Finding Truth Online: People Don't Want Online Friends For Every Product

If you work anywhere near social media, you've probably read plenty of studies and opinions that people respond to friends who represent brands over the brands themselves. And while the idea plays well for public relations firms soliciting companies with online public relations spokespeople, is it always true?

A new study from Q Interactive's Women's Channel, which researches women's online behavior, seems to suggest otherwise. They found that women respond better to intuitive online advertising over spokesperson insight. Specifically, women are all too happy to have a relationship with the "brand."

"We asked women about brands online in relationship terms, too," said Emily Girolamo, vice president of marketing and corporate communications at Q Interactive. "Significant for marketers, we found, with women, you have to give a little something - whether it is an offer or information. Women best connect with brands who know them and see the relationship as a two-way street."

Highlights from the Q Interactive study.

• 88 percent "wish brands they trust sent them more tailored offers."
• 65 percent want to feel like they receive online advertisements specific to them.
• 53 percent believe they have "relationships" with sites and brands.
• 37 percent consider online brands to be "good partners" and 19 percent trust of them.
• 58 percent want brands to provide a good offer with only 19 percent wanting to get to "know" someone.

So how can this be? While prevailing thought in social media seems to run counter to these findings, some of it make sense. While women who have a vested interest in social media prefer to connect to someone in order to develop content, the average consumer may be overwhelmed by the idea that they need a "friend" for every purchase.

This morning, for example, I probably came into contact with 50-100 products before sitting down in front of the screen to write this post. Do I need a "friend" associated with every one of them ... from toothpaste to carpet and tile? Probably not. The very idea seems overwhelming, especially along lines that include multiple brands.

Even in venues where it works better, it can get annoying. iPhone customers probably become as tired as Droid customers in hearing how the brand is somehow better from "friends," "fans," and people they trust online. Some may switch, sure. Some may switch back. But the majority of consumers are becoming settled.

Marketers in such venues will eventually have to make a choice. At what percentage does it make more sense to tailor your message toward your customers as opposed trying to convince people to convert? Do you really have a product that includes a personal online connection with a dedicated service agent? Or, more specifically, does anyone really need to read colorful antecdotes from the social media expert who drew Quilted Northern Ultra Plush as a client?

Don't laugh. You might be surprised how much toilet paper advice is really out there. And most of it seems related to secondary purposes such as making a Kazoo or even papering someone's Farmville Barn.

The point is that consumers don't necessarily need a friend in the toilet paper business (and that is not to say a toilet paper social media account wouldn't be fun) to feel good about the brand as much as coupons for the brand they buy. That makes sense. The alternative, of course, would be 30-50 trust agents, public relations pros, social media gurus all trying to make friends with you, just to influence the way you wipe.

Dividing Tactics And Strategies: Fresh Content

While most people consider social media mainstream, it's still very much in flux. The rules of the road are constantly changing as more technologies are made available and others die off. They change fast enough that companies relying on professionals who count six-hour courses as all the experience needed to become a quasi-expert will eventually falter.

What this means for communicators is that they not only need to pay attention to trends, but also how tactics change along the way. They also need to identify strategies that will stand the test of time. Ergo, anybody can pump up your Facebook fan page or create traffic spikes. But it takes something all together different to develop a long-term communication strategy that enjoys tactical lifts without becoming reliant on them.

This week's review of fresh content provides insights from five voices who know the difference. If you read these posts carefully, you'll find a deeper view of the division between tactics (sometimes unethical, in one case) and strategies.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of April 5

• Measuring Brand Value.
Patrick Collings, brand strategist and partner for a South African-based management and creative consultancy, delivers a presentation that provides an introduction to brand valuation. The presentation includes several global methodologies across a robust 113-slide deck. It includes the average contribution of brand value to a company in established and emerging markets. It also fits in nicely with communication measurement models that we've developed, which considers how brand value provides a leg up for communication programs.

