Arnold's Druthers

Thoughts on Jakob Nielsen's feedback of Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:02:00 +0000

After reading the article in BusinessWeek interviewing Jakob Nielsen on his critiques of Twitter, I thought...

While I agree that not all CEOs should be on Twitter, I do think that companies cannot ignore the power and reach of social networks like it. I actually don’t care to follow too many CEOs. I would rather follow the key people that really are running the business (creative types, people in RnD, the new thinkers that are industry-obsessed about the same things I am obsessed with, etc).

Companies should be using this medium to organically empower people that are passionate about ideals, services and products that all support and align their own purpose. For example, if you produce a widget, why not have someone on your team who is passionate about the industry speak and connect with like-minded people. Building these connections are about establishing brand ambassadors. It’s also about building compassion and passion, sharing information and learning. Take this approach and Twitter makes sense. If you have unrealistic expectations that people will want to follow you just because you are a CEO, well you are missing the point.

Use Twitter to empower those that are most passionate. People will follow.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet.

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:25:00 +0000

“Just got to work.” “Sitting in my chair now.” “Anyone know of any good apps for my iPhone?” All mocking Tweets from a viral video being circulated that pretty much says Twitter is useless. It is funny, really funny, I have to admit (also checkout the video about Tweeting celebs). BUT, as a Twitterer and a marketer I would like to make a counterpoint to help those joining the bandwagon of anti-Twitterisms.

Yes, there are people (annoying people, I agree) who Tweet about everything they do, and do it without apparent purpose. From going to the loo (as the Chairman of Virgin put it in an interview with BusinessWeek) to random thoughts of nothingness, even today’s lunch which included an avocado sandwich with sprouts on wheat. Sprinkled among them are users that evidently self-promote and make no effort to hide it.

It is totally understandable that companies and their marketing executives would doubt the power of this social network, especially as the number of naysayers and harsh generalizations, from many self-proclaimed social media experts, grow. To me, some simply don’t understand who really uses a network like Twitter. And they have not experienced the REAL purpose of Twitter, leaving them to mock what they don’t understand. While some are busy going back and forth about Twitter’s viability as a sustainable platform, a major opportunity is passing them by.

There is a very valuable group of people out there Tweeting. Many use Twitter as an efficient means to exchange information and valuable insights. And those of us that use it for this purpose openly criticize people that distribute mind-numbing self-centered rants. Once a Twitvandal is identified, they start loosing followers (really engaged followers, not those that opened an account because of Oprah). These engaged Twitterers are who you need to be paying attention to because they are gaining in force. These groups of people are more connected, more in tune, and more likely to be your trendsetters and influencers across many industry niches.

Even if you don’t want to be an active participant in conversations, marketers have a unique opportunity to listen. I can’t tell you how many times I thought to myself, “I wish I could just get inside the heads of this particular group of people. Understand what they like, what they do, how they speak and what they are passionate about to help me be a better marketer.” With new tracking and search tools arriving daily this kind of information is at our fingertips. You can find people that use Twitter to engage others that share common interests and enthusiasm. You can even have a bird’s eye view of their conversations. Pinpoint and engage people within the most obscure niches, and they will welcome you with open arms because they are there to share (as long as you abide by the appropriate social media etiquette).

I can’t possibly be the only person excited about this.

Through Twitter, I have discovered new experts (I mean the real experts like the industry obsessed that I can get honest opinions from like @svartling, @mashable, @joelrubinson, @PR_CoutureFashion, @adbroad, @nlupus, @kyleplacy, @shanegibson @chrisbrogan, etc.), great bloggers (The Counter Intuitive CEO, Geeky Grrrl, Graphic Design Blog), talented aspiring artists and fresh thinking writers (@meaghano), and even online magazines (Silicon Alley Insider, @TechCrunch). I get a glimpse inside the minds of executives at some of the biggest and most admired brands and companies from around the world (@zappos, @GaryStockman, @yodera). Along with daily doses of some super dandy brain candy, I also get really great laughs (@TheOnion), even from shared experiences – simply put in 140 characters or less.

