Winning: Maybe Eyeballs Measure Absurdity

Author David Meerman Scott says Charlie Sheen is winning. And he's not alone. Many people seem to think so. He's winning publicity, which is always admirable.

Right?

Sheen isn't the only one grabbing headlines. Muammar Gaddafi is grabbing headlines. So is the tragedy in Japan.

Are they winning? Do they need a fan page on Facebook? A Twitter account to promote a book tour? A blog or YouTube channel to rant about it all?

The new rules suggest old measurements are dead then toss out eyeball counts too.

One of the lessons I frequently share with public relations professionals every year is the concept of what makes news. And of the various topic choices — impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, conflict, novelty, human interest, sensitivity, and special interest — most of them skew toward conflict. And even if they do not, headlines are skewed toward it.

There was a small sliver of time that media covered news you needed to know. Nowadays, most media merely packages it in such a way that it makes you think you need to know it. It's done for all those topic choices mentioned above because journalists didn't invent the list. The public purchasing papers did. Media tends to deliver what people want nowadays.

When Charlie Sheen kisses Jimmy Kimmel, he capitalizes on prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness, proximity, and special interest. He is smart to do it.

USA Today recently mentioned how these things work out. The public jumps for the ringside seat at various celebrity train wrecks for a few minutes before moving to the next. The stories are all the same — prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness — every single time.

The media played it the same way with radiation reaching the United States. Several networks elevated the level of fear (causing some people to buy and take potassium iodide‎) to drive viewership and then continued to attract readership by refuting their own case before repackaging it into another alarmist story about the safety of the nuclear facilities in our own backyard. These proximity twists prolong eyeballs for as much as 90 days.

Some local programs even prompt government agencies to jump on it. Never mind California, there were news stories in New Hampshire. How did that work? It was simple enough. Someone at the news station wanted to capitalize on the news by ramping up proximity. So they called state officials.

No matter what state officials said, the news station had a story. If the state was monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. If the state isn't monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. In this case, either story taps impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, and conflict. And it makes you wonder. Is radiation winning? Does it need a fan page on Facebook?

The majority of news is negative so maybe publicity isn't a win.

The majority of news stories across ANY topic is negative. It doesn't matter what the topic might be. Almost 65 percent of media headlines (if not the story itself) lean negative, 15 percent positive, and the balance neutral. (This was from a scan of several statistical counts ranging from the economy to politics). It's no surprise. Psychologically, we're hardwired to react to negative because because it feels like it has more immediacy than positive.

Given those percentages, someone could easily make the case that news coverage means that you're losing, not winning. Sure, you might be "winning" publicity, but what does that really mean? Does it mean that Charlie Sheen needs to run for president? Maybe. The public likes him more than Obama or Palin, even if the same poll shows that almost no one has any respect for him.

Consider that for a moment.

Personally, I have no feelings toward Sheen (other than I liked him in Platoon some years ago). But I do have feelings about the measure of followers on social networks. Three million followers do not make you somebody. Or to borrow a quote unrelated to Charlie Sheen...

We don't hate you because you're famous. You're famous because we hate you.

Or maybe it's because you're a novelty. Or a threat. Or some other attention-grabbing reason, like saying "We are high priest Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom!" If that is winning, I'm happy to set my measures on a different track all together. But still, I will given Sheen this — at least he's doing something. Doing something is how you win with social media.

And if he hadn't done anything, then he wouldn't have broken the fastest person to reach one million followers record, even if more than 80 percent of those people were jumping on to see a meltdown. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. I hope he doesn't, but I'd be as cautious about adopting the Sheen publicity model as I would be Gaddafi or a tsunami. What you do will eventually matter.

Working Without Vision: How Flailing Begs Failure

It doesn't happen often, but it happened last week. Someone from an Internet publicity company challenged the importance of having a vision during a Kaizen discussion. The discussion was framed around a recent poll suggesting almost 80 percent of all companies deviate from their strategic plans. The professional received ample push back, given the audience.

"Vision is not necessary for profitability, neither long term or short term," he said.