• Google PageRank Update – Internal Pages and Top Content.
Sometimes analysis is full of surprises that turn common belief systems on their head. In her analysis, Kristi Hines demonstrates how popularity does not equal PageRank. For her purposes, Hines suggests PageRank is not all that important as she places an emphasis on content that provides readers value. In her experience, popularity often comes before PageRank.

• Journalistic Sodbusting.
Many people know that astroturfing is on the rise, especially in the unweeded comment sections of dailies. This post, penned by Ike Pigott, details how in evaluating 336 comments, he found comment names might have changed but not the tone, style, and talking points. It's a common enough practice that I advise clients to ignore the comment sections of dailies. It's often the playground for people with agendas, paid or not.

• McKinsey's Four Ways to Get More Value from Digital Marketing.
Valeria Maltoni offers up four points that pinpoint one approach to digital marketing by way of a content-based brand strategy. The points are solid enough: coordinate online activities; syndicate content that empowers customers; increase multimedia coverage; and make decisions on how to properly use the data that is available. It's smart stuff, with much of it pointing to badly needed integration.

• 5 Ways to Leverage Real Time Search in Your Online Marketing Mix.
Most people know that SEO is evolving, but Michelle Bowles nails five considerations that can help companies stay ahead of the curve. She details how content, fans, news, content promotion, and optimization all play a role in developing a better SEO strategy. Among the most important tips, from our point of view, is the increasingly important role of real time search. As more micro content from social sites appear in search results, tinkering with keywords on Web sites is not enough.

Guessing Games: The Psychology Of Choice

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." — Proverb

This isn't meant to be a political post, but politics does intersect with communication. And sometimes, I find myself wondering if the stewards of our country appreciate what they communicate when they play shell games with public policy.

One of the most recent shell games is whether or not President Obama raised or cut taxes. There are varied opinions about it, but the truth is that he did both. He cut taxes with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (However, proponents neglect to mention that many "tax cuts" are "targeted relief," which really means "tax incentives" for people who meet specific requirements or do certain things.) He also raised some taxes and increased the threshold for deducting medical expenses, among other things.

Naturally, none of the conversation accounts for the impact that federal policy has at the local and state level, where the discussions of tax increases are epic. It doesn't accept the reality that the federal government consistently talks about raising taxes in the future. And it hardly accounts for the common public sentiment that suggests that the government is overspending and wasting tax dollars. It doesn't consider American ideology.

When there is talk about taxes nowadays, most people seem to frame it around the idea that we have two choices: embracing more taxes or abandoning neighbors in need. Baloney. That is no choice at all. They may as well be asked if they want to cut off their right arm or left.

The truth is that America is neither a country where it is every man and woman for him or herself nor is it a country where every man and woman must make involuntary sacrifices for their neighbor, leaving them both wanting (except in times of war). It is a country that embraces the sentiment contained in the proverb mentioned above.

Sure, for those that know (plenty people don't), the proverb is hardly American or European. It's Chinese, and most often attributed to Lau Tzu or Confucius. Both of these men also lived under repressive governments, believing that leadership requires humility, a restrained approach in governance, and they shared some ideology with our founding fathers.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." — Benjamin Franklin, 1766

As someone who grew up poor, I tend to accept Franklin's wisdom. As politicians wrestle with politics that sometimes bear little resemblance to the ideas presented by our founding fathers, they would do better to stop talking about European ideology and more about American ideology. We did, after all, throw away our envy of European statesmanship hundreds of years ago (meaning no offense to my friends abroad) in order to preserve freedom and liberty over governance and public provisions.

Simply put, American ideology comes in two parts: empowering people and empowering giving. No choices are necessary.

Empowered People.

As Franklin alludes, this is a country that works best with the promise that honest work will eventually result in a steadily increasing quality of life, from which each generation benefits from an improved starting point.

