments hire oodles of PR people is because PR people are trained to be slickly untruthful or half-truthful. Misinformation and disinformation are the coin of the realm, and it has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.

Excerpt from Robert French, which mirrors much of the industry reaction:

You know, I see this latest example of PR bashing (from a news network that feeds off of media relations) to be just another in a long line of foolish, ignorant (and a bit arrogant) people. Even funnier, regarding this happening on CBS - of all places, it was their network that recently wanted to farm out some of their coverage to CNN and not do it themselves.

Except from PRSA’s rebuttal:

Regarding your commentary on today’s CBS Sunday Morning, the Board of Directors of the Public Relations Society finds it imperative to affirm the professionalism of public relations practitioners and to take exception with what we regard as a misguided opinion.

Except from Cohen’s rebuttal after the flack:

I am now the target of a public-relations effort to ridicule my effort, my points, my character and integrity. I expected nothing less. I mean, when you make fun of people whose job it is to burnish public images you’ve got to expect they are going to, well, burnish their own public images at the expense of your own. I am not taking it personally.

My take, part one:

Every year, I share two points to public relations professionals that might apply.

1. As a public relations professional, your reputation stays with you, not the company, organization, or government entity that asks you to lie. So, basically, don’t do it.

2. As a public relations professional, you cannot control what other people say; only how you react to what they say.

My take, part two:

I think we just witnessed a mainstream media version of a blog drama among eagles. How very quaint.