Considering Effectiveness: Face-To-Face vs. Technology?

According to a new survey conducted by J. Spargo & Associates, Inc., meeting planners believe that technology cannot replace specific benefits related to face-to-face meetings. However, based upon the six benefits meeting planners said cannot be replaced by technology, those surveyed demonstrate that while they are right in general, their conclusions only demonstrate they may not be using technology to its full potential.

What Meeting Planners Said Technology Cannot Replace

1. Socializing and networking spontaneously. Half True. Social networks do provide a social outlet and spontaneous networking built around topical interests and an opportunity to learn more about people on a social basis. However, face-to-face does provide an opportunity for participants to experience something beyond other connection points. Where social networks win out is in the ability to establish more consistent engagement.

2. Helping attendees best put names with faces. False. Actually, social networks and blogs that include accurate photos and full names can be more powerful than meetings. Anyone who has attended any conference consisting of social network participants and bloggers know that when they meet face-to-face, social networking not only makes people immediately recognizable, there is an immediate connection that would require dozens of face-to-face meetings to establish.

3. Allowing more free and open dialogue between attendees and vendors/presenters. Half True. Social networks and blogging can create a free and open dialogue between attendees and vendors/presenters, particularly on networks like Facebook. Where face-to-face might win is often in the depth of the conversation and provide the ability to enjoy a private and candid dialogue (assuming someone won't post it later).

4. Training effectively via live and personal interaction. False. While face-to-face can provide an effective arena for training via live and personal interaction for some skill sets, Webinars and online presentations have come a long way and sometimes provide better retention as the formats require more focus.

5. Paying greater attention to others when face-to-face. False. As mentioned, Webinars and online training can provide more focus on the material being presented as opposed to conducting meetings where note passing/texting/breaks often become more important than the material. Online meetings eliminate the emphasis we place on body language.

6. Engaging in real-time conversation that is not interrupted by technical glitches. False. Anyone who has spoken in enough forums knows that face-to-face meetings that include any audio-visual component have an equal opportunity to be set back by technological glitches. It's why most people never speak unless they have a contingency plan.

Technology And Face-To-Face Work In Tandem

There seems to be ample discussion that centers around the concept that face-to-face and technology can operate independently of one another. On the contrary, they tend to work best in tandem. Here are six examples:

1. Face-to-face provides a greater opportunity to establish corporate culture, with technology providing a means to reinforce it.

2. Face-to-face provides a greater opportunity to conduct impromptu gatherings after structured events to discuss what was learned, and technology (instant message services like Twitter) can be used to help facilitate it.

3. Face-to-face clearly provides a better venue to communicate change, deliver bad news, and provide meaningful recognition, with technology allows such information to recapped, defined in depth, or shard beyond the face-to-face audience.

4. Face-to-face deepens relationships in that online relationships, even those that seem intense, are sometimes turned on/off as easily as a television program. Conversely, as noted, technology increases the opportunity for engagement between such meetings.

5. Face-to-face provides a 360-degree view of how people interact whereas technology tends to provide a glimpse of how people think. Both are equally important.

6. Face-to-face education can provide some tactile advantages in teaching someone how to do something whereas technology provides an ability to review specific sections of the material over and over again. Sometimes, it takes less time.

I always chuckle when someone runs in to me someplace and then follows up with a note that says it was great to see me in "real life" as if online communication is somehow artificial. As communicators, we can serve our clientele better by looking at how to bridge face-to-face and online communication rather than think the two streams somehow work against each other.

Harvard Business Publishing recently released an update entitled "Creating and Sustaining a Winning Culture" by Paul Meehan, Darrell Rigby, and Paul Rogers. In the article, the authors use Sydney, Australia–based St. George Bank as an example, the CEO broke down departmental silos by bringing executives together to jointly define a new culture and then allowed the executives to drive that message into the organization with a singular voice.

Considering this example of effective culture building as it relates to face-to-face meetings vs. technology provides an opportunity to chart an effective approach using both. Had it been available, St. George Bank could have defined the message after face-to-face meetings, allowed the executives to deliver the message, reinforced these messages via online internal and external communication channels, and encouraged cross-departmental interaction.

Lacking Sense: WWF Brasil, DDB Brasil, The One Show

In less than a day after a WWF representative told Adweek that a controversial and tasteless advertisement that attempts to capitalize on the 9/11 atrocity was "never authorized or approved by any WWF person on the planet," WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil issued a joint statement of apology that indicates WWF does share responsibility. WWF even issued a statement to that effect.

"WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil would like to jointly express their regret for the unfortunate incident involving the 'Tsunami' ad for World Wildlife Fund Brasil. The ad does not convey either the philosophy of the client or that of its advertising agency.