Ergo, my grandfather did not have a college education, but he instilled in me the value of education and a work ethic to invest in one for myself. Sure, sometimes the ideal isn't as easy as all that. My grandfather was also a son of the Great Depression, which erased much of his opportunity. So what he could not share in financial aid, he shared in a principled approach.

Unfortunately, the communication undermining our current economic recovery seems to be related to the constant buzz of continually increasing taxes against specific brackets, thereby creating a greater burden on the principle of upward mobility from honest work and education. In sum, the very remedy that will supposedly propel people up is also the very burden that will create deeper dips in retained income at each step. And that hinders mobility and widens the gap between rich and poor.

All the while, some politicians have forgotten that that American people don't work harder with an expressed interest in helping the government spend more. They only do so in order to help their families and endow their future generations with the ability to have an improved starting point. Their honest work is its own reward.

Empowered Giving.

Having worked extensively with the nonprofit sector, I don't believe Americans are by their very nature "greedy" people. From those who have helped me with specific causes, they seem to understand that helping their neighbors, strengthening their communities, and taking pride in American exceptionalism wherever it can be found goes hand and hand with any success they might enjoy.

The vast majority do so voluntarily, with each citizen determining the extent to which they can help. Generally, they prioritize with a tendency toward teaching people to fish over giving people fish. They do so with the hope that those they help will also find that honest work is its own reward. They do so because they are prudent with their charity.

One wouldn't always think so listening to some stewards in this country at times. On the contrary, the communication consistently seems to be that anyone who receives any reward from honest work is obligated to share it not with neighbors but whomever the steward sees fit. Even if they don't need it.

And sometimes, the steward says, maybe the standard is too high, meaning to take any extra fish and then some. Unfortunately, when Americans are faced with such uncertainty or downward mobility, they tend to brace for crisis.

Changing Choices.

The general practice of tossing up two bad choices has got to stop. While Americans have become almost complacent in picking from whatever choices are on the table (e.g,. a bad health care bill or no health care bill), there comes a time when someone could stand up and say that the smarter choice is not to participate at all.

Right now, the only solution politicians need to pursue is empowering people to reach a position so they can help their neighbors become empowered too. Anything else is little more than a shell game. At least, that might be the advice we can glean from previous generations who had fewer assets but somehow created more value for all of us. Good night and good luck.

Painting Truths: Let's Colour Project

The photos are striking. The before and after shots are cool. And the idea is worthwhile.

The "Let's Colour" project by Dulux trades in grey and gloom with blues, reds, and other hues. It's beautiful, perhaps with one exception. In attempting to cross authenticity with action, Let's Colour came up with a peculiar shade of green that Karthik S, head of head of digital strategy for Edelman India, thought might be astroturf, or if you read the comments, maybe not.

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. Let's find out.

Remixing The Communication Points

Karthik's point seems clear enough to me. Euro RSCG is handling the Let's Colour project blog but "presents" like the Akzo Nobel paint team's content with as many as twelve bloggers. It's not. Most of it is written by Rebecca Campbell, who is contracted by the Euro RSCG. The balance of the contributing bloggers are a mix of agency employees who can, but don't seem to, add their experiences.

"The fact that we have an official blogger is very simple: we need someone to keep the blog interesting, fresh and to be 100% dedicated," explained Fernanda Romano, creative director for the agency. "Rebecca is our employee, she is the official blogger. This doesn’t mean the rest of the team cannot blog."

But they don't, which was another of Karthik's points. Instead, if there is any blog ownership, it really belongs to Campbell, who is by all accounts, a blogger for hire. There is nothing wrong with that.

Her Spike experience is exactly why the agency hired her. And despite being based in London, the Australian native presents project content as if she is on site in real time. By agency account of the comments, she sometimes is, but not always, maybe. From a reader's perspective, it's hard to tell where creativity begins and reality ends.

