Looking Glass: Los Angeles Times Dives In

It seems the Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times) has chosen short-term publicity over long-term branding in a one shot advertisement that not everyone appreciates. As described by the New York Times, the newspaper allowed a garishly multicolored image of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, in the film “Alice in Wonderland,” to occupy the paper’s cover page, complete with the L.A. Times masthead and a rerun of recent articles.

According to the story, Russ Stanton and several deputies vigorously opposed the ad but they were overruled by the paper’s business executives. John Conroy, spokesman for the L.A. Times, likened the ad to the common practice of having an ad cover part or all of a Web site’s home page for a few seconds.

Why Russ Stanton Might Be Right.

Everyone knows that the print editions of daily newspapers are struggling as their online versions have yet to retain a suitable level of replacement revenue. So some might say $700,000, the amount paid for the ad, is simply a badly needed boost.

But what the business executives at the L.A. Times might not be considering is long-term erosion of the brand. As the old saying goes: if everything is for sale, then everything is for sale. And given this isn't the first time that the daily has surrendered editorial space, that might be the case. Eventually, the willingness to supplant the brand for promotional revenue will define the publication.

It may have already. The L.A. Times promoted the sale, calling it a groundbreaking move. Certainly, the move might be groundbreaking, but not for the L.A. Times. While the newspaper is attempting to minimize the move by calling it a wrap, giving up the masthead (along with stories penned by serious journalists) means something else entirely. They may as well put a wrap around their building.

What is groundbreaking is Disney winning the bid to do it. Putting the Mad Hatter everywhere has resulted in a real coup for the movie that is outpacing Avatar with a $116.1 million opening weekend. For the L.A. Times, the publicity is a net loss.

Anytime you elevate awareness, you have to consider the sentiment that comes with it. And the question that might be asked over the long term is that if the L.A. Times doesn't take itself seriously, then why would anyone else? Usually newspapers want to be known for Pulitzers over the same sort of publicity stunts they often criticize.

The timing couldn't be worse, either. Forbes reported on a study that that while Web ads will grow another 10 percent this year, magazines are expected to see a small 1.9 percent increase in spending to. What does that mean for dailies?

Strongly branded dailies will survive in better times, especially with fewer of them. And that means the L.A. Times ought to keep taking its temperature while it experiments with being a tabloid. Tabloid competition is even tougher, I hear.

A Round-Up Of Opinions On Selling The L.A. Times

• Times Sells Disney Its Front Page for $700K by Sharon Waxman

• The Los Angeles Times Sells Out The Front Page by Donald Douglas

• L.A. Times Splashes Mad Hatter Across Fake Front Page: No Harm, No Foul by Si Cantwell

• L.A. Times sells Disney Front Page For Movie Ad by Steve Gorman

• L.A. Times Runs Cover Wrap for ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by MediaBuyer Planner

Looking Forward: Social Migrates To Mobile

Need another reason to keep your eyes on the mobile market? A new study from comScore, Inc. found that 30.8 percent of smart phone users accessed social networking sites via their mobile browsers in January.

The number is not static. It's up 8.3 points from 22.5 percent one year ago. And some networks are experiencing even more growth with mobile. Mobile access to Facebook grew 112 percent; Twitter access jumped 347 percent.

"Social media is a natural sweet spot for mobile since mobile devices are at the center of how people communicate with their circle of friends, whether by phone, text, email, or, increasingly, accessing social networking sites via a mobile browser," said Mark Donovan, senior vice president of mobile for comScore.

More than 25.1 million agree. That is the number of people who accessed Facebook from their phone, which means Facebook mobile users surpass MySpace users. Twitter attracted 4.7 million mobile users in January. These numbers do not include mobile consumers who access social network sites through a mobile application.

When combined with another study released by Euro RSCG Worldwide PR today, it underpins the next migration of social nomads. The study might be specific to a small group of teenage girls (ages 13-18), but the numbers are compelling.

• Seventy-eight percent of teenage girls use social media to keep in touch with friends, while three-quarters report being in "constant contact" with friends through texting, Facebook, iChat, AIM or other social media services.

• They show a clear preference for approaching a brand to find out about sales and promotions rather than having the brand approach them. But when they do approach a brand, 40 percent sign up for e-mails.

• Sixty-five percent say when their favorite brand or store has a sale, they want to share the information with friends and family with a preference toward one-on-one communication (texting) over social networks (Facebook and Twitter).

The original release can be found here. Only 100 girls were included.

The trending toward mobile suggests that most social media programs will have to be revamped within two years to include for a greater emphasis in reaching increasingly mobile consumers. Jokes about the product aside, the release of the iPad will likely stimulate an increased emphasis on mobility over sociability as technology gives consumers more flexibility in communicating publicly (one to many) or privately (one one one). Stay tuned.

