Mike’s Points

Control of branding and “the message” or word-of-mouth talk about a company, product, service, issue, etc., is a common theme in social media. It’s been written about in many books, on many blogs and, heck, even in person I’m sure.

And, it came up in a brief back and forth Twitter conversation I had with Geoff Livingston Thursday.

Maybe we’re talking about the same thing, but taking a different approach. Maybe it’s just semantics. Or, maybe we disagree.

As I’ve said in the past, businesses ultimately have control. Or, at least, the most influence.

Let’s start at the beginning: Essentially a company forms when someone sees a need in the marketplace and tries to fill it. (Yes, there are variances, like when a someone makes a product and then tries to find a need, but let’s stick with the basic premise.)

Before that company starts, there is no conversation, reputation or perception about it. It didn’t exist.

That company markets its products, so has contact with prospects, vendors and, ideally, customers via marketing communications, sales personnel, retailers, customer service personnel, etc.

Then, prospects and customers react to those “touch points” with the company — and have the opportunity to give their opinion of the touch point, whether its bitchin’ about a product online or giving rave reviews to the next door neighbor.

What online communication and social media — email, blogs, boards, etc. — have done is give consumers more power. More influence. More opportunity for our voices to be heard by a larger audience. Yes, more control over how ABC Company Inc. and its products are perceived.

But, remember, WOM is as old as history. (Just ask Adam about Eve’s review of the apple!) Companies have never been in total control of their brand or the WOM chatter.

Today, various tools and technology on the Internet give consumers more influence than ever before. Despite that, the ultimate influence of a company’s brand and the perception of its products and services is in the hands of the company.

The company starts all “conversations” via its marketing and other customer contact activities. We’re all just reacting to those contact points. And, we’re having a level of control or influence as to the positive, neutral or negative tone of the chatter — as we’ve always had.

But, ultimately, the company has the most control and influence because it initiated the chatter — via good or bad products, customer service, etc., — or it chose to heed the feedback of its marketplace.

Just like all good companies have done, and will continue to do.

– Mike

Throughout my career (gosh that sounds so old), I’ve regularly worked with building materials suppliers and manufacturers who make products for residential and commercial/architectural building use. So, I know things like SHGC, how passive solar heat gain is a good thing in northern climates, R-values/factors, ENERGY STAR and LEED.

I’ve also worked in other industries where products are designed to reduce fuel consumption and/or eliminate unneeded emissions by reducing idling (along with other features/benefits).

One thing that has always struck me is that, no matter how much of a warm fuzzy feeling you can invoke by talking about the green benefits of your company, products or services, if it doesn’t have a positive affect on your company’s bottomline, it doesn’t really matter. I pointed that out in a post about Wal-Mart some time ago.

In other words, a company is only going to be green, if it can get more green or spend less green to run its business. (Or, if the color of your money is not green, substitute your own currency colour.)

An Information Resources Inc. study (right) found that consumers are giving more weight to green and sustainability features when making purchasing decisions. (Sources: PSFK and Environmental Leader.)

While more than half of those surveyed don’t consider sustainability factors listed, a significant enough do. Signigicant enough to get the attention of manufacturers.

However, as more companies jump on the green, eco-friendly, sustainability bandwagon, consumers naturally will be — should be — skeptical.

According to an Ipsos Reid study conducted this spring (2007) on behalf of Icynene, seven in ten Americans either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ agree that when companies call a product “green” (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a “marketing tactic”. Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being green, or environmentally friendly, acknowledges the report. (Source: Center for Media Research)

Another issue to be resolved by each and every marketer — assuming they’re
all honest about their green efforts — what does it mean to be green, eco-friendly, sustainable, etc.?

Do your products or services reduce the need for natural resources or harmful emissions?

Do your manufacturing and business processes conserve environmental resources or somehow help our Mother Earth?

Do you encourage or mandate green practices from your vendors?

It would seem there are many shades of green. That may be why consumers are skeptical and perceive companies as “spinning” their green ways.

While there is a growing bottomline justification for companies to be green, like anything, they will have to

1) continually educate their customers, prospects and other interested parties about those efforts; and

2) prove it.

And, as PR and other professional and ethical marketing people, it’s up to us to ensure that what we say about clients and employers is the truth. Otherwise, we’ll be black and blue.
– Mike

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.”

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?