So what's the big deal? As a matter of historical perspective, it's not all that different from the Edelman Public Relations Worldwide flog for Wal-Mart in 2006. While I disagreed with the assessment of our non-scientific poll participants in 2007, they identified it as the number one breach of communication ethics compared to several other breaches back then.

In sum, the flog was presented as two average Americans who parked their RV at Wal-Marts across the country and wrote about their experiences. The bloggers were paid, much like Campbell. And since the disclosure was less than obvious it was eventually deemed a disaster.

So what's the difference between the Let's Colour project and the Wal-Mart RV debacle? Um, nothing. Except, well, people love to pick on Wal-Mart much more than what appears to be a nobler cause like Let's Colour. So it gets a pass. As I've said before, Wal-Mart doesn't have a public relations problem as much as a media relations problem. Dulux does not.

However, let's be even more honest for a moment.

Since 2006, many social media experts have carved out positions within companies or have been contracted as company representatives under the auspices that they are somehow above bias. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. From the pubic perspective, acceptance always boils down to the brand relationships between the people, products, and companies. We know so and so, the public says, so they get a pass. We aren't sure about so and so, the public says, so they get burned at the stake.

It hardly seems fair, but social media is anything but fair. It's currently the only place in the world where nice guys and gals finish first, even if they're pretending.

But all that aside, for agencies hoping to solidify the lines between right and wrong, I'll share a few techniques to ensure you can draw a clear enough line to remain on the right side of it. And, as often is the case with our firm, the approach is always situational because every client is different. Right on. They come in every color of the rainbow, but never artificial green.

As for this case, it seems clear that the agency had other plans from the outset. They meant to have a multi-author blog and something, perhaps budget constraints, prevented them from fielding twelve people. So, those other voices fell away. As to the convoluted nature of who works for whom, there weren't clear disclosures no matter how the explanation is framed up.

Perhaps, on the front end, the idea of volunteers or Dulux employees or even agency peeps penning posts was what won the pitch. But in terms of practice, it wasn't very practical. So, like agencies do, they shifted to some middle ground because it just didn't seem as sexy as having a full on single agency employee penning posts for a client.

Whatever. It could have been. People don't really care where the content comes from as long as its good, cool, and real ... it just has to be even better when public relations people become spokespeople.

Developing Internships: A Win-Win Playbook

Think "win-win" as the endowment of an abundance mentality. Why? Because your security comes from principles." — Stephen Covey

The continued conversations about whether or not to pay interns generally falls somewhere in between amusing and disturbing. In one case, a regional director of public relations and communications at a Fortune 1000 proclaimed they had no budget for interns.

It might make sense, given the company has suffered significant losses for three consecutive years. But then you have to wonder whether a student might do better somewhere else. As it is, accepting an unpaid internship is easily likened to giving (not receiving) corporate charity. And, if the thought process is that the company "needs" interns, one has to wonder how it can afford to put so much effort into looking for ways to work around government guidelines. Time is probably better spent elsewhere.

After all, first and foremost, paying interns is a matter of principles. And while I would be the last person to judge an independent contract between students and would-be employers, I can offer a few solutions that would add value to an internship program, thereby maximizing the value of the intern while maximizing the value of the intern experience.

Five Tips To Developing An Internship Program That Works

1. Develop a program plan. While it doesn't have to be written, planned internships define a series of step expectations during the course of a finite program. This reminds the mentor to assess and review the intern at one, two, and three months while providing the intern with tangible goals. Better performance equals a richer, more well-rounded experience.

As possible, these steps could focus on core skills (first month) such as research and writing/editing, enhanced skills (second month) such as creative projects and client products, and advanced skills (third month) such as heading up a project or participating in strategic planning. The intern only advances when they demonstrate some mastery over the previous step. The best interns also try to match their interests (public relations, creative, social media, etc.) with the firm.

2. Set assignments at their pace. Some firms assign interns client work that the mentor doesn't want to do, often without client knowledge, and others attempt to use them as personal assistants and coffee fetchers. Neither maximizes performance.