Stacking The Deck: Fresh Content

The topics might be reoccurring — measurement, popularity, persuasion, media musings, and customer experience — but each of these fresh content picks brings something new to the table instead of rehashing what most people already know.

All five posts focus on application and insight, helping you understand why things work the way they do. In some cases, you might walk away and wish you didn't know. Sometimes the truth is like that.

Measurement can be easier than you think. Popularity does command attention. Conflicts do create allies. Media is much less serious than the news it reports. And customers do rate your company based on expectation and experience. See for yourself.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of February 22

• Putting the Public Back in PR Measurement.
With 88 percent of public relations professionals believing that measurement is an integral part of the public relations process, most executives would think that there is some sort of standard. It's simply not true. Most firms measure it differently and column inches prevails as the end-all cost vs. exposure analysis for clients. Valeria Maltoni provides some insight into how measurement might be done right.

• Popularity Matters – Ignore It At Your Own Peril.
Anyone who knows me might be surprised to see this land in the fresh pick project basket. However, there is a difference between discounting popularity and ignoring it all together. Adam Singer provides a tempered and objective view on how popularity helps propel some people, companies, and messages (whether the work or product has real merit).

• How to Use “Us vs Them” Stories to create Social Media Evangelists
Dan Zarrella pens a great post on how to identify one of the oldest and most powerful persuasion tactics on the books: "Us vs. Them." Zarrella uses Apple as his quintessential example, but the tactic is ripe with case studies across social media. Several people have leveraged "Us vs. Them" scenarios to create online followings. If you are the underdog or side with consumers, you will likely win. Simple.

• The Mcarp Guide To Sweeps Series Planning
If you haven't been following the republishing of Michael Carpenter's series on Occam's Razor, you are missing out. This post takes a peek inside the networks as they prepare for sweeps and the mad dash to juice the numbers. It's a humorous and revealing look at things inside the newsroom. Check out the entire series too.

• Creating Remarkable Customer Experiences is About Two Things
Jay Ehret provides three purposes of a planned customer experience — meeting brand expectations, creating loyal customers, and sparking word of mouth. The post emphasizes the importance of customer service, which is especially timely given the state of the auto industry. When was the last time you really, really loved your car or airline? Ehret reveals why or why not.

Writing For Public Relations: The Importance Of Planning

Planning is one of the single most important functions of public relations and/or corporate communications, and yet it remains the single most neglected function. More than half of small companies operate without it (CDW Report, 2009). Of companies that have plans, most do not update them regularly. Fewer measure performance against the plans they create.

Small companies are not alone. Medium and large companies have plans that are often outmoded or ignored. Even companies that do have plans seem to have little faith in them, given that fewer than 15 percent measure external communication (IABC Research Foundation). And only 15 percent of internal communicators say they can demonstrate a return on investment.

So, every year, I provide students with a basic communication outline. This year, I created a supplement deck using Toyota as the model. The supplement is only a sketch of a strategic communication plan, but it still manages to pinpoint communication challenges, opportunities, and failures experienced by the company in recent months.

The Importance Of Planning from Rich Becker, Copywrite, Ink.

The above deck is a supplement teaching tool for Writing For Public Relations at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The intent of this deck is to provide students with an applied case study to underscore elements contained within a handout.

Picking Roads: Personal Brand Or Persuasive Persona?

When it comes to personal branding, there are plenty of roads that people can take to reach a destination. Unfortunately, most personal branding tips and discussions prompt people to take a different road than the one they prescribe. In fact, most directions have very little to do with being real and very much to do with developing a persuasive persona (intended or not).

Personally, I don't agree with developing a persuasive persona because it seems to be the polar opposite of authenticity. Even when I think to write about this subject, I always wonder if some people will use the tools for agenda over best intent. At the same time, good people probably need to know the ingredients to identify which is which. So here they are...

Three Ingredients For A Persuasive Persona.

This isn't communication theory as much as it is a psychological proof. The tactics are well known in psychology. They have been applied and studied for as long as there has been formalized propaganda. They were employed by con artists well before that.

• Credibility.

Communicator credibility, the degree someone can be believed, depends on how much expertise they appear to have. Appear is the operative word. Credibility can consist of pure fiction, provided someone has the right fact, message, position, affiliation, frequency, or mass following.

All of these things lend to perceived credibility, which creates a persuasive persona. Whether or not there is any verifiable evidence that they are an expert, such as experience or results, hardly matters. It's the platform that Tac Anderson talks about in his post on personal branding.

• Attractiveness.

By attractiveness, I'm not talking about physical qualities as much as charisma. Simply put, people tend to seek out and gravitate around people they like and admire. It's the basis for most social media tactics: People will like you if you make it about them. Everybody loves to be noticed. It's the rule of reciprocity.