At least when considering a site’s usability, Web 2.0 characteristics make for a poorly-designed website.

That is according to Jakob Nielsen in a BBC News article (Web 2.0 ‘neglecting good design’).

“Describing Web 2.0 as the ‘latest fashion,’ Mr Nielsen said many sites paying attention to it we’re neglecting some of the principles of good design and usability established over the last decade.

Good practices include making a site easy to use, good search tools, the use of text free of jargon, usability testing and a consideration of design even before the first line of code is written.

Sadly, said Mr Nielsen, the rush to embrace Web 2.0 technology meant that many firms were turning their back on the basics.”

It never hurts to focus on the basics. Sound fundamentals. And, it’s easy to lose “site” of the basics when new tools and trends come around. So, Nielsen’s comments are a good reminder that:

WE ALWAYS NEED TO REACH AND COMMUNICATE WITH OUR AUDIENCES IN WAYS THEY PREFER.

One bit of research I found interesting and not surprising was:

“Research suggests that users of a site split into three groups. One that regularly contributes (about 1%); a second that occasionally contributes (about 9%); and a majority who almost never contribute (90%).”

However — and this may be blasphemous — I do not totally agree with Nielsen on one point:

“Mr Nielsen also questioned championing teenage use of the web as a harbinger of what people will continue to do when they were older.

Although people in their late 30s make very different use of the web to those in their teens, Mr Nielsen expects that when those teenagers grow up the time they spend online will diminish.”

I agree to a point but the tendencies will remain — such as the desire to be technologically-connected — and that information is what we can take from the teens. So, while there will not be a one-on-one correlation in habits and uses, there is still valuable information — tendencies and trends — we can take from the teen and young adult use of technology.

– Mike

(Thanks to Mike Osswald for the pointer to Nielsen’s story.)

(UPDATED, approx. 12:45 p.m. 3-19-07: See end of post.)
Sunday’s Toledo Blade Business Section has a great story about a cat fight going on at Tecumseh Products, a Fortune 1000 company based in Tecumseh, Mich.

Essentially, the Herrick family (who started Tecumseh Products and still have a good deal of say) doesn’t like what the board and a consulting firm (AlixPartners) are trying to do: take control of the the company. Tecumseh is a old U.S. industrial manufacturer of engines, compressors and related items, and employs 19,000 people (about 70 percent of them outside the U.S., according to the Blade article).

The power struggle is over financial trouble for Tecumseh in recent years, and differing opinions as to who should run the company to try to steer it toward better times.

All in all, it sounds like good corporate drama. But, a couple items caught my eye. According to the article:

“Mr. Herrick has blamed the company’s problems, including financing issues that some feared could push it into bankruptcy, on globalization and competition from cheap foreign imports.”

It sounds as if Mr. Herrick is blaming everyone else for the company’s problems. Wah. Wah. Wah. What U.S. manufacturers need to do is stop complaining about globalization, and compete where we have an advantage: technology and innovation. Keep evolving our products to do more. Help customers improve their productivity by designing and building better machines and products.

A couple quote outs the Blade used (in print) made me laugh and shake my head:

“The record will show that Tecumseh’s financial position - largely as a result of Todd Herrick’s poor leadership - has greatly deteriorated,” lawyers for the board wrote last week in an initial response to the lawsuit.

Todd Herrick, who succeeded his father as CEO in 1986, declined an interview request. But in a written statement, he said, “My actions have always been guided by serving in the best interest of the company.”

Okay, so the board’s lawyers blame former CEO/Chairman Todd Herrick for Tecumseh’s financial problems.

And, does Mr. Herrick directly address the board’s statement with any evidence or comment to refute it? No. He simply states that his actions “have always been . . . in the best interest of the company.”

Though sincere, his actions can still be wrong! That was a pretty piss-poor response.

Now, I don’t want to be taking sides in the Tecumseh Products corporate squabbles as I’ve not explored who is right and who is wrong (though I’m sure there’s blame on both sides, as that’s usually the case). But, I do know the PR counsel for Tecumseh and the attitude of the company — if the blame-game is prevalent — needs to change or the company will continue to see some rocky times ahead.

For good manufacturing comment, see the ShopFloor blog by the National Association of Manufacturers. (No, that’s not a commercial for NAM. Just, if you’ve read this far, you likely have some interest in manufacturing, and you’d do well to check out the NAM blog.)