• Community service and self-promotion. Since both types of projects tend to take a back seat to client work, they are ideal communication projects for interns. Community service projects generally have a faster learning curve than some commercial accounts. And self-promotion projects have longer lead times while providing the intern an opportunity to learn more about the firm. At the same time, they offer no risk to clients. (The first assignment can even be writing an intern hire release.)

These base assignments can be augmented with editing the work of other communicators, which will prime the intern to work on select accounts in the second month. Research projects are also worthwhile because they introduce interns to industries served by the firm.

• Select client assignments. Within 30 days, even part-time interns begin to demonstrate an aptitude and interest for specific accounts. With full client disclosure (some clients are receptive to interns working on their accounts in tandem with their account executives), the intern can be assigned client work suited to their skill sets and interests.

While all students vary, they tend to perform best working on simpler accounts (consumer products, special events, etc.) than complex accounts (financial, medical, etc.). It makes the best sense to start with one account and gradually increase the mix to help them round out their portfolios.

• Challenging assignments. By the third month, interns that perform well can be given a more complex assignment that they spearhead from start to finish with oversight (like a press kit), work as part of a strategic communication team, or an assignment from a complex account. While oversight remains, the point is to give them a project that they feel belongs to them beyond any other tasks they've accepted along the way.

3. Provide self-starter training. Training interns isn't rocket science. Most well-established companies ranging from quick service restaurants to major utilities all follow the same approach. (Many firms make the mistake of jumping to the third step, which increases the training time and sometimes frustration.)

• Show them what to do. Either provide an example or let them stand over your shoulder, depending on the assignment.
• Supervise the assignment. Talk them through the process as they do it, standing over their shoulder as appropriate.
• Let them do it and review. Give them the assignment, allow them to complete it, and then review the work.
• Give them the responsibility. At some point, the review process can be reduced to a quick review of the work.

4. Expose them to meetings. Whether interns work on specific accounts or not, allowing them to join and sit in on client and vendor meetings provides benefits for everyone. Most of all, it provides the intern an opportunity to listen to how the mentor communicates with clients and vendors.

Beyond communication, interns are sometimes eager to offer academic solutions after the meetings. Sometimes they fit; sometimes they do not. Regardless, it opens a dialogue for mutual education, adding value on projects even if the intern never directly works on them. Clients, in particular, are generally receptive to having interns sit in, allowing them to contribute to the education of the intern. Some interns also demonstrate they are capable of working with vendors on behalf of the firm.

5. Help them set priorities and provide incentives. Some interns excel at setting priorities and others do not. In addition to communication-related assignments, ongoing work (such blog posts or weekly interdepartmental memos), clerical, or other task-oriented work is fine to assign, with the understanding most of it is meant to be completed in tandem with skill-building programs.

While incentives vary, internships that succeed have very definite end goals. It might be to have the intern work into a full-time position, extending their internship as an independent contractor, or an open letter of recommendation. Whatever it is, make it clear during the interview process. For future account executives, you might even offer a commission on new business.

Yeah, but what's in it for the mentor?

Some professionals keep asking "what about the value professionals deliver interns?" While there is no harm in asking, this is really unproductive thinking. The modern internship works best when it's a win-win experience.

Students are not interns just to "learn" as they did or do in school. If it is really their first job experience in the field, then they are there to contribute and their contributions have value. Some of that value is returned in the form of insight and experience. Some of it is returned in a nominal hourly amount. (Incidentally, paying interns empowers mentors to fire them too.)

The average hourly rate for public relations firms and advertising agencies ranges between $150 to $600 per hour. Excluding management, PayScale places the average hourly pay for in-house public relations professionals at $14 to $20 per hour (1-4 years) and $18 to $30 per hour (5-9 years). Ad agency professionals average $14 to $26 per hour, which is less dependent on years of experience and more dependent on performance.