At a glance, the numbers certainly bear out his argument. Marketing consultant Kevin J. Clancy has researched this topic before. He found as many as one-third of all Fortune 500 companies do not have a vision statement. And, of those that do, only 22 percent have transformational vision statements, which strive to change the world (or at least the segment of the world in which they operate).

However, the story of visionless Fortune 500 companies is misleading. David Kinard dug up some interesting research last year. One-third of all Fortune 500 companies in 1970 had ceased to exist by 1983 and nearly two-thirds had vanished by 1995. Not surprisingly, he alludes to the idea that of those that failed, most lacked a working strategic plan, which includes a well-defined achievable vision.

So the answer is more of a mixed bag. You can be profitable without a vision (or an outmoded vision). But the real question is for how long? Ten years? Fifteen years? That might work for serial entrepreneurs, but it doesn't do much for a sustainable company.

Given the failure rate of small businesses and upstarts is even greater, it might make you wonder why so many fail or, more appropriately, why do so many fail despite success and profitability.

More than likely, it seems short-term success can be managed with a mission alone but long-term success is the function of operating in a singular transformational direction or frequently updated adaptive direction. Either will do, but companies, much like people, are apt to be pulled in too many directions without one.

Three examples of failings for abandoning or operating without a vision.

1. Focus failure. An advertising agency start-up earns immediate attention because of its cutting-edge creative and begins to grow. As it does, it also begins to solicit larger accounts that have a stronger voice in the creative process, forcing the agency to produce substandard creative work in favor of retaining the larger accounts.

2. Growth failure. A hamburger stand that prides itself on fresh ingredients reaches critical mass and decides to open two more stores. However, the continued growth forces it to streamline its operations to keep up with demand. So, instead of preparing all the ingredients at each site, it decides to centralize prep work with the consequence of losing its proposition.

3. Profitability failure. A frozen dinner manufacturer develops the right recipes and quickly dominates its niche. However, in order to continue growing, the company has to maximize profits, which could mean smaller portions, cheaper ingredients, or inferior packaging. Any number of these decisions could have consequences.

Those are a few examples, but there are plenty to choose from, small and large companies alike. Blockbuster comes to mind in that its struggles were largely related to moving away from a vision that hinged on its diversity and toward a protectist model.

Had the company stayed focused on its vision, it would have led the electronic rental models (Netflix) and developed blue box (Redbox) before either competitor saturated the market. But it didn't. It did have, however, a solid 25-year run.

The simplicity of a vision and the complexity of applying it.

A vision statement is nothing more than knowing what your company is going to be when it grows up (or in 10-30 years if it is already grown up). And its values are the limitations it has adopted while pursuing that vision. While writing a mission statement can be just as important, the vision statement pinpoints the destination you are hoping to arrive at sooner or later.

Nike is hinged on inspiration. Apple is hinged on (simplified) innovation. Toyota Worldwide is hinged on harmony. And the more aligned they remain with their vision statements, the more likely they will still be successful in 10, 20 or 100 years. The more they are driven by outcomes like expansion, profitability, or market share, the less likely they will achieve that destination.

It's not confined to business alone. While it doesn't have to be formalized in writing, most successful people pursue a vision or sense of purpose. And it is on this micro view that the function of a vision might make the most sense. Even if it is not written per se, people tend to have one whether they realize it or not. All movement leads to a destination.

This might even be why it's important not to mistake vision for outcomes like job security. Outcomes are usually the by-product of a vision, not the pursuit of a destination. For example, someone pursuing job security might stay with a job they dislike until their position or company is no longer secure. Someone who pursues to be on the leading edge of a field, however, is likely always to have job security no matter where they work.

Companies operate in similar ways. If a company is always challenging itself to be innovative, it will win. If a company is challenging itself to earn profits, it may enjoy short-term success until someone else delivers an alternative. If a company doesn't have a vision, it may still move in a direction but the destination will be anybody's guess.

Strangling V: Did Online Rights Kill The Show?

Last year, ABC initially thought it might have tapped into next franchise sci-fi relaunch success story like Battlestar Galactica. The television series V had it all: a riveting premiere, strong story potential, and ample buzz from fans nostalgic for the original series. The premiere drew 14.3 million viewers.

