Smacking Freshness: Fresh Content Project

Sometimes as communicators and marketers and developers, we see topics we don't want to see. Twitter doesn't read about its shortcomings. Marketers don't want to give things away for free (unless there is high consistent conversation). Social media experts don't want to discover they weren't as good as they thought they were in 18 months. And the list goes on.

This is a great opportunity to toss that thinking out the window. The truth is: marketers and communicators ought to be happy about every valid criticism. It provides you an opportunity to change rather than keeping your head buried in the sand, believing in your own bubble. Sure, you can for awhile. But sooner or later someone holds a mid-term election and you're out of office.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 25

• Twitter Issues New Guidelines For The Tweet Trademark..
Audrey Watters provides a rundown on the new rules associated with the Twitter trademark. While we later discovered that many of the rules are relatively the same, it could cause real problems with developers like Tweetdeck, Twitpic, and other services that effectively showed Twitter how to do its job better. More worrisome is that Twitter has entered a protectionism posture, which makes some people wonder what the new management is thinking.

• Capturing the Value of What You Create.
Valeria Maltoni nails something that many marketers are still struggling with as a concept. The reason you want to provide free content is because the exchange rate comes with visibility. I might also add it includes credibility too. Sometimes when you put ideas out for the public to consider, it might surprise them to find out how right you are about a certain idea. Other times, they might tell you when you are wrong. And even that can be equally valuable. I might not be keen on the content is king saying, but there is no doubt that good content is the commodity online.

• When Will the Social Media Losers Emerge?
At first blush, I didn't like Jay Baer's link bait headline or the cliche picture. But trust played a role in continuing to read past it all. He nails it in his first sentence. "Today," he writes. "Social media is like a soccer league for seven-year-olds: everyone gets a trophy." It's easy. You start a social media program and zip ... sooner or later you find a few hundred people who want to listen. But what about when everyone in your industry starts a social media program? Consumers don't have time for everyone.

• Pretty. Functional. Frail. My Macbook Air Hinges Fail..
At a glance, Louis Gray's write-up on the MacBook Air might seem like another unhappy consumer story. But it popped up as a fresh pick for a very different reason. It's a great example of why social media works. He can run down a list of problems, research other perspectives, and make a case for change. A few years ago, he would only have one option. He could write the company. Or, he could call the media and hope enough other people had the same problem for them to consider covering it. Instead, we get a concerned loyalist who just wants to see the hinges improved.

• Survey: 86 Percent of All People Don't Know the Plan Comes First.
This post by Valeria Maltoni was compelling enough to include as a fresh pick and write a secondary, repurposed post as well. It represents the spirit of why I started this experiment in the first place. It might not be the most most popular post of the day, but it does represent what industry insiders need to hear. She didn't say it, but I will. While you might not have the budget to produce an entire report for your employer or client, communication without planning is throwing money out the window. And, if you receive compensation for wasting cash, you really are not much better than a con. Planning comes first.

Branding Runs Deep: USC Marshall Cracks Connections

Although one recent Edleman study (cited earlier this week) argues that purpose is more powerful than a brand, another study recently conducted by the Marshall School of Business (USC) suggests the opposite. A well constructed brand relationship can run so deep that consumers will experience separation anxiety if they are forced to buy a competing brand.

In fact, the new study suggests that a bond between a product and a consumer can be so strong, they will be willing to sacrifice time, money, energy, and reputation to maintain their attachment. The reasoning fits well within the conversation presented last week, proving that brand attachment isn't consumption based but rather the consumer seeing the brand as an extension of themselves.

The power behind the study is that it is not a survey.

Social media has made it all too easy to do spontaneous crowd sourcing. And while I maintain that information is useful, it does not always mean it is accurate. People lie, even when they don't mean to.

So, when the Edleman survey asks whether people will give up a brand if another brand is willing to do more good, their sensibilities take a holiday and say "yes." The reality is that most would not, with exception to extreme cases where the brand has done something that makes it impossible to identify it as an extension of themselves.

