Advertising Turnaround: Young Adults Trust Advertising

Everybody is always down on advertising as not to be trusted. There are countless studies that suggest so. That is, until recently.

A study released a few weeks ago by Adweek Media/Harris Poll shows that advertising isn't as untrusting as some might say. In fact, it may even be starting to lead in authenticity, with more people trusting advertisements than social media outlets.

Those surveyed said they trust that advertising is sometimes honest in its claims (65 percent) and just over one in ten say that they never trust that advertising is honest in its claims (13 percent). Still, advertising has some ground to make up.

Among the key differences between those who trust advertising and those who don't is age. Nine in ten young adults aged 18-34 say they trust that advertising is honest in its claims at least sometimes (90 percent). Conversely, only 81 percent of those ages 55+ agree while one in five ages 55+ say that they never trust that advertising is honest (18 percent).

Even more interesting, few people want advertising to be regulated. Forty-eight percent said that advertising doesn't need additional regulation. And 23 percent say that the industry is capable of regulating itself. While interesting, it is not surprising. Government is among the least trusted organizations nowadays.

But still, what is changing about advertising?

If you want an explanation as to why advertising has suddenly started gaining ground, there are two primary reasons to consider. First, consumers have become exceptionally vigilant in pointing out problem companies that lie to consumers. Any company making false claims today, with the exception of those that need advanced expertise like medical, are brought to light by consumers who don't want to bury those companies as much as they want them to change.

And second, which can be tied back the USC Marshall study cited a few days ago, people see brands as extensions of themselves. They want their favorite products, services, and companies to do well. And sometimes, when those companies make mistakes and then are willing to make good on their original promises, consumers are ready to forgive them.

Neglecting Public Relations: How ACORN Fell

In comparison to other news coverage in the past two years, the declaration of bankruptcy by ACORN, which used to be the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families, has been virtually inaudible. After 40 years as a grassroots advocacy organization, the board members voted to close its last chapter on Nov. 2.

The timing could not have been worse, unless it wanted to go out in a whimper. The release was sent out on Election Day.

According to an end of an era post by CEO Bertha Lewis, the reasons were the barrage of unmitigated accusations and extremists increasing their radicalism. I propose something else killed ACORN.

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Extreme publicity, the very assets that became the advocacy group's weapon of choice, was responsible for its undoing.

In its early beginnings, it could be argued that ACORN was needed as a counterbalance. And, for the decade it focused significant effort on investigating complaints against companies accused of predatory lending practices, it did some tremendous good by supporting the enactment of strict state laws against predatory practices, organizing against foreclosure rescue scams, and steering borrowers toward loan counseling.

Ten years or so ago, it even became a valuable resource for me when one bank attempted bait-and-switch practices, using 9-11 as an excuse to jack up interest rates just prior to closing a second mortgage. The information ACORN provided was critical in writing a brief to various members of Congress, providing early documentation and a case study on predatory refinance and second mortgage schemes. Since, the bank in question (but not all), has moved away from such practices.

However, as ACORN expanded its goals to become a much more far-reaching organization through aggressive demonstrations that aimed to draw negative publicity against issues as opposed to evidence, some of its activities became a hotbed of controversy. In 2003, it was criticized for union busting within its own organization. And in recent years, there were allegations of voter fraud, embezzlement, and unprofessional conduct.

In addition, it became more and more politicized in its support and increasingly walled in its approach to public relations, adopting a posture not unlike some of the more unjust companies it would rally against. Whereas the organization was effective in causing change with extreme publicity, its credibility continually eroded until the federal government had no choice but to distance itself and private donors could no longer support it.

The difference between publicity and public relations could not be more clear.

Crain's New York Business was one of the few publications to mention the bankruptcy as more than a mention. Had the organization invested as much time in crisis communication and public relations while keeping its own values in order, it may have survived some of the various controversies. Publicity does not enhance credibility.

Likewise, it could have remained an advocacy group as opposed to becoming an activist group. Perhaps the various ACORN spinoffs that are now being founded, leaving the debt-ridden organization behind, will do better to understand the difference. Any time an organization begins to focus on feeding the organization as opposed to its original mission to support a specific cause, it is time to close the doors.