This year, things look very different. Despite ugly angry aliens in Battle: LA helping the war flick with a science fiction twist to claim the number one spot at the box office, audiences have no appetite for the passive aggressive aliens in human skins like those found in the television series V. Its recent ratings, 5.5 million viewers, is considered an uptick.

There is no other way to say it. It's a dead show walking.

But the show didn't commit suicide on its own. ABC had placed it on the bubble last year. It could almost be considered a miracle that the series saw a single second season show.

However, if there was any hope that the series might survive, other decisions clinched its demise. ABC ordered a truncated season 2, first 13 shows and then only 10. It also slated the show for a slot that followed a weak opener on a bad night for the network. And finally, the network decided to withhold electronic distribution of season 2 on all fronts.

Fellow V fans,
It is with much regret that we must inform you that full episodes of V will not be available on ABC.com or Hulu for Season 2. Just like you, we truly wish full episodes were playing here. But we also hope our detailed recaps will keep you informed and entertained should you ever miss an episode.

Best always,
The ABC.com Team

Just like you, we truly wish full episodes were playing here?

Despite rumors, the avoided answer — ABC didn’t acquire the online rights for the second season — does exist. And this fits in with Time Warner not liking the price of online content.

It would have made more sense for ABC to spell it out, but it seems painfully obvious they don't want to answer the second round "why?" It's likely related to the price of online licensing. And ABC is just as happy to kill the program. (Although they haven't officially killed it yet.)

It seems to beg the question. What is the fair price of a single season? On iTunes, a season of House sells at $60 for high definition and about $40 for standard definition (22 episodes). Amazingly, people still watch first runs and replays, even if they buy it. So perhaps the question that ought to be asked is — what is the value of a product nobody can watch?

Network schedule-only shows cannot survive in an anytime environment. Period.

V was okay, but it never really lived up to satisfying any nostalgic sensibilities. It was good enough to watch now and again, but only on a consumer schedule. In other words, it worked for semi-interested viewers who tuned into Hulu.com or purchased the season on iTunes. But if it wasn't available there, there wasn't much compulsion to purchase a DVD for $30 (or maybe $15 given there are only 10 episodes)? It doesn't make sense.

Digital frees the consumer from shipping costs. And it frees the producers from packaging costs. It's easier to store too. Real space is best reserved for those special collector's packages or those few movies where physical copies feel right for some reason.

Sure, not everyone has a digital device or a component video cable to make their computer-television conversion seamless. But eventually they will. And if not with a hard cable connection, then with WiFi sharing. With this in mind, $40 to $60 per season seems reasonable because it's the standard networks and producers set when they wanted to cash in on videos and compact discs.

But more importantly, when viewers cannot catch their shows or forget to set their DVRs (because they missed the first few episodes or have too much in memory already), then limiting distribution won't gain viewers or increase the value. It will diminish viewers or possibly turn them off entirely (with the possible exception of a few shows).

Profit doesn't come from protection. It comes from innovation.

How To Win With Social Media: Do Something Else

There once was a girl blogger named Gertude McFuzz. And if the name sounds familiar, it should.

She is inspired by Theodor Seuss Geisel, the American writer and cartoonist better known by the name Dr. Seuss. And in his story, of course, Gertude McFuzz was but a sad little bird with the smallest tail feather ever.

But I know plenty of bloggers and social media enthusiasts who feel equally blue. They spend most of their days and nights gazing upward, ever upward at fancier bloggers and tweeters and face-bookers too. They're just like the bird McFuzz followed; her name is Lolla-Lee-Lou.

"If only I had more followers and friends and traffic and clicks," McFuzz would lament. "Then people would notice me."

So they scoured the net, looking for tips and gimmicks and tricks and top ten lists. There are plenty of remedies for them to find too, you see. Of course, most of them are tied to promoting other bloggers or investing cash money. In fact, all of those social media experts, with their heads in the clouds, are mysteriously supported by those searching on the ground.

But no matter. Most of the bloggers with a name like McFuzz are equally content to give each other some lift. They'll promise to give you a leg up, if you give me a click. And that might even work for awhile, those bubble building networks, exchanges and schemes. People promising something reciprocal, even if no one reads anything their fellow followers put up, as it seems.