Interestingly enough, many professional occupations pay interns and for residencies. But in creative and communication-related fields, more interns have not only asked to accept unpaid internships but some do so while paying for required academic credit.

Some Different Thoughts:

• Hey Intern, Get Me A Coffee And Stop Whingeing
• Will Prohibiting Unpaid Internships Kill the Fashion Industry?
• Unpaid Internships In The Crosshairs

Closing A Case Study: Tiger Remains Virtually Unchanged

Not everyone believed that Tiger Woods might escape relatively unscathed despite departing from the traditional tenets of crisis communication. But the outcome was already set. When one aspect of a brand is large enough, all other aspects can be spun away leaving the core unchanged.

At his core, Woods is a golfer. And as he walked from the 11th green to the 12th tee, men and women of all ages rose by the hundreds and greeted him with a warm, crackling roar in the backwoods. Never mind the back story.

All Woods had to do is prove he still had what it takes to put the ball in the cup at the 2010 Masters Tournament. And by all accounts, he did just that, finishing fourth along with K.J. Choi.

Suddenly, no one much cares whether the Rasmussen Reports found only 43 percent regarded the golfer's public apology as sincere. And hardly anyone will remember the creepily exploitive Nike advertisement that accompanied his return to the tee.



No matter what you thought of the affairs or how they came to light, Tiger Woods is still a professional golfer whose achievements to date rank him among the most successful golfers of all time. And since his other exploits are unrelated to his golfing career, none of what he did has any affect on that fact beyond changing how he is presented as a brand.

The loving husband image is gone, but the guarded golfer lives on.

If public relations professionals underestimated anything about Woods, it was how much his brand was related to what he did on the golf course as opposed to off of it. Sure, some people felt he was big on selling himself as a family guy. But most Americans only know him as a golfer who putted against comedian Bob Hope on national television when he was 2 years old.

For those preplexed by it, the Fragile Brand Theory sheds some light on the subject. Some people like Tom Cruise crash for far fewer transgressions while others, like Woods, won't.

Public perception plays the role of setting expectation as, for whatever reason, the public saw Cruise as a package with his boyish charm turned “rugged good looks, flashy smile, and three Oscar nominations.” Actor had equal weight or even less weight than all the other messages that revolved around him. Woods, on the other hand, had two huge attributes: private and golfer. As long as those remain in tact, Woods will remain in the game.

Sure, some brands bolted, but only those that enjoyed those lesser messages. Nike, on the other hand, had no qualms about keeping him. Woods is an athlete. Nike is about athletes. The only prerequisite Nike has is that the athletes are good. Had Woods finished 30th or if his infidelity had something to do with steroids or sports wagering, then they would be less inclined to stick with the cooperative brand relationship. It's about that simple.

That still doesn't excuse the ad as a "Just Don't Do It" moment.

Sure, it's creative. There is no mistaking it as divergent thinking. It takes a wild twist of thinking to get a golfer to surrender audio tapes of his dead father to overlay on top of his near expressionless, somewhat brooding likeness. I don't have any reservation saying it would have never occurred to me.

All that aside, it's an ad that only advertising and public relations professionals would like. For most people, they just walked away from it confused or disgusted.

THAT is the measure of an effective advertisement. It's never about what the ad gurus and communicators think. It's always about what the public, specifically the intended audience, thinks. The question isn't whether it's creative. Creative is easy.

The questions are: Does it make you want to like Woods and Nike? Does it make you want to buy shoes? Did Nike learn anything? I suspect it learned that other than the parodies, the Nike ad helped make the entire sordid affair seem old.

And if that was the intent, they did a fine job. If the intent was to sell Nike products, it fails twice. It doesn't make anyone want to buy a product. And while it shows Nike will stick by Woods, it disrupts the Nike brand in that no one ever anticipated the company would would fund the production of a tasteless, despite being creative, commercial. Yawn.

See what I mean. It's a tired tale. Case study closed.