Seeing Better: How Flipboard Enhances Twitter

As of a few days ago, Twitter had every right to boast about its 175 million registered users, up from 145 million in early September and 105 million in April. According to Ronny Kerr, Twitter could be seeing as many as 15 million new members each and every month (minus 1 million for people with multiple accounts).

What is interesting about the Kerr post is that he points out that Twitter has seen three major growth spurts in the last couple years and each can be directly assigned to individually significant site developments. What does he claim they are?

The first was in mid-2009, a direct result of widespread media coverage of the site because of Ashton Kutcher. The next surge was in its smart phone offerings, with the launch of official iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry apps, that new registrations would flow like a flood again. And the newest surge, he says, has to do with site design.

I don't think so. The new two-column platform detracts from the user experience, squishing the conversation to one side. It seems more likely the influx of new people is related to the adoption of companies, organizations, and promotion by media.

The reason could be that the entire interface is flawed, something that never occurred to me until viewing Twitter on Flipboard.

How Flipboard, despite some shortcomings, is intuitive.

Legal questions aside, while Flipboard is not suited to dialogue between people (beyond a one comment quip), it does help sort the valuable content from the chaff because it ports in the first few graphs of any link. And, after experimenting with it for a few days, it saves me considerable time and adds value for two reasons.

• Flipboard allows me to immediately see what is behind any link, beyond the 140-character pitch.
• Flipboard helps me find valuable content without relying on other factors like trust and frequency.

In other words, it levels the playing field for everyone I have weaker relationships with while vetting the content being shared by people I have stronger relationships with. And, it does this effectively enough that unless Flipboard disappears, there is no better way to consume content (noting that as I already mentioned, you cannot engage in a two-way dialogue).

The concept was originally developed as an alternative to the various applications that some publications are putting out, but some of the real value comes from social network streams like Facebook and Twitter. Interestingly enough, the Facebook experience on Flipboard is neutral because Facebook never adopted the truncated communication model.

Sure, it would be even better if you could import one blog or feed or web address as opposed to a Twitter stream, but Flipboard works well enough for now. Likewise, if little chat bubbles could accompany the one-time comment option (much like Echo Phone allows), it would change from a content delivery option to a dialogue option.

But more importantly, and the point of this post, it really demonstrates the inherent weakness of Twitter's communication model. As an interface, I've become more fond of Fried Eggs and Facebook for this reason. Both encourage shorter communication without the lockdown on those occasions when you want a longer dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. I still value Twitter because of my connections there. Or, perhaps, I ought to say I value my connections so much, I'm willing to put up with Twitter. However, long term, I wonder how Twitter will fare unless it can develop interfaces that break away from its original, ever more confining quip of 140 characters or less. How about you?

Antiplanning And Disaster: A Real Communication Weakness

Two weeks ago, Valeria Maltoni shared insights that ought to make some businesses nervous. A new study from Smart Brief reveals that as many as 86 percent of all people don't know that planning is the first step toward effective communication.

Even more concerning was the size of the study. Smart Brief did not survey a handful of people online. Instead, it surveyed 6,000 business people to uncover eight themes as they pertain to social media. However, the most compelling portion of the study suggested that business people, communicators especially, are all but abandoning communication planning.

What are businesses doing instead of planning communication?

In relation to communication, it seems that advertisers, marketers, and public relations firms are adopting tools but leaving tried and true strategies behind. Instead of drafting strategic communication plans, they are picking social networks and technologies that are currently popular and then adopting a string of "tactical" components to inflate the meaningless measurements.

Ergo, the only "outcome" is to drive more traffic and attract more followers. The approach can be likened to yelling on a street corner or, in some cases, right in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. In fact, yelling on the street corner might even be more effective, considering most agencies don't even bother to check the ZIP codes or business proximity before they put on the costumes.

Is it any wonder most firms lack social media confidence?

Maltoni's post goes on to reveal that while many firms are selling social media services, only 14.2 percent of businesses find their social media strategies to be very effective and only 7.3 percent consider them “revenue generating.” While I might argue that not all social media campaign need to place revenue as a top-tier primary outcome, the very notion that companies are paying for services with no measurable merits is concerning.

The reason there is no confidence in social media has nothing to do with the value of social media. What it has to do with is that social media is being implemented as a line-item service without any real consideration for the overall communication plan. Why not? Well, from what I read here, it's because no communication plan exists.

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.