Without relying on what people say, the USC study indicates that traditional measurements such as brand attitude and strength do not adequately explain consumers' intense loyalties to the brands they love. Specifically, consumers fall in love with brands because they literally capture their hearts and minds. The entire study is available at USC Marshall.

Reflecting back on the Edleman study, it seems more likely that as people see brands as an extension of themselves they want those brands to share the same values. And lately, people are more interested in doing good. And that is a very good thing.

Honoring Veterans Day: Every Day

Every year, the United States honors all of its men and women who have served in the Armed Forces. And every year, we feel it is especially important to share this space in their honor even as the real work often takes place somewhere else.

Last year, my team was especially grateful to work on a campaign that honored our servicemen and women. Many of those programs that benefited our veterans can still use your help today. Please consider making a donation.

However, I might add that even when I am not working on campaigns or writing speeches or serving our state or sharing a moment of silence, I often pause to think about the brave men and women who serve our country. After all, their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good never rests. Ours need not either.


In addition to honoring our servicemen and women and supporting organizations that provide them with services, we might also reflect on commitment as an example of selflessness in our country and the original intent of November 11. All around the world today, many other countries are celebrating November 11 as Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, as this date commemorates the Armistice that ended World War I.

In most countries, the celebration is marked with poppies. The significance being that poppies bloomed across some of the worst battlefields of Flanders in World War I. Their red color remains a symbol for the bloodshed of warfare. A small number of people also wear white poppies as a symbol of peace. We might hope.

Integrating PR: How Media Relations Has Changed

A few days ago, one of the local restaurants we work with was reviewed by the area's most critical reviewer at the largest area daily. The review was a pleasant surprise. While the general manager sends out news releases from time to time, he hadn't lately.

There was no release. There was no pitch. Instead, what prompted the reviewer to visit was the consistent stream of direct-to-public communication across the restaurant's social media program. There was no other communication, which made me think about how media relations has changed.

Traditional Media Relations For Restaurants.

A public relations firm would prepare all the necessary content for the restaurant, sometimes in the form of a media kit. And then, depending on the retainer, it would either pitch or send press releases to area dailies to secure a review. Sometimes it would over communicate the need, especially if it counted column inches as justification for the retainer.

Eventually, the reviewer (hopefully not aggravated by the constant contact), would visit the restaurant on one unspoken condition. Once they entered the restaurant, all claims of being influenced by the relationship were off. Only the quality of the food, decor, and service would remain.

If the restaurant was having a good day, the review would be positive and the public relations firm would claim credit. If the restaurant was having a bad day, the review would be negative and the public relations firm would wash its hand of responsibility while counting those negative impressions as having the same value as positive impressions.

Regardless of the positive or negative nature of the review, the public relations firm would also be charged with making sure all the background information and necessary photos were delivered (unless the reviewer took pictures and/or arranged a photographer after the fact). And, once the review ran (assuming it was positive), everybody — meaning the firm and the restaurant owners — would throw up their hands in celebratory delight.

And that is where it ends, with exception to public relations professionals finding new ways to convince the reviewer to come back. After all, most restaurants are not going to be reviewed every week (or even written about weekly, despite any news they might think up).

Modern Media Relations For Restaurants.

Today, things can work much differently. A restaurant (possibly with the support of someone who knows social media) can publish direct-to-public communication about any variety of topics related to its cuisine. This is significantly different than press releases and pitches because none of the communication is wasted. All of it goes somewhere.

In addition, these various messages not only reach potential patrons but also provide a direct opportunity for them to engage representatives of the restaurant. And, with almost certainty, some of these people might be journalists (assuming the the social media communicator is savvy enough to connect with them).

There is no pitch. There is no release. It's just a steady stream of positive and valuable communication. There is no pressure on the reviewers. They just read what they want when they want and promptly ignore the rest. Until, one day, they decide to visit.

They review the restaurant, either positively or negatively, based on performance. All the photos and background content are at their fingertips via the Internet. They save time and the publication saves money. No one has to follow up to ask how it went. Everyone will know soon enough when the review is published, and if it isn't published, no one will even notice.