Today, @bogusky Tweeted “Even a good day in advertising contains at least one swift kick to the nuts.” Ahhh, how refreshing to know that even the industry’s best known shares something with me.

Twitter has heightened my industry awareness to topics I knew I was passionate about and even shed light on reasoning and opportunities that may have not yet made it on my radar.

Not to mention, I feel that I am more efficient, more connected and growing professionally through those that I follow on Twitter.

So Tweet on my good people. Non-Tweeters… gather all the facts before you judge.

@mpriestarnold

Twitter takes a hit on retention, but that could be a good thing.

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:04:00 +0000

So the numbers are in and at first glance Twitter takes a hit with a low retention rate. According to Nielsen Wire, “Currently, more than 60 percent of Twitter users fail to return the following month, or in other words, Twitter’s audience retention rate, or the percentage of a given month’s users who come back the following month, is currently about 40 percent. For most of the past 12 months, pre-Oprah, Twitter has languished below 30 percent retention.”

Before you let your executives think that this means Twitter is not a fit for your company or you decide to dismiss the opportunity, remember this: most influencers display higher rates of technology use and are early adopters. With this in mind, you have an opportunity to clarify your message to a group of very desirable people. People who have a distinct interest in being engaged and are more likely to engage and influence those around them.

Going back to my earlier post stating that no single social network can be all things to all people, I again think that having a variety of social networks is a good thing. Distinctive networks will allow you to communicate in different ways and will help you build specific relationships with different groups based on how they want to receive their information.

Not every customer wants to be engaged at the level that social networks allow. Be sure to understand your social audience and the opportunity. Someone who follows you on Facebook may not be the same customer that follows you on Twitter, or comments on your blog posts. Sure, you will have some that do it all, but use social to track behavior and better understand the profiles of your key influencing base of customers. Take this information to better segment your approach to connect with people the way they want to be connected with for the best returns.

I see this lower retention rate being the equivalent of cycling out the weaker links (in terms of targeting influencers). And I have a pretty good feeling if the retention rates of other networks were compared, they would be very similar.

The future, I am sure, will bring plenty of new technologies to help us use social behavior to understand our customers in new ways that we have yet to realize. So get out there and engage, learn and prepare for a very quick evolution of social. Our marketing efforts are going to be kept on their toes.

Follow me @mpriestarnold.

Profit ruins everything... Unless you have authentic brand!

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:08:00 +0000

So here we are again. Another tech company that experienced one-time great success taken over by the immediacy of monetization. Of course with the crippled traditional media market, business people are salivating over anything that reaches the masses and has the capability of filling the advertising void, so I understand why MySpace (and many others) are eager to make their business plans work.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not a MySpace fan, but value the importance of having several varieties of social networks to hit across all demographic segments. Anyone who thinks one social network can be it all to every audience is a bit naive. Facebook should not be Twitter, and MySpace should not be Facebook. How each network allows you to be social, will attract certain types of people. And that's OK. We all know competition is good.

But back to my point... I am very curious to see how the very networks, which are all about providing an authentic vehicle for people to be themselves, may quickly take a very unauthentic path. What does all this mean? MySpace needs to figure out what it is (beyond just being another social network) before it can reach sustainable success. It won't matter who they put in place or how smart they are. If MySpace doesn't know who it is as a brand, and what its authentic brand purpose is, it will inevitably fail. I can only hope they know this, but are not sharing, and are using their insider understanding to recruit executive talent that align with their purpose. If not, they are especially doomed if the only agreed upon understanding of purpose is to drive profit, and fast.

Good luck MySpace. I need you to make a successful go at this change - there are advertisers looking to target your audience. You just need to clarify who your audience is and what your relationship needs to be with them.

The iPhone will Fail... NOT!

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:55:00 +0000

In a recent article by Al Ries, published in Ad Age entitled “Why the iPhone Will Fail,” Mr. Ries stated the following:

“When Apple introduces its iPhone this month, will it pass the acid test?
In my opinion, no.