It was created and approved in late 2008, mistakenly, and was solely the result of lack of experience on the part of a few professionals from both parties involved. In no way was it done in bad faith or with disrespect to American suffering.

WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil acknowledge that such an ad never should have been made, approved or published. We reiterate our apologies to all those who may have been offended by it. The two entities have worked together for three years to mobilize people, efforts and resources for the good of the environment. A single error should not obscure past successes, nor prevent future ones."

— WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil

The ad, called Tsunami, was created by a team at DDB Brasil in December 2008, approved by WWF Brasil and ran. According to the agency, the team that created the advertisement is no longer at the agency.

Despite that statement, Adweek's investigation has found the ad won an award of merit for public service at The One Show this year. It was also released again by the agency for inclusion in Advertolog this August.

While Sergio Valente, president of DDB Brasil, said it ran once in a small local paper and he stopped it from running again, the Advertolog submission lists him as the lead creative director along with Rodolfo Sampaio, Julio Andery, and Guilherme Jahara. Based the number of occasions their names appear together, all of these people seem to be on the agency payroll, along with Adriano Matos, copywriter. Either that, or their departures were very recent.

Public Relations Sometimes Means Investigation

Where WWF went wrong was in issuing a statement before the investigation. Since, they haven't made any noise about the discovery that their promise — "On behalf of WWF, here in the US and around the world, we can promise you this ad does not in any way reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people of our organization.” — was flawed in that someone at a WWF office did approve the ad.

And, according to Valente, he (and not anyone at WWF) was the one to stop it. Or this.

The lesson here is simple enough for public relations practitioners. Never make hard statements until you have the facts.

If there was any chance anyone at WWF was involved, saying there was an investigation ought to have been enough. As for everyone else, the lessons become slightly more complex with common sense serving as the foundation for all of it.

WWF Brasil needs to do more than issue a joint apology. DDB Brasil ought to stop adding more confusion to what seems to be a growing mountain of mistruths. And The One Show might rethink its selection process.

Advertising awards don't need to be an exercise in creating over-the-top ads that most clients would not approve, run it once, and then take home trophies. If that is all there is to it, The One Show ought to pass out an award to the casino marketing professional who cheered on the California wildfires on Facebook last week because it might mean business.

Funny, huh?

Sure, we all take chances in advertising. But you don't take so many chances that your ability to crow over awards becomes eating crow over ethics. More on this soon.

Uniting People: International Literacy Day

"Teaching children and adults to read, write, and comprehend is not only our essential duty and investment in America's future; it is also an act of love." — John Corcoran

If you are unfamiliar with the name, John Corcoran is an extraordinary man who graduated from high school and college to go on to become a secondary school teacher before becoming a businessman. What makes his particular story extraordinary is that Corcoran never learned to read. You can read his entire story here.

"It was not uncommon for me to find almost half of my students unable to read past a third-grade level. I couldn't teach them to read, but I could help them learn as I had learned." — Corcoran

I had the pleasure of meeting Corcoran while serving on the board of the Southern Nevada Literacy Coalition, which was a leading coalition comprised of literacy providers and business communicators. He was humble, almost soft-spoken, but extremely articulate in presenting his story as well as how many children and adults masterfully hide their inability to read.

"For all those teaching years, I avoided facing the real problem in their lives and my own, revealing one of the shortcomings of progressive education." — Corcoran

While some progress is being made in the United States, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) estimates one child in four grows up not knowing how to read and more than 40 percent of adults only possess level one reading skills (which makes them marginally functional). Illiteracy can also be directly linked to crime, health care costs, and poverty.

"The link between academic failure and delinquency, violence, and crime is welded to reading failure." — United States Department of Justice

While not reporting on the tiered literacy system, the United Nations estimates 776 million adults lack even minimum literacy skills worldwide. And, according to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), it is widely held that in modern societies "literacy skills are fundamental to informed decision-making, personal empowerment, active and passive participation in local and global social community." (Stromquist, 2005, p. 12)

This Sept. 8, in recognition of International Literacy Day, which was established by UNESCO, thousands of bloggers are joining BloggersUnite.org and the APPLE Partnership in cooperation with Barnes & Noble; BlogCatalog.com; the City of Henderson (Nevada); Copywrite, Ink.; FedEx; PBS&J; and Wal-Mart to dedicate a post, instant message, or news release related to International Literacy Day.