Afterward, there may be an internal celebration. However, the celebration isn't where the communication ends. It's where the communication begins. Because the restaurant has a social media program, it can either explain why a review was bad (if they choose to) or share it with customers that already have a positive relationship with them.

They can also publicly semi-thank the reviewer, simply by being unafraid to share whatever they want. It's the best gift you can give a journalist; they don't want bribes as much as a chance to be read. But even more importantly, they would appreciate a little more attention to what they have written as opposed to when they might write something again.

Some Media Relations Is Built On A Weak Link.

While this does not hold true for all public relations firms (some are good), it does hold true for many. The relationships they claim to have are weaker than most would admit.

While the press release might not be dead (especially as it pertains to news that is not yet public), the dynamic has changed. Journalists, much like anybody, prefer to discover news as opposed to having it pushed at them. And the public, especially those who are engaged, are genuinely happy when restaurants can validate fan experiences with a critical review.

Teaching: How Social Media Changed Everything

Some people are still scratching their heads. Social media changed everything, but they are not quite sure how. Since I began teaching social media as part of communication, I've relied on one simple equation: you have to think of social media as its own environment.

People who are engaged in social media already know it's true. However, for those who don't understand this, it still seems like a foreign idea. They tend to frame up the online experience as a "virtual world" as opposed to "real life." Even my colleagues in social media are prone to stumble. They keep lists of people they met in "real life" as opposed to those they only know online.

It's a mistake. And the reason is simple enough. The environment has changed. And last Friday, I was able to illustrate the point with an example that turned the light on for many participants. It also demonstrates why traditional media is still hemorrhaging subscribers, mostly because many of them are among those who see the Internet as another broadcast channel.

Traditional Media Broadcast Messages Into An Environment.
Sometimes you have to review the past to better explain the present. So, among the slides in my deck, I presented an oversimplified communication model representing the past.


A person (broadcaster) used an expensive technology to transmit messages to a less expensive technology so other people could consume the communication in the environment of their choosing. They might read the paper at the breakfast table, listen to the radio in their car, or watch television on the couch.

Distribution was also limited. Generally speaking, the only way to receive that communication was to not only own but to be actively using a specific reception device. As long as the television was on, they could receive your message. As long as they opened the paper, they received the message. As long as they turned on the radio, they received the message.

But even more important to consider, this message was part of their greater environment. And, once they receive the communication, they might share or discuss that information with people within direct proximity to their environment — the people in their households, friends at the local pub, or maybe around the water cooler.

Social Media Broadcasts Messages Into An Environment.

Social media, on the other hand, dramatically changed the model. While two people still needed devices to broadcast and receive messages, they no longer were disproportionate in their capabilities. Every device that connects to the online environment is equally capable of broadcasting and receiving. That changed the model, and it changed it in more ways than one.


A person (broadcaster) can now use one inexpensive technology to transmit all forms of media to other people who have the same technology, while simultaneously allowing one-on-one communication with any number of people that message reaches.

The potential for one-on-one communication changed the dynamic of the communication because it allowed for engagement, enabling other people to respond to the message in whatever form they wished. The physical environment no longer mattered because the engagement effectively made the "virtual world" the only environment that mattered.

At the same time, a percentage of people who were originally communication consumers became communicator broadcasters, which empowered them to rebroadcast messages, repurpose messages, and critique messages as they felt fit. Some might rebroadcast within the same environment while others (traditional media) would also rebroadcast the original or adapted messages across traditional mediums.

Convergence Will Solidify The Change.

Five years ago, I used to receive plenty of push back on convergence — the day when broadcast would be indistinguishable from the Internet. I rarely receive much push back anymore. The average American spends 32.7 hours per week online, up from 9 hours per week in 2006.

It's happening all around us. I can pick up an iPad and watch programming without even having to plug in to a hardwired location, read my email, create original content, or put it on a larger screen. At the same time, digital is being rapidly integrated into everything from television sets to game consoles. And, as technology continues to converge, you can readily expect the various communication disciplines to converse right along with them.