Sooner or later, deflated and nearly beaten, some bloggers like McFuzz will eventually try cheating. And much like the bird who ate from the pill-berry bush, their numbers will soar.

"It's easy to buy followers when you go to the store," said McFuzz, feeling better much like a bird with a plume full of feathers.

Eventually, however, it all crashes down. McFuzz will run out of hours in the day or run out of bought buzz. That is what happens when you promise a reciprocal ratio of 1:1 (or 1:10 if they're famous) or spend all your savings on potions, elixirs.

So wait, what's the answer? In the story by Dr. Seuss, it was simple enough. Just be yourself and be happy about stuff. Other people have said it, so enough about that is enough. I'll go a step further than Dr. Seuss for anyone who sometimes feels like McFuzz.

Do something else.

It really is that simple. Do something. The truth about blogging specifically, and social media more broadly, is that only two kinds of people ever really soar more than a few feet off the ground. Either you become one of those who climb higher on the promise you'll teach those below what you learned or you do something.

It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it's something. Take a long hard look at some of the "most successful" bloggers and social networkers (besides those who operate Ponzi schemes). What you are likely to find is a whole bunch of people who do something. They are speakers, authors, musicians, publishers, business owners, marketing professionals, programmers, photographers, artists, travelers, creators, etc.

So maybe it's time you remembered to flip the scale. If you invest all your time sharing, following, reading, commenting, and promoting everyone else to get ahead, you will eventually run out of time to do anything worthwhile enough to be noticed.

Right. There are only a few micro-famous people who ever got ahead on social media alone. Most of the people who succeed are too busy doing something else entirely. And then, after that (or in between non-social projects at least), they use social media to talk about it. Or, if you need a more direct example — visit an author blog or two.

And then ask yourself — did social networks make them an author or did becoming an author make them successful at social media? The split is probably somewhere around 99-1, with the great majority being people who took the time to do something.

Finding A Niche: Why Sell Lemonade?

As the weather slowly starts to warm across the country, a few industrious children might put aside their game consoles and opt for something a bit more enterprising like opening a lemonade stand (assuming regulators allow them).

Nowadays, there are only a few, maybe one per city. But let's assume for a minute that more children were ambitious. Let's say all of them.

Can you imagine? In every neighborhood, down every block, and in every driveway, folding tables and handmade signs would color the entire city yellow with packets of Kool-Aid piling up in trash cans. Except, Kool-Aid packets wouldn't pile up. With so many of the same choices, there would be nothing to help the would-be consumer to distinguish which stand to visit.

Marketing Is Much More Than Numbers.

The only possible way for any of these kids to manage a successful lemonade stand would be to develop specializations. There are dozens of ways to do it. They could specialize with a focus on the market, customer, product, or marketing mix.

• Demographic specialist. Perhaps one child would specialize in an older demographic, turning on a portable stereo and playing old hits from the 1980s.

• Product specialist. Maybe another child skips the Kool-Aid mix and decides to only use real lemons handpicked at the local farmer's market.

• Packaging specialist. Perhaps another child decides to skip Dixie cups and only serve the lemonade in frosted glasses that can be kept as long as the customer is willing to pay a premium.

• Service specialist. Maybe another child decides that they can afford to invest in baking sugar cookies, which are offered alongside the lemonade, distinguishing them from the various vendors competing for attention.

• Channel specialist. Perhaps yet another child makes it easier for customers to order their lemonade and introduces a free delivery service that brings the lemonade right to their doorsteps.

• Discount specialist. Maybe one of the children, especially facing pressure to meet all these growing specializations, decides to mark down their product five cents.

• Geographic specialist. Perhaps one of the children emphasizes the location of their lemonade stand, offering up that a percentage of their sales will be donated to a local cause such as cleaning up the neighborhood park.

• Disruption specialist. And yet another child decides that the competition is much less fierce if they decide to offer cranberry juice instead.

• Product-line specialist. Perhaps another child recognizes that the organic lemonade shop is struggling to keep up with business so rather than selling lemonade to consumers, they focus on squeezing organic lemons to help them keep up.