The APPLE Partnership, along with its sponsors, was chosen in part for its ability to provide a worthwhile example of how communities can develop public-private partnerships to improve literacy, but there are other examples around the world. On Sept. 8, we're dedicating several posts that speak to the issue of literacy. We hope you join us with the intent to help people who can read appreciate the severity of the challenge and guide them toward supporting programs that make a difference locally and globally.

"In this era of widening disparities, literacy brings not only greater self-esteem but also opportunities to those who have been disenfranchised, marginalized and neglected: neo-literates acquire greater capacity and skills to raise their income levels, build sustainable livelihoods, gain access to health and educational services, and engage in the public arena." — Koïchiro Matsuura, director-general of UNESCO

Rethinking Volkswagen: Five Agencies

There seems to be a bit of buzz about Volkswagen shopping five new agencies to helm a campaign backed by a $220 million media buy that Volkswagen represents. And some even seem to lament that Crispin Porter + Bogusky declined to defend it.

Don't lament. The decision comes after 2008 realized a 14 percent decline in sales from 2007. While some might blame a tough year for automakers, the real unraveling came after one of the biggest branding mistakes ever made.

"Max," the German-accented black Beetle that Crispin chose to represent the brand, clearly missed the mark. And while some people still argue that the Crispin work was rarely ignored, it's easy enough to make the case that Volkswagen would have been lucky had some of the work been ignored. With exception to the "Safety Happens" campaign years ago, Crispin spent years dismantling the sophisticated cool creative delivered by Arnold years ago. Ads so powerful they helped people rediscover Nick Drake as much as the Cabrio.

Any new agency pitching with the hope to return Volkswagen to the second age of great creative might reflect on the work Arnold laid down before Crispin walked couples on the lot of a Volkswagen dealership to prevent her from "birthing children for German engineering." What was missing through most of the campaigns is what Arnold taught us about Volkswagen and Ogilvy & Mather before that — the brand relationship between the drivers and the cars was passionate and the advertising worked best when it celebrated that passion with the sweet spot always found between overtly forced and mainstream.

It was also the concept we carried forward with The Idea Factory in Las Vegas when Findlay Volkswagen wanted to open against a 20-year plus Volkswagen dealership that had gone so mainstream it employed John Elway as a spokesperson with price points. In contrast, we focused on the passion between the drivers and the cars, giving some personalities like Crispin did, but without the cornball gimmick of a German accent and a company spokesperson.

Instead, we told stories about drivers who became jealous when people admired their "girl," a man confessing he coveted a Beetle owned by the priest he was confessing to, or a car calling its owner to "sneak out" for a ride while his wife was sleeping. Arnold always approved the ads with reimbursement for full production because they married well with the national campaigns.

At the end of four months, Findlay Volkswagen ranked first in the state and fourth in the region. It continued to set new records every quarter until the agency's account executive jumped ship and took the account with him. His intent was to make the dealer more mainstream too, and he overshot with ads featuring singing kids that failed to reach the audience. The dealership has never seen the same success for the same reason the Crispin ads didn't connect, except in the opposite direction.

Volkswagen is anything but mainstream, but the consumers who buy them aren't shock advertising savvy either. They're smart people who appreciate the brand distinction without the price.

Turning Channels: Consumers Choose The Internet

If you're looking for more evidence that social media needs to be part of any communication plan, consider that social media is mainstream for more than 90 percent of all Americans. In fact, according to Forrester Research, four in five Americans use a social media platform at least once a month. More than half gravitate to services like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.

The Big Picture, By The Numbers

According to Forrester Research, adults over the age of 34 increased their participation in social networks by more than 60 percent. Older audiences have also adopted social media, with 70 percent of online adults ages 55 and older using social media tools at least once a month (26 percent use social networks and 12 percent create social content). Here are more numbers to reinforce the Forrester survey...

• As reported by USA Today, 250 million people are now members of Facebook, spending 13.9 billion minutes on the social network.

• About 30 million Facebook members already access social networks through mobile devices. ad:tech estimates mobile marketing is expected to grow over $24 billion worldwide in 2013 from $1.8 billion in 2007.

• According to comScore, Twitter users spend 66 percent more dollars on the Internet than non-Twitter users. They invested 300 million minutes on the site in April.

• LinkedIn has more than 365,000 company profiles. More than 12 million small business professionals are members of LinkedIn.

• More than 1 million small businesses and individuals promote their goods and services on MySpace. This is despite its steady decline in usage.

• The fastest-growing segment on the Internet is over 35, representing more purchasing power than any single traditional medium can deliver on its own. Even television is being outpaced by the Internet in terms of time invested, which is why most networks are migrating online.

Digital Media, By The Numbers

According to comScore, 158 million U.S. Internet users watched online video during this month, making it the largest viewing audience to date. More than 21.4 billion videos were viewed.