Eventually, the only difference between one device and another will be the size of the screen and, perhaps, the number of people in any given environment. The reason this is important is because many people talk about social media being a one-to-one communication tool. But it really isn't. Social media is a one-to-many, one-to-niche, one-to-one communication tool at the same time. And that is where communication practitioners need to adjust their thinking.

Shifting Responsibility: Purpose-Driven Brands Over Government

A new study by Edelman shows a significant shift in public expectation as it relates to philanthropy. People are less interested in the government tackling social issues and are more interested in purpose-driven companies becoming better corporate citizens.

Specifically, 87 percent of Americans believe business needs to place equal weight on society's interests as well as business interests. Eighty percent feel corporations are in a uniquely powerful position to make a positive impact for good causes. And nearly two-thirds would like corporations to integrate philanthropy into their daily operations (beyond giving money).

"Cause-related marketing, as we know it, is dead," said Carol Cone, managing director, brand & corporate citizenship, Edelman. "Americans are seeking deeper involvement in social issues and expect brands and companies to provide various means of engagement. We call this the rise of the 'citizen consumer.'"

Is There Really A Rise Of The Citizen Consumer?

Some parts of the study bear this out. Consumers' expectation of government to do the most for good causes has declined dramatically since 2009, while their expectation of "people like me" has jumped. Only 30 percent of U.S. consumers now believe that the government should be doing the most to support good causes, down 11 points from 2009.

There is a reason for this. More than ever before, consumers have come to realize that when government tackles social causes, it must seek funding, which eventually is charged back to the consumer in the form of debt or taxes. As a philanthropic pillar, government is one of the least effective components for social good, because the return on taxpayer investments is diminished compared to corporate grants, individual donations, and direct support.

For example, the amount of one taxpayer dollar is significantly diminished (as much as 80 percent) by the time it reaches a participant when compared to a direct one dollar donation (only about 20 percent, depending on the nonprofit). In addition, people want to be directly involved in giving, with 3 percent believing that "people like me" should be doing the most, up 8 percent from last year. They want the companies who they identify with to do good too.

Where the study falls short is in placing too much emphasis on a study that suggests 47 percent of Americans rank purpose as significantly more important than design/innovation or brand loyalty as a purchase trigger when quality and price are the same. The reason is that if quality and price are the same, then there is no innovation.

The reality is that Americans want two things from companies. They want innovative products and services that do no harm. And they want companies, especially those with hefty profit margins, to do more good.

What they don't want are companies that employ cause marketing as smokescreens, notably the concept of greenwashing. What they do want, which most cannot articulate, are companies that follow a Marc Benioff model. He believes the best charity models include investing one percent of a company's profits into grants and donations, one percent of its time into volunteer efforts, and one percent of its time into equity (e.g., foundations).

The model makes sense. When companies invest in the communities in which they operate, they strengthen the community in which they operate, which eventually leads to more prospects willing to purchase their products (assuming the products have value). Even more importantly, as the study points out, people want to work with companies to get the job done (much more than they want the government involved).

Additional Highlights From The Edleman 2010 Good Purpose Study.

• 79 percent of Americans find it acceptable for brands to support good causes and make money at the same time.
• 75 percent of Americans believe that projects that protect and sustain the environment can help grow the economy.
• 67 percent of Americans support legislation requiring environmental standards even if it negatively impacts profits.
• 62 percent of Americans would pay slightly more for a product (like a beverage) if that money went to good causes.
• 34 percent of Americans would prefer to receive a donation to a good cause as a gift than a friend-picked gift.

The takeaway on this last set of numbers is very telling. People are basically saying that they want companies to become more involved and will reward those companies for doing so. However, if companies do not become involved, then the public is willing to force legislation that will require them to do so.

This study might suggest something else too. As long as companies are not abusing their support of good causes, customers want to know they are involved. While it used to be some strategic philanthropic thinking was to hide donations (rather than boasting), consumers really want companies to speak up and help set an example. Now that's something to think about.