Prediction No. 1: The iPhone will be a major disappointment. The hype has been enormous. Apple says its iPhone is "literally five years ahead of any other mobile phone." A stock-market analyst says, "The iPhone has the potential to be even bigger than the iPod." I think not. An iPod is a divergence device; an iPhone is a convergence device. There's a big difference between the two. In the high-tech world, divergence devices have been spectacular successes. But convergence devices, for the most part, have been spectacular failures. The first MP3 players (the Diamond Rio, for example) were flash-memory units capable of holding only 20 or 30 songs. The first iPod, on the other hand, had a hard drive and could hold thousands of songs. Now there were two types of MP3 players, a classic example of divergence at work. Every high-tech device has followed a similar pattern. The first computer was a mainframe computer, followed by the minicomputer, the desktop computer, the laptop computer, the handheld computer, the server and other specialty computers. The computer didn't converge with another device. It diverged. When the cellphone was first introduced, it was called a "car phone" because it was too big and heavy to lug around. You might have thought it would eventually converge with the automobile. It did not. Instead it diverged and today we have many types of cellphones. Every Best Buy and Circuit City is filled with a host of other divergence devices that have been enormously successful: the digital camera, the plasma TV, the wireless e-mail device, the personal video recorder, the GPS navigation device. What convergence device has been a big success? Not many, although there have been a lot of convergence failures.”

I could not disagree more!

I understand that the best predictor for the future is the past. However, you cannot ignore the changing landscape and expect that history will continue to be repeated when consumer needs have changed.

It is this very ignorance that is plaguing the entire advertising industry – predominantly on the consultant and agency side. Repeatedly, I see so called experts reverting to old ways because they clearly do not understand today’s technology and therefore tomorrow’s consumer.
Media consumption habits have changed. It is time that you stop preaching the ways of the past and start reading up on your clients’ consumers – they have changed and want convergence.
Of course, I agree that execution is key, but it is not convergence that will fail.

The true problem is that many organizations are so anxious to stay a technological step ahead of competition, that they ignore consumer need. Convergence has failed in the instances that you listed because the consumer was not ready – need was not evident in the consumers’ mind.
As technology continues to change the habits of media consumption, consumer needs will aggressively begin to demand more and more convergence in order to obtain access to information on their own terms.

Convergence will succeed if it is based on meeting a need – not just selling widgets.

Predictive Ad Targeting is Not New.

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:38:00 +0000

In a recent Online Spin, the following was written by Dave Morgan:

"What do I think is next? Predictive targeting.
What's that? Predictive is one step closer to the Holy Grail of delivering the right ad to the right person at the right time in the right place. It is about truly understanding enough about the consumer's state of mind at a moment within a particular media or marketing environment to be able to predict what he or she likely needs, wants or desires -- and being able to satisfy or advance that need, want or desire with a commercial message.

It has two components. First, you need to predict the future. You need to predict what consumers likely need, want or desire. Second, you need to have a way to change that future, even if it is only to reinforce and insure that what is likely to happen actually does happen. You need to understand what type of commercial message can make the desired future most likely to occur. How do you do that?"

Well, here is what I think...

We have been doing this for many years, not just a few. Moreover, this is not a new idea. The difference is that we can now know with more certainty than ever before. Data is a beautiful thing and allows us to target and plan with more efficiency. However, it is a double-edged sword. The thing we have learned with social media is that consumers can often be very unpredictable, no matter the amount of data we collect on them. At best, we can predict with statistical certainty.

We are definitely closer than ever before, but those of us that take the ideas and make the promises to clients must be sure to under promise and over deliver.
Predictive advertising is lifestyle marketing on data-roids. Not new, just improved.

Tips for Working for an Ad Agency

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:48:00 +0000

Large or small, ad agencies can offer a lot of great experience. However, that being said they can also be some of the most aggravating places to work. They can be very intriguing, so it is not hard for them to get a pile of resumes to choose from. If you are looking to work for an ad agency, or maybe you are thinking about leaving your agency to work for another, here are a few tips to consider.

In my opinion, non-compete contacts have gotten a bit out of hand, so it is important to take a deep breath before you sign and consider negotiating what you are about to sign. Of course it should be said that these are my opinions and I am not a lawyer. These are a few things to ask for:

Ask that the geographic reach for the non-compete be less than 30 miles. This is a reasonable amount. Honestly in today’s world geography is really not an issue. Companies can go global with the click of a button, but many agencies are lagging in their tech awareness and still want to enforce a 50-60 mile radius for the non-compete. If they won’t negotiate, you may want to reconsider the offer.

