Taking Responsibility: Public Relations Spam 2

I have developed a great relationship with Kevin Goodman over the last year, mostly because he tends to ask the right questions. Not many people do that. And for Goodman, the issue of public relations spam is no exception.

Goodman suggests that if public relations spam exists, then why would journalists accept major newswire services, which basically “blast” releases all over the place? And, given this, why wouldn’t a public relations firm simply buy their databases and build their own lists?

Easy. PR Newswire doesn’t really blast anything. It’s a passive service, where journalists can go for story leads and get a quick snapshot of insights into specific industries. Contrary, the single release, especially if it is off target, doesn’t provide a service.

The difference between the two can be likened to visiting a company Web site or being pelted by junk e-mails every day.

So while these services create the illusion that there are thousands of journalists looking for releases, the reality is that none of them are looking for releases at all. They are looking for stories — preferably good ones that haven’t appeared everywhere else.

While a few releases do result in good stories, the vast majority only contain information that a company or public relations professional considers news and not necessarily what a journalist or various publics might consider news. Again, the difference is as vast as junk mail. The companies who send it never consider their own mailers junk; they consider it a valuable service in delivering offers that consumers would have to be stupid to refuse.

Maybe there is too much “I” think in public relations and not enough “publics” think, which is what journalists tend to have.

In other words, some (not all) public relations professionals focus so much on column inches and inclusion counts that they forget the needs of their various publics. Once one understands which publics might be interested in any particular news story (assuming it is news), then finding the right publications (and the right journalists working for those publications) becomes much more effective, especially if you can narrow it down to a handful.

Revisiting Chris Anderson at Wired and others who ban releases from select companies and public relations firms.

I’ve said this before, but in reality, Anderson didn’t set a precedent. Editors and journalists have been ignoring and banning releases for years. His post just happened to be noticed because he published the e-mails of those firms he considered spam. I would not have done that, but I don’t fault him for his decision.

Goodman goes a step further in questioning if Anderson’s post that outed alleged public relations spammers last October could be libelous.

Addressing the question in depth would require another post, but a truncated view is simply not in the least. Factual accuracy is the ultimate defense against libel. And, the First Amendment protects any opinions. It’s more than fair for Anderson to critique releases.

And sure while anyone who has served as an editor knows they will receive a certain amount of spam, they are under obligation to gleefully accept it, offer pointers, or run it. It’s not their job.

I think it’s great that some editors do take the time to do it, and those who make such investments are providing gifts, not necessarily setting a standard.

In sum, the real shift in public relations begins with responsibility and not necessarily responsibility for the industry. Just because your client wants you to send non-news, doesn’t mean you have to. Just because someone says they have a list doesn’t mean it’s worth the paper it’s printed on. Just because you have a list, doesn’t mean you have to send everything to everyone. And just because someone says something about an industry, doesn't mean you have to own it.

There are plenty of bad ads out there. Most ad agencies aren't bothered by them beyond their front door.

Nothing But Net: TheWB.com

A little more than two years ago, Warner Bros. Television Group (WBTVG) announced it would make hundreds of movies and television shows available for purchase over the Internet. They’ve come a long way since then.

Today, WBTVG announced digital distribution deals with Dailymotion, Joost, Sling Media, TiVo and Veoh. It already has a channel on AOL and a surprisingly dynamic Facebook application, with a trailer that ends “the next great network will not be televised.”

“The launch of TheWB.com [beta] represents a natural progression of the Warner Bros. Television Group’s digital strategy and complements our core business, which is based upon episodic storytelling, first-class distribution and providing value to partners through advertising in a premium environment,” said Bruce Rosenblum, president of WBTVG.

The move also solidifies the continued shift toward total broadcast-Internet convergence, especially since Warner Bros. will be adding original short form content. Currently, the WB beta site is offering full episodes of All Of Us, Blue Water High, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dangerous, Friends, Gilmore Girls, One Tree Hill, Smallville, The OC, and Veronica Mars.

What will be especially interesting is if the new site might even provide viewers another opportunity to resurrect some shows that did not perform well according to Nielsen ratings. Several had developed strong Internet fan bases, including Veronica Mars, Moonlight, and Supernatural.