• Broadcast specialist. Maybe another child decides that they can leverage the power of their brand by franchising their lemonade stand to nearby neighborhoods and thus creating a consistent brand message.

And the list goes on, with the underlying premise being that all companies are dependent on whether they are a market leader, challenger, follower, or uniquely specialized as these various lemonade stands became.

Sure, not all of them will be successful but more of them will be successful than if they all tried to produce the same product. And most costumers will be happy because they will be given an increasing number of choices that all the customers will enjoy.

A Quick Look At Black Hat Marketing Tactics.

Of course, there will be a few children who might not appreciate any competition. And they might engage in any number of tactics that aren't designed to benefit the customer but instead diminish the the competition's ability to sell products.

• Legislative disruption. One child might, for example, lobby legislators to pass a law requiring special insurance that makes it more expensive for the channel specialist to employ drivers.

• Fire sale disruption. Perhaps another child doesn't cut his price by a nickel but decides to sell it for a nickel for an extended period of time, taking on substantial debt until successfully forcing competitors out of business.

• Purchase disruption. Maybe another child has more money saved up and buys up all the other lemonade stands on the block for no other reason than to curb competition.

• Recommendation exchange. Maybe two or three children team up and praise each other's lemonade while discounting all the other stands in the neighborhood.

All four of these tactics are viable approaches to businesses and are practiced daily. They are not necessarily ethically challenged in every case, but it's easy to see how they might disrupt the marketplace and work against consumer interest. In some cases, such actions create a marketplace very much like concept we started with when every child was selling virtually the same product.

Where Marketing Naturally Meets Social Media.

When most people think of marketing, they immediately think sales. But marketing isn't about sales at all. It's about product differentiation, especially among niche companies.

When you look back at some of the most successful marketing stories in history, almost none of them have anything to do with sales. In fact, those that abandoned product differentiation for sales have since lost some of their initial luster.

Sure, the ideal niche mix is to find an area of specialization that has a strong enough interest and reasonable growth potential, which will result in sales, but sales don't have to be the primary objective. Finding the right consumers make a bigger impact.

This plays out in social media too. Right now, most people are focusing on new numbers instead of sales — connections, shares, comments, etc. that somehow indicate visionary influence — but none of those things will really bear out over the long term as much as building the right relationships.

In other words, the organic lemonade specialists might not be able to capture all lemonade lovers but they might be able to capture a significant portion of organic lemonade lovers. It might even be to their determent to target all lemonade lovers, people who will complain about the higher price point, bemoan the lack of delivery, or want cranberry juice served too.

Social media has grown up. In the years ahead, expect to see more attention being paid to the marketing side of social media. Companies won't celebrate crossing the one million fan mark as much as they will celebrate crossing the 80-20 percent split between loyal customers and potential buyers.

The same can be said about bloggers too. Content is a product of sorts and the last thing consumers want or need is the same content on every single site. You can differentiate a blog much like companies differentiate their products.

Companies might have to approach any social media campaigns the same way too. Twenty juice companies writing about the industry is boring. Twenty juicers writing about different but related topics that appeal to their demographic might be noticed.

Commenting On Chrysler: Farcical From The Start

It's almost impossible to classify the recent communication focus surrounding Chrysler. Crisis Communication? Overreaction? PR lesson? Damage control? Best practice? PR disaster? Obscene tweet? Social media failure?

Are you kidding me? It's farcical.

All of it. It's especially farcical that less than 140 characters can create a global reaction. But to really appreciate how farcical it is, you need a broader context. The post (that some people have called a best practice) from Chrysler CEO Ed Garsten nails it. (His words in italics).

The hurtful tweet that sparked a firestorm. Oh my.

When a reporter called yesterday snarkily asking, “seen any good tweets lately,” I knew exactly what was coming next -- a firestorm across the web regarding an errant tweet by a now-former employee of Chrysler’s social media agency.

The tweet denigrated drivers in Detroit and used the fully spelled-out F-word. It was obviously meant to be posted on the person’s personal twitter account, and not the Chrysler Brand account where it appeared.