Non-competes can be very general in defining the ad agencies market. It is important that they define what it is that they consider their market to be (i.e. are they focusing on small business, medium or large companies; do they build Web sites; can they design software; are their niche industries they work within; are they business to business or business to consumer?

This can help you have a wider selection of groups to work for after your departure. This is because if you want to work for an agency whose market is definably different than that of your former agency, you are just fine working for the “competition”.

If they just say “advertising and marketing” as their market, that is not good enough.
Ask that the non-compete not go into effect for 120 days from your start date. This will give you enough time to determine if the company is a fit. Turnover is very, very high in the agency world and you don’t want to be pigeon-holed as soon as you step foot into your new job.

Ask that your role be defined, and in writing. This is really for any job. Make sure you know what your role will be before you start the job.

Get your bonus structure in writing. This also includes how long they hold your bonus; if the structure is different based on type of project; and etc.

Ask what their creative process is. Why is this important? Because if you are a creative person with great ideas, the last thing you want is to be cut out of the creative process and just delegated work rather than being involved in the process. Trust me, your creative spirit will be crushed and you will be totally bored with the work, so address it up front.

Ask to see their portfolio of work. This will give you an idea of what their design, copy and other abilities include. I could have kicked myself for not doing this in the past. I have gone to work for an agency whose work was so bad that I vomited in my mouth a little once I realized who I was working for – totally no understanding of white space, horrible copy, Web sites that were like brochures, etc… Learn from my mistakes!

Ok, so maybe you are already stuck in a non-compete and feel like you are chained to your desk, well here are some resources.

Great resource!
http://www.breakyournoncompete.com/

General Non Compete Info
http://employeeissues.com/non-compete_agreement.htm

Non Compete Lawyer Insights
http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/non-compete-covenant-FAQs.htm

Break Your Non-compete.com offers an outline revealing defenses to help an employee break a non-compete agreement.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_11_47/ai_94161935

US Dept of Labor
http://www.dol.gov/

Is it me or are ad agencies going out of style?

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Tue, 22 May 2007 03:00:00 +0000

Just wondering because I see more and more clients dropping their agencies. I have worked in the agency world for a while and nothing is more apparent to me than how so, sooooo, many agency people want to sell what they think is best. Hello, McFly… just because it looks great or sounds cool doesn’t mean it will deliver the return that the client wants. And here’s another concept: just because some new technology was in Adage last week doesn’t mean your client needs it.

Here’s an idea, listen to what your client really wants. Then solve their problems instead of selling them something you want or need to add to your portfolio.

I went into another market down south a month ago and was astonished at how shitty the marketing and advertising was. Then, I realized that I had to stop myself. Who am I to say something doesn’t work? If the bar is set low, why should someone come and raise the bar if the same old shit is working? And why would a client listen to someone selling something they don’t have a need for yet? It’s like asking for inflation to take effect early.

I do believe that this thinking and the shifting media landscape will kill off a lot of agencies and force them to go into project mode. There will be an agency revolution and I believe many new agencies that get technology and efficiency will become the leaders of our agency world.

Effective PR, really.

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:46:00 +0000

Why is it that so many professionals don’t understand public relations? I mean real PR, effective PR. And they don’t get newsworthy or leverage and strategic placements. It eats me up when I see very experienced professionals trying to sell something that is not a fit. Don’t waste your time. Instead work harder on the sell. Make the connection.

Just because you build it, does not mean they will come.

Here are a few tips:
1. Read. Read. Read.
2. Know your media inside and out.
3. Do the litmus test. Show your pitch to someone not familiar with the concept at all. Do they look stupefied after you finish? Or do they have a look of interest? If the first, then head back to the think tank.
4. Customize your pitch. Make it connect with each person you are reaching out to. No mass marketing with pitching.
5. Know your elevator pitch. Make it to the point, relative and newsworthy.
6. Follow up. But, don’t be annoying. Give ideas and be flexible. Ask what would interest them. Trust me it will work if you engage the reporter. They get pitched all day long.
7. Finally, even after you think you have the placement. Follow up and confirm and verify.

