Mike’s Points

especially social media.

Today, the Center for Media Research has a must-read report: “Emotional Business Bonding on Social Networks,” based on research from Communispace:

“New research from Communispace, supporting the hypothesis that people are looking to fulfill six essential social needs online, and drawing on the Maslow hierarchy of human needs, concludes that businesses that help facilitate those needs are more likely to create deeper emotional bonds than usually exist between companies and customers.”

The key point that, while consumers don’t necessarily want a relationship with companies, they do want their needs met. You market by meeting needs. And, in the online world, you need to meet personal, social needs to be successful.

You don’t “hook” people. It’s much more subtle. I don’t mean deceptive tactics, but play into human nature.

This is an approach I bring up every so often via Twitter (in reply to Chris Brogan) or here, and definitely in my work when possible. Here are some pointers and thoughts on how to:

• In social media marketing, keep in mind we’re typically dealing with every-day people; not people at work, like reporters. Even if you are dealing with professional or industry bloggers and in other social media, you need to meet their needs.
• Effective working in social media requires the same long-term commitment and effort as in face-to-face dealings with people.
• Be humble, admit when you’re wrong, and be open to criticisms (call it “market research” if it helps).
• Contribute to the social media you’re involved in when it doesn’t have anything to do with your employer or client. In addition to sharing knowledge and helping others, it can lower barriers to how people view you when you’re not always bringing up employer/client-related stuff. After all, you are there to better the community, right?

Ultimately, when you’re in public relations (or other professional communicators role), you’re involved in social media to market a company, product, service or cause. Just make sure that you don’t forget that your audience’s needs need to be met first, before they will consider your needs.

– Mike

In writing this post, you’ll notice that I (too) often linked back to my own posts. I try not to do that (too) often, but it’s often easier to make my points. In this process of reviewing past posts, it struck me how similar Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, referenced in the Communispace story, is to Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

Numbers are parodoxical.

On one hand, they are black or white. Wrong or right. Inarguable.

On the other hand, they can be manipulated to result in a conclusion you desire.

But, if you have enough numbers, you are able to see the truth. Or, at least, enough of the situation than just one statistic.

A Ford Motor Company ad (”Both coasts have spoken.”) on the back page of the September 2007 issue of Motor Trend caught my eye recently. The ad boasts that, after 400 people test drove the Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord, Ford rated higher than its competitors in terms of being “attractive,” “fun to drive,” “performs well” and “handling.” Each time a participant scored the Ford, Toyota or Honda in one of the categories, that car received a point.

Okay, comparisons versus competitors is good advertising. Head to head.

But, if you look at the numbers, there are other ways to look at the survey.

In the “attrative” category, Ford scored about 250/400. Or, percentage wise, only 62.5% liked Ford. If you’re in school, that’s an F.

In the “fun to drive” category, Ford scored 300/400. Or, 75%. That’s a solid C.

In the “performs well,” category, Ford scored about 310/400. Or, 77.5%. Still a C.

In the “handling” category, Ford scored about 240/400. Or, 60%. An F.

Granted, Toyota and Honda scored worse.

Now, if you’re playing baseball, Ford and Honda would both be MVPs, with Toyota doing okay.

Life is neither a baseball game nor a classroom. And, really, if I’m buying a vehicle, things like price, reliability and safety (I’m a parent) are much more important.

And, if you look at each of the figures individually, there’s really nothing to boast about — no matter what coast you’re on.

– Mike

(Owner of a 1998 4dr Ford Escort (mine’s red) and a 2001 Honda Odyssey)

Let me give Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, IBM, Sony and even Microsoft some free advice: Team up, co-op and go after Apple. (While there’s still enough of you left.)

It’s eating your lunch and it’ll be the worm that eats into a sizeable amount of your profits, unless you do something about it.

International Herald Tribune, Oct. 22, 2007:

Driven in part by what analysts call a halo effect from the iPod and the iPhone, the market share of the company’s personal computers is surging.