There are dozens of posts that could be written on this subject. It can be influenced by any number of factors: schematics we create about people, the primacy effect, pre-existing stereotypes, sense of personal attachment, dispositional bias, self-serving bias, self-attribution, and all sorts of other stuff. But, the bottom line is still the same. People tend to like the ideas of people they like, whether or not those ideas are right.

• Context.

Every group, over time, begins to develop implicit and explicit sets of beliefs, attitudes, ideas, and protocols. The more you adopt or pretend to adopt those beliefs, the more likely you will receive social approval from the group. It has worked this way for a long time. It will likely work this way for a long time to come.

A tribe, as some people call them online, like any other group throughout time, establishes its own set of rewards and punishments for accepting or not accepting social norms. It's also the basis of most social media outreach programs — listen first and then adopt the norms established by that group. By doing so, agents hope to increase their likability until they establish enough credibility to persuade the group.

Persuasive Personas Aren't Always Real.

These tactics are precisely what social media detractors do not like about some social media personas. Intangible credibility, likability over earned respect, and faux belongingness seem all too apparent to them. They say the public is being duped.

Of course, the detractors are only partly right. There are some very smart, experienced, and like-minded people involved in social media. And, of course, some are not. The latter only seek out the endearment of others to elevate their credibility in order to sell products or launch a paid service space to be staffed by volunteers who will do the work for free.

There is nothing wrong with that, per se. Everyone has to eat. All I'm saying is that there are fundamental differences between personal branding, reputation management, and persuasive personas. And in developing your online presence, I hope you take the high road as opposed to the one I've outlined above. Good night and good luck.

Being Entitled: O'Dwyer's Directory

There is one word that ought to be avoided in any position, profession, or personal activity. The word is entitlement.

If you want to know what it looks like, take a peek at the post penned by Jack O'Dwyer, publisher of O'Dwyer's Directory of PR Firms. Entitlement, not ethics as Ann Subervi suggests, is the word that comes to mind with a capital E in this case.

O'Dwyer has made the decision to change his business model. Because compiling the rankings and posting them for a year is expensive, he believes revenue fat public relations firms ought to pony up more and support his publication. Associations too, for that matter. And if the firms don't pony up, then they will no longer be listed.

They all owe him because he paid his dues, did the work, and built a ranking system described as "epidemic" on Google. Many of them owe him because the rankings were once responsible for doubling public relations firms leads any time they popped up on the top ten. Others benefited when conglomerates bought them up.

Everybody, it seems, has benefited. Everyone, that is, except the publisher. His reward for a strict ranking system was increased competition from lax ranking publishers, being snubbed by associations, and being shut out by advertising agencies because they don't need to be ranked anymore. It's tough love when you produce a better product and take on the role of being a outspoken contrarian.

Entitlement Is The Worst Enemy To Innovation, Success, And Happiness.

Entitlement doesn't only afflict O'Dwyer. It afflicts companies that build better mousetraps that no one ever heard of. It afflicts dailies, lamenting the loss of revenue. It afflicts nonprofits, with proven track records but faced with budget cuts. It afflicts bloggers, droning on about how they write better content but can't break the popularity barrier. It afflicts professional associations, with volunteer board members considering past contributions as the measure of their righteousness within an organization. It afflicts spouses who forget relationships require daily refreshers over years together. And so on and so forth.

But entitlement, beyond its formal meaning associated with benefits because of rights or by agreement through law, is a killer. No one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit or authority or payment for simply doing what they chose to do. It's the individual's responsibility to demonstrate a tangible value proposition that sells itself or accept that few will buy in.

The Communication Surrounding The O'Dwyer Brush Up Is Silly.

For a group of communicators, journalists and public relations practitioners alike, the whole of the communication is rank with non-communication. Gawker calls it extortion. Waggener Edstrom Worldwide is irritated because they were singled out. I already included a link to Subervi's take.

None of it has much value, but it is interesting to note that the so-called controversy has given O'Dwyer's Directory of PR Firms more attention than it has received in a very, very long time. That in itself can be an indicator that the age of the publication isn't holding up as a relevant source of information, regardless of how objective or valuable it may or may not be.

After all, that is the real question isn't it? The public relations industry has to decide if the ranking has value. If it does, they will fund it at the new rates. If it doesn't, then they won't. And O'Dwyer has to accept the outcome or prove a value beyond the measure of years in business.

And if he doesn't accept the outcome? Well, it seems pretty pointless to continue firing off public commentary that isn't much different than the one we picked up yesterday. Because if that were to continue, then the Gawker, Subervi, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, et al, would be right. Attacking non-advertisers (listed or not) breaks well away from the business of journalism that O'Dwyer had previously held in high regard. It would go well beyond pay for play. It would be pay for protection from the ranking system.

Of course, I could always be wrong. But if I am wrong, I need to know where to send the invoice for contributing a link to O'Dwyer's Directory of PR Firms. If Google juice has that much value, then I certainly am, gasp ... well, you know.