Agency Blues

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:56:00 +0000

I gotta say one thing about an ad agency. It should be a house of ideas. A lot of ideas. No single person has all the answers, which is how agencies came to be. If you work at an agency, you expect creative outlets. If the outlets are not present, you will likely move on. So why is it, time and time again, agency owners want to have so much control?

My husband said something to me yesterday that made complete sense, and if – no when – I have my own shop, I will live by this motto.

Someone who fosters great talent, mentors and allows growth of those around them builds a company, in fact a legacy. Someone who does all the work and does not delegate, or spread opportunities to others, or is a control freak, is only building a job for life.

This is soooooo true!

Every agency I have worked with I see owners and partners that can go so much further. Make so much more money. Attract and retain real talent. If only they would foster their creative talent. Not their own talent, but those around them.

I believe that you only learn by teaching. And that means mentoring, knowing when to shut your mouth and when to direct others. I have grown enormous amounts by mentoring other young professionals. Coming up with off the wall ideas and not being afraid to say them out loud, being a sounding board, helping others through difficult dilemmas and situations has all made me as good as I am today.

Now, I don’t think I am high on my self. Trust me I know I don’t know it all. But, I know a lot, enough to be very good. And I want others around me to think this same way. I want confident, hard nosed, passionate people.

So why am I saying this? Because for the love of God can all us agency folk help make agencies more successful by doing this. Otherwise, turnover will stay as high as it is and shit work will continue to get produced.

The Peanut Butter Manifesto

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:29:00 +0000

When I read the peanut butter manifesto memo from Yahoo!’s Brad Garlinghouse, I thought it was pretty bold and interesting. Interesting because this memo is a true reflection of how new age companies have made transparency a way of doing business and encourage employees to really live their brand. Bold because forcing focus is the best way to improve business expertise and secure a market leadership position.

Garlinghouse has a true desire to create an authentic environment where passion leads to innovation and success. Many other businesses could learn from his thinking and willingness to put his ass on the line.

Passion and focus are essential for success. Too many businesses, large and small, want to conquer all and over extend product lines and services. While I clearly understand that line extensions increase market share, over extension inevitably leads to failure. Failure happens when companies push unfocused growth over quality and sustainability. Sometimes it’s good not to be the corporate conglomerate monster that gobbles up everything in its path.

Look at the past to predict the future. When a company steps outside of its core competency and only sees the numbers, it will likely take on ventures it has little understanding of or expertise in. Decisive decision making is driven by a clear understanding of what your authentic brand is and everyone gets it. Not leading with authentic passion gives competition a chance to run you over.

I hope that Garlinghouse is able to lead Yahoo! and doesn’t loose his shirt in the process. If he is successful in transitioning the organization, he could position Yahoo! as the new leader.

Macs Aren’t for Everyone.

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:53:00 +0000

Stunned. In a word that was my reaction when I read in Adrants that Apple is firing its Mac Guy. When I first saw this ad I thought it was a great way to build loyalty among current Mac enthusiasts and bring some PC users on board.

For those of you who don’t know, Apple is firing its Mac Guy, who has provided witty comebacks for the past several months in a series of TV commercials insulting PCs. This campaign, I thought, was effective. The ads offered a clear and easy to understand message, which was perfect since Macs are often perceived to be a complex devise for creative types.

I think I can accurately speak for the advertising group that came up with the campaign when I say that the goal of the ads are to educate PC users on how user-friendly Macs are, all while not turning off Mac enthusiasts.

The ads hit the nail on the head! I loved the campaign. Then again I am huge fan of Seinfeld, Politically Incorrect and West Wing reruns, so I love witty banter.

So if these ads made sense, why in the world is Apple dropping the Mac Guy? Well, they let a few people influence their perception of effective marketing for their target demographic. Huge mistake! I see this all the time. Companies wanting to be everything to everyone – it’s not possible, so don’t waste your time trying to do it.

The whole idea of target markets, segmentation and demographics is to reach your preferred market. NOT the entire market.