The tweet, reportedly written by Scott Bartosiewicz, account supervisor at New Media Strategies, on Chryslar's Twitter stream, read "I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to fucking drive."

He worked for the agency for eight months. He's a long-time Michigan resident, maybe a native. He made a mistake. It wasn't even a big mistake.

A big mistake might be having to recall 248,000 crossover wagons and minivans or 20,459 Jeep Wranglers. A tiny mistake is saying the wrong thing to 7,000 people who happened to follow Chrysler at the time ... minus spam accounts, minus people who weren't on Twitter, minus people who don't pay attention but follow the brand anyway.

Right. About seven people saw the tweet, including a "snarky reporter" as characterized by Garsten. Hopefully, the reporter is less sensitive than Detroit drivers are toward being "unfairly criticized."

The mean agency fired the guy before they were fired. Oh my.

First, Chrysler did not fire this person since this wasn’t one of our employees. The agency did. It was their decision. We didn’t demand it.

No, Chrysler did not fire the employee. They fired the entire agency. However, some have suggested the change was already top of mind. The errant tweet was just the final straw.

Let's be honest. Had the employee not been fired, he would have been after Chrysler pulled the account.

The sheer horror and anguish of being powerless to stop it. Oh my.

Second, as the day and night wore on, comments on various social media sites increasingly expressed either dismay that someone would lose their job over an online oops and that Chrysler was acting, as one poster put it, “in a stiff, corporate way.” Some posters even asked why we didn’t make light of an accidental “f-bomb."

Exactly right. The mistake didn't cause any sensationalism. It was the initial lie — our account was compromised — that sparked conversation.

You can even see it in the screen shots. The initial tweet wasn't retweeted even after being up for more than three hours. The correction, however, drew immediate attention.

And then, after the firing, the audience for the "incident" swelled from seven people to seven million. And on. And on.

The insensitivity of people for not recognizing all the hard work. Oh my.

So why were we so sensitive? That commercial featuring the Chrysler 200, Eminem and the City of Detroit wasn’t just an act of salesmanship. This company is committed to promoting Detroit and its hard-working people. The reaction to that commercial, the catchphrase “imported from Detroit,” and the overall positive messages it sent has been volcanic.”

Volcanic? Chrysler is doing better, but it still has a long, long way to go. U.S. sales might have risen 13 percent, but Chrysler Group sales were already up 17 percent in 2010 compared with 2009.

But even those numbers don't tell the whole story. You have to appreciate how far sales had to drop before the company could have a gain.

The entire future of the town rests right here. Oh my.

Indeed, as an automaker that went through the roughest of times just two years ago, we appreciate the challenges Detroit faces in reclaiming its place as a vibrant, world-class city. Inside Detroit, citizens are becoming even more proud of their town, and outside the region, perception of Detroit is rapidly improving.

With so much goodwill built up over a very short time, we can’t afford to backslide now and jeopardize this progress.

We need to keep the momentum going -- rebuilding a region and an industry, and not let anything slow us down. It’s what we do.

Is he really saying that 140 characters could somehow undermine the entire economic future of the region and erode all the pride that Detroit citizens have in their town? That's crazy talk. If Detroit is a tough town, one accidental tweet would not undermine their spirit. Heck, even if they did care, hurling a few F-words back at Bartosiewicz would have sufficed.

Suck it up. Unless a crisis is catastrophic (e.g., oil spills and product recalls), the organization establishes the severity of the so-called crisis. This wasn't a crisis. It has, however, become a publicity circus. And honestly, it's not even a very good circus.

The farcical commentaries that suggest tweet "recovery" strategies.

When you consider what constitutes news, the entire incident can be likened to the :15 second clip of a squirrel on water skiis. It's an oddity that we all might chuckle about it instead of trying to frame it within the context of tragedy.

And yet, hundreds of communicators have treated the entire affair like a serious crisis communication case study. The worst of it includes offering up of social media safeguards and running down communication response punch lists. They might as well write a contingency plan for an employee with a hangover. The seriousness of it all just can't be taken seriously.

No one needs a communication strategy for one errant tweet. All anyone needs is common sense. Use common sense and lighten up.