• 81 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.

• The average online video viewer watched 500 minutes of video, or 8.3 hours.

• 120.3 million viewers watched 8.9 billion videos on YouTube.com (74.1 videos per viewer).

• 48.2 million viewers watched 518.6 million videos on MySpace.com (10.8 videos per viewer).

What It Means For Businesses

Forrester Research has been a long-time proponent of integrated marketing approaches, conducting several studies that indicate traditional media's broken business model and fragmented audiences have disrupted traditional strategies. But beyond typically measured growth trends — numbers of members and time spent online — there are several key trends companies will have to consider as they integrate social media into the mix. Here are five:

• The average person will only follow or support a finite number of products and companies, making the social media program just as important as the product. People do not want constant updates as much as they want added value and original content.

• While the largest services — Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace — are current darlings, several social networks have sparked and then sputtered as policies change, services change, and companies are bought out. The social media space is constantly changing, making long-term strategy more important than short-term tactics.

• The chances that customers will seek out companies, products, or services on social networks is remarkably slim. Agencies and public relations firms that attempt to bill friends and followers as the ultimate measure are short-selling clients as many people join groups or follow companies and promptly ignore them. Measurement doesn't end with a connection.

• Media-Internet convergence means an increased need to consider mobile marketing. With new portable products coming online in the months ahead from Apple and others attempting to follow them, every company ought to be thinking about digital content not based on singular devices (phones, computers, etc.), but based on scalability and portability.

• Companies that engage people online have already seen an average increase in revenue by 18 percent, while those that did not saw a decline in revenue by 6 percent over the last year. Eventually, companies that ignore social media tools will fade away, much like those that didn't adopt the telephone years and years ago.

Inventing History: Malleable Memories

David DiSalvo, freelance writer and self-described research wonk, nicely summed two studies from the journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology that suggest what we remember may not be reality, especially when presented with evidence that seems to support what did not happen.

Can false memories be adopted?

After participants were asked to perform a computerized multiple choice gambling task, they were prompted to withdraw money from a bank when they answered correctly and deposit money when they answered incorrectly. At the end of the task, researchers told participants that they were caught cheating. Some participants were told that there was video evidence showing that they took money (but were not shown the video) after answering incorrectly while others were shown false video “proving” that they cheated. In a second study, participants were accused of cheating more than one time.

The results of both experiments were surprising. When shown fake evidence, nearly 100 percent falsely confessed, and 67 percent (Experiment 1) and 73 percent (Experiment 2) believed they committed a false act. But even when subjects were told that video evidence existed, nearly 100 percent falsely confessed, and 60 percent (Experiment 1) and 13 percent (Experiment 2) developed false beliefs.

In a similar study, participants conducted the task with a second person and were then told the other person had cheated and asked to sign a witness statement. In the second study, nearly 40 percent of the participants who watched the video complied. Another 10 percent signed when asked a second time. Only 10 percent of those who were only told about the video agreed to sign, and about 5 percent of the control group signed the statement.

How does this apply to communication?

A significant amount of communication happens in real time or near real time. In some instances, participants may debate or disagree about any number of issues and topics that sometimes evolve into a drama. However, not all dramas may be legitimate, even when evidence seems to support them as such.

John Mackey's Aug. 11 opinion in the The Wall Street Journal may qualify as a fitting example. While there was no outrage in his opinion piece that offered alternative ideas to health care reform, the retelling of false inferences combined with content taken out of context as evidence has fueled some odd and fabricated outrage.

Today, there were about 100 stories with continuing coverage about the boycott, with an emphasis on a Facebook group dedicated to boycotting Whole Foods. There are about 30,000 members. (There is also an anti-boycott group growing at a faster pace, if you can believe it.)

By comparisons to other cause-driven efforts I've covered — ranging from the cancellation of Jericho and Veronica Mars to outrage over Motrin or push back on United Airlines, any fire behind any boycott seems overblown no matter how some agenda-driven proponents attempt to fan it.

Still, both Whole Foods and Mackey have exhibited some regret over the piece, with Whole Foods apologizing while clarifying that Mackey's opinions are not the official stance of the company. In a way, they've accepted an erred definition that providing any opinion was ill-advised.

It really wasn't ill-advised. But with the case being made with the thinnest of evidence, it may be remembered as such. Weird.

Of course, if anyone prefers a simpler example, consider how an old friend might share a memory we don't recollect. We may accept their account, even if they made it up. And, we're even more likely to accept it if they have a photo or video that offers any evidence, even if the evidence is only implied or supportive without a direct correlation to the story. Malleable, indeed.