Apple built Mac on targeting and did it well. So why change now? The Mac Guy campaign made sense and pushed the bridging of target demos in a way that did not turn off one side or the other. What more could you ask for?

If Mac goes for mass appeal, they may be loosing the loyal market that built them to what it is today.

To say the least, I am really disappointed that Apple is pulling its Mac Guy. I will be even more disappointed if they hire Ellen DeGeneres to take his place. That would be a sell out.

Altering and functionalizing brand logos: To do or not to do?

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:54:00 +0000

Over the years I have worked with many brand building marketers and strategists, some I would categorize as experts and some I would not. There seemed to be a consensus that you do not alter or functionalize the logo. This was something I paid close attention to because I often questioned their thinking. I started listening to rebuttals from creative types, monitoring the many master symbols in American culture and reading anything I could get my hands on. All to come to the same conclusion over and over again…

Altering the logo should only be done when the cost benefit ratio is largely beneficial to the growth of the brand itself, enhances the brand experience for long term benefits and aligns with the brand persona. In other words, examine the situation for the true opportunities that will present themselves through willingness to alter the logo. Really look at the cost benefit ratio. Don’t just do it on a whim because the creative director gets an idea or someone on the executive team got a wild hair up their you know what.

An example is Starbucks. The Starbucks brand is really about the experience, which is very much created through its coffee shops’ atmosphere and customer interaction with the brand, not necessarily the actual coffee. Starbucks has prided itself on providing a consistent style among all its shops throughout the country – providing contemporary plush furniture, soft lighting, conversational seating arrangements, and so on.

As their growth strategies stumbled because of community backlash based on complaints of neighborhood homogenization, Starbucks reevaluated its approach to its store motif standards. They started assigning regional designers to examine the neighborhoods where stores were breaking new ground to pull decorative influences from. They have even gone as far to examine how the logo and signage may be edited. All influenced by the local area, Starbucks is bringing neighborhoods’ style into the motif, experience and brand of the store, allowing for the new stores to fit into the community landscape and meet less backlash.

This is what I mean b y strategic evaluation of the cost benefit ratio. Had Starbucks not entertained the communities’ requests, their growth may have slipped, not to mention they could have been perceived as stubborn corporate types and their image may have been tarnished

Another example, and the one I feel really broke the mold, is Google. Ever check out their logo on a holiday? Google literally dresses up its logo in design costume. Now I am sure this may have started as a cool idea, but they actually tapped into a way for their audience to experience the brand in a new way and different way, completely different form any other search engine. I recall hearing people around the office saying, “Hey did you see Google today?” or “Check out the Google logo – cool. I love when they do that”

Again, the benefit far outweighs the cost.

This being said, I also strongly believe that once a brand makes the decision to consider alterations to its brand/logo, limitations and parameters should be set to maintain the integrity of the brand. This means that the changes should never trivialize the brand; it should only enhance what it already is. If the changes neither impact the brand in a negative or positive way, then don’t waste your time. I see many marketers and creatives doing things because they just want to, not because it actually works. Bottom line is do what’s right for the brand, not your ego.

For example, Google is about giving power to the people, staying in tune, making it personal, getting what you want -- these are my words, not theirs of course. So when they edit their logo on holidays, their users’ experience with the altered logo is true to its brand persona. It makes sense.

So in closing, to do or not to do should actually be to do if it is beneficial to the brand. Not to do if the costs are too high, offer no benefit and don’t fit the brand.

Read more about Starbucks’ approach (subscription required): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116312829873619491.html?mod=mm_hs_marketing_strategy

Will Smear Make Competition Disappear?

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:44:00 +0000

I was asked by someone today how to counteract a competitor’s launching a similar product and if securing exposure about how the competitor is no good would be bad.

Of course that’s bad! Any time someone has put out a smear campaign and did so with smoke and mirrors, it has backfired.

I have always told my clients, and friends, to treat everyone as if they’re your grandmother. Meaning, do right by them. It’s ok to beat them, but don’t cheat – it will inevitably cause lack of sleep and disruption in your career advancement.

The best tactics are those that are tried and true – Like the 40/40/20 rule to be specific.