Two research firms that track the computer market said last week that Apple would move into third place in the United States behind Hewlett-Packard and Dell on Monday, when it reports product shipments in the fiscal fourth quarter as part of its earnings announcement.

PC World, Dec. 3, 2007:

Apple has jumped to 6.81 percent market share of the OS market, according to the latest research from Net Applications.

The figures confirm a slowdown in market share in October, which quickly became an increase once Leopard reached retail, driving Apple’s slice of the online client market up 3.34 percent.

Industry watchers may note that 6.81 percent is Apple’s largest slice of the market for a decade, putting the company in second place behind systems from Microsoft.

Though, to the credit of the  gang noted above, Apple is not playing fair. In its Apple vs. PC ads, it’s going after an industry, not a specific corporation (for the most part). It’s playing the David to the collective Goliaths.

Really, as I’m sure others have noted, it’s a smart move. Do you really expect the others to take time away from marketing against each other to go after Apple — a move that, if successful, would help their competitors. Can’t have that!

Since Apple, the Mac and even Steve Jobs seem to have a bit of a cult following, guess it’s Apple vs. PC ads is more of cause marketing, than out-right, profit-motivated marketing.

So, whenever you can, don’t market against a competitor; go after a faceless, substance-lacking industy. Like the PC industry.

– Mike (who typed this post on his Dell Dimension E510 desktop)

P.S.

It’d be a good reference piece to name similar corporation vs. a collective marketing efforts. Can you name some?

Though it’s a never-ending battle, I try to make things simple.
That’s why part of me finds this transparency issue — a fancy way of saying honesty — puzzling.

Yes, in public relations, you represent your employer’s/client’s side of an issue or news story. You may not write or talk about every angle, but you do not mislead or lie. You tell one side of a story. Just as you would hear anyone talking about an event he/she witnessed.

If you’re doing your job correctly, you put yourself in the mindset of a news reporter to write a news release as a journalist would. Or, close to it. As noted, you may not include all angles, but you’d better be able to honestly, accurately and fairly answer any question that comes afterward.

It’s pretty simple.

In general, don’t you always expect honesty? If you always doubt what someone tells you, how awful that would be!

But, apparently, that’s how people perceive PR professionals.

Why else would transparency — or the lack thereof — be such a perpetual issue. We must all be afraid of showing the imperfections we all have. And, PR folks are kings and queens of hiding imperfections!

• [New York Times columnist David Pogue] said blogs can do wonders for companies who are looking to make a personal impact with an audience. “Material that is not cleansed by any PR person,” he said. “That is something to think about.” (Source: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/204600878)
• “Microsoft and global PR agency Burson-Marsteller are in hot water over a tactic that flies in the face of what we know about the nature of business and transparency in the era of social computing….The world is transparent, and many eyes are focused on the lens peering into the business world. Deceit will be exposed. There is no benefit in trying to get away with something like this, which only hurts the public relations profession, including those who would never engage in such practices.” (Source: http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/will_we_never_learn/)
• Anshe Chung, owner and developer of virtual real estate on the Dreamland Continent (in SecondLife) issued a news release last year “indicating that she *will* enforce the ballot initiative voted for by the residents of Dreamland — an intitiative that called for the banning of dishonest PR and marketing.” (Source: http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2006/11/anshe_to_honor_.html)

I supposed when you are being paid to be the voice of a company or individual, people are naturally skeptic of what you communicate. However, that’s only part of the reason. The other reason is weakness. The lack of self control and standing up to what’s right.

All the PRSA Code of Ethics and other well-intentioned, but teeth-lacking attempts to enforce ethical behavior simply stink if people — PR pros — have no self-control.

One of the positive aspects of social media is how — eventually — the truth will come out if someone is being deceptive or dishonest.

I firmly believe that knowing right from wrong is a basic, inherent human instinct.

We simply must follow our instincts.

–Mike