Moonlight fans found out their show was cancelled in May while Veronica Mars fans are still working hard to see their favorite detective move from the small screen to the big screen. (Supernatural has at least one more season left on The CW; we hope many more.) According to fans, all of these shows have a following that is not well represented by Nielsen.

For WBTVG, the move toward an all-digital network might also provide marketers and advertisers with more options than investing exclusively in their own original content to reach an audience that is already outpacing traditional media. The primary advantage for WBTVG over other networks seems to be that they are unencumbered by any attachments to traditional media. For them, it’s simply full steam ahead.

Burning Music: The Irony Of Anti-Violence Violence

"We are considering having something similar to a rally where parents and children can bring CDs and video games that they consider are destructive to the mind set of our youth and have a burning, just like they had a gun buyback last year.” — Pastor Richard Patrick

Blogcampaigning summed up their take on a potential anti-music/anti-game rally as something that they thought only happens on the Simpsons, which is pretty amusing since the Simpsons would likely land in the fire. Otherwise, it happens all the time.

What makes this Newport story interesting is the amount of attention it has received. Slashdot even pointed to some studies that suggest what is on the burn list might not be to blame.

One study concluded that “there were actually higher levels of relaxation before and after playing the game [World of Warcraft] as opposed to experiencing anger, but this very much depended on personality type.”

The latter is true. You never know what people are going to do when exposed to any material. For example, four years ago, a 19-year-old poured grease on her boyfriend’s face during an argument about a Bible verse. The Bible, of course, had nothing to do with the decision.

So while the pastor might be right in that some youth emulate the material they are exposed to, encouraging “burnings” seems to be a same path alternative. After all, it’s one thing to teach youth and parents how to make positive life choices, but it’s another to encourage the destruction of everything disagreeable.

Defining Relationships: Three Degrees Of Clients

Seth Godin once pointed to Stew Leonard’s unwritten rule 3, which states “if the customer is wrong, then they’re not your customer any more.” In other words, if it's not worth making the customer right, fire them. And, he has a good point.

While we have some pretty simple guidelines, it’s not always black and white. We listen carefully to the client and then deliver some degree of what they need or what they want. Usually, we know which degree of customer they want to be long before they become our customer.

The Three Degrees Of Clients

• We work with the client to deliver what internal and external research suggests they need in the marketplace.

• We work with the client to deliver what they want, sometimes suggesting what they might need in the marketplace.

• We deliver exactly what the client wants, until they don’t like it and as long as they don’t blame us for the results.

Of course, we usually don’t have to ask which degree of service they prefer. The answer tends to come up in other ways.

“We want a brochure like this.”

“We need two fax numbers on our business card.”

“We showed a bunch of people and they had opinions.”

If there is any uncertainty, we might ask them why they need a brochure, why they need two fax numbers, or who were the people they asked. For some, light bulbs go on. Others, the second degree, has explanations.

“Our competitor has a brochure like this.”

“It would make it more convenient for me.”

“I really trust their opinions and we always listen to them.”

Sometimes I’ll ask if they think it’s smart to be the same as the competitor (thereby surrendering any competitive advantage), whether they’ve considered the inconvenience to the customer (never knowing which number to fax to), or if any of the collected opinions come from someone in marketing, with tangible market research, or a prospect (not an existing customer) at the very least. For some, light bulbs go on. Others, the third degree, has explanations.

“Yes, because they seem successful.”

“Yes, they can always call me to find out.”

“I’m not going to tell you, but I really think they are right.”

When we hear these answers, the next question we ask is to ourselves. Can we afford to give them what they want or are their wants better served elsewhere so we can focus on those clients who have entrusted us to find out what they need? I usually make the decision based on whether the client will be happy with what they want or if they require us to be happy with what they want. The latter cannot be our client.

After all, as Alexander Kjerulf said last year — “some customers are just plain wrong, that businesses are better off without them, and that managers siding with unreasonable customers over employees is a very bad idea, that results in worse customer service.”

I tend to agree. Our customers are always right. Or, they aren’t our customers.

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?”