Response-oriented communications success depends 40 percent on audience targeting, 40 percent on the offer or proposition, and 20 percent on creative/newsworthy execution. What this really means is know your audience and your USP and focus your tactics on specific goals while making it all relative.

The next best practice is consistency. In the form of public relations or marketing, keep sending the same message - until you’re blue in the face. I have been told by some executives, ironically some communications experts, that I repeat myself too much, but they can surely regurgitate my point verbatim when asked. So you can imagine I take their criticism lightly.

If you follow these rules, then no smear campaign is needed – just time and a great team of communicators.

Mea Culpa!

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:43:00 +0000

I am always amazed at how many high profile people screw up and make it worse for themselves by not putting issues to bed.

When Rev. Ted Haggard hired a prostitute and got caught, he should have just said, "Yes I did it," and fess up to everything. Like a band aide – one, quick, swift motion – get it all off your chest at once. This allows you to be in control and shorten the amount of attention on the issue.

Rev. Haggard is keeping himself in the news. Every time this guy is in the news, often taking impromptu interviews from his car or on the street, he is saying something different. Doesn't this guy know that the media will keep coming if he keeps giving them something new to cover?

And why isn't someone telling this guy how to manage this issue?

Public apologies are so widely accepted by Americans, why isn't this guy learning from those that have errored befroe him?

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5313.html
Some bad history:
http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/05/people_hot_water/main2153600.shtml

Currently reading : Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the GameBy Torie ClarkeRelease date: By 31 January, 2006

noreply@blogger.com (Mandy) — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:15:00 +0000

Is Radio Sirius?

Recently, I have been hearing radio commercials in the Pennsylvania community that reek of poor strategy. These ads tell the listener they should not have to pay for radio and goes on to bash satellite radio, but without saying satellite radio. I’m confused. Why would a company use their own product/service to talk about a competitor? Especially when the competitor is already getting tons of press without their assistance. In addition, they are doing it during commercials – the very reason people leave radio.

I am so surprised by this strategy. ClearChannel, the heavy hitter in radio, seems to be the biggest offender in airing these “don’t pay for radio” ads. These guys are supposed to be masters of their medium – I mean when they started the whole national KissFM pre-packaged, branded stations thing I thought they were geniuses! It’s not my kind of music, but as a business plan, it was a great move.

So why do I think telling your own customers “not to pay for radio” is bad strategy?

Well, where do I start? First rule: NEVER talk about your competition to your target audience. This rule is only broken by the power-house brands that have such a stronghold on mindshare that they can toy with the rules.

Talking about your competition makes you look weak. In addition, any end-user that was not paying attention to your competitor will be after you tell them about the other guy.

Telling your customers they are making the wrong decision can create a great divide and even push people to your competition and make them very loyal to the very thing you wanted them to stay away from.

I see this strategy as a HUGE misuse of time and money. Instead of having their staff work on ads telling their customers about “not paying for radio,” they need to be making their product better! When has a consumer ever not used a product just because you told them they shouldn’t? -- NEVER. They want the best product and in the end the customers that were more concerned with pricing were not focused on product benefits and features to begin with. And now, more than ever, it’s about customized and personalized products. Radio should be leveraging their interaction with the consumer in ways that satellite can’t compete with. For example, local touch points, direct interaction, diverse talent, local information, relationship, interaction on the web sites, etc.

Satellite radio is not showing any signs of slowing down and they are working hard at beefing up their muscle to beat radio to a pulp. They focus on talent, music, no commercials, access, etc – making their points of product differentiation apparent in the minds of the consumers. You won’t hear them saying anything directly about radio or how you can get NPR, and local NPR, and not pay for it. They focus on how there are no commercials which highlights a weakness of their competition by showcasing their own features and benefits without referencing radio that requires no payment.

Another point is the people that pay for satellite are not the same audience that don’t or won’t pay. So radio is blindly throwing darts and missing the mark all together. Radio needs to stop and take a look at their demographics and make a marketing plan that hits the consumers that will be staying with them, not the ones that are going to be leaving anyway.

My message to radio is, “Stop telling your consumers your product is not worth paying for and doing it in commercials!” It all seems a bit ironic and moronic.