– Mike

Despite what was noted in the Blade story regarding Tecumseh’s apparent attitude toward media — He (Todd Herrick) rarely granted media interviews. In 1995, the firm’s then-advertising director said of the news media: “We hate them.” — it does seem to somewhat monitor online media as I’ve had five visits from the company’s IP address as of this update.

Now, so it doesn’t appear that I’m bashing Tecumseh Products, the Herrick family, again as the Blade story pointed out (toward middle of story), does a great deal of good through its Herrick Foundation (see #27 in the linked pdf).

One of the early corporate bloggers — and one that doesn’t seem to get as much press as GM and others — is retiring as of the end of April.

Boeing Commercial Airlines Vice President of Marketing Randy Baseler announced his pending retirement on March 9. He is leaving Boeing as of the end of April:

So I’m coming down for a landing, and looking forward to enjoying more time together with my wife, Linda, and our family and friends. Those of you who’ve met me might have guessed that I’m a “country boy”at heart. My plan is to settle into my cowboy boots, blue jeans, and flannel shirts, and stay closer to the ground ….

Of course, I’ll still be sticking around Boeing for the next couple of months, and continuing with the blog until then.

Mr. Baseler started blogging in January 2005 — the same month that GM’s Fastlane blog debuted.

I’ve read Mr. Baseler’s blog periodically, but mostly early on in my own blogging efforts. I’m ashamed to say that I had forgotten about it, until something sparked a memory this evening. Maybe fate, but I’m glad I did check in, and will most definitely do so through April.

And, to see who or if Boeing will have a new corporate blogger.

Doing corporate blogging the right way.

– Mike

One’s mindset is an interesting thing.

When you’re single, it’s predominantly about you. You do what you want when you want to do it.

When you get married, it’s not so much about you. It’s about her (or him), too. There are other considerations. So, you adapt.

Then, you have kids. And, you adapt again. It’s predominantly about the kids, some about your spouse, and relatively little about you. Your mindset about what’s important and what needs to be done and how you do it changes.

Whenever one changes his/her environment, whether it’s a relationship, a home, a job, etc., your mindset changes and you get perspective. One’s mindset changes either by force — such as a life-changing event like becoming a parent — or by being open to change.

Our industry — professional communicators, no matter what service we offer — has been expanding in recent years. The socialization of marketing has started. For the most part, traditional agenices and communicators are stuck within their mindset. Whether about media relations, advertising, direct mail, events, etc., the methods of communication and messaging are predominantly one-way.

Inform. Educate. Persuade. Make aware.

Those more open-minded traditionalists have explored, accepted, learned from and even expanded the online socialization of communications. They’re no longer traditionalists.

But, it’s not surprising that those in the technology industries (computers, software, interactive agencies) are the early adotpers of social media (blogs, boards, community networks, etc.) because computers and the Web are all about socialization in some degree. Two-way communication. Interactivity. Experiences.

So, as social media like blogs took root and grew, it was all part of the mindset of developing networks, Web sites, etc. There was no fear of bloggers as there is from many traditional agencies.

What must traditional agencies and communicators do to change their mindset (which is no easy task, I’m sure)?

Think two-way. Think interactively. You don’t have to abandoned “offline” strategies and tactics that work. Instead, think how you can engage your audience(s) in what you currently do. Write engaging and even conversational copy (news releases, ads, etc.). Not informal style, but question your audiences. Research and relate the copy more to your audience (yes, customization and personalization).

Engage your audience by making the text and graphics more engaging. Put yourself in the shoes of your audience or think about everyday life. No one really likes to be lectured, preached to. So, you need to think of involving your audiences. Engaging them. Even entertaining them. All to get the message across.

Granted, you may not be able to do it with every project, but consider it for every project and determine if it makes sense. Force yourself to go out of your mind(set).

– Mike

P.S. For an interesting perspective on the different hands (and feet ) trying to grab onto social media, see Mike Manuel/Media Guerrilla’s post from Thursday.

P.P.S.: I hope the above was of value. If not, that’s okay. I’ve mentioned before (somewhere) that blogging has helped me crystalize thoughts. This is one of those times. So, sorry if I sounded preachy. But, I was writing to myself as much as I was to you.

Unlike many industries, the marketing communications industry — specifically, those relating to PR — is very big, very fragmented. You range from the multi-nationals and behemoths to the solo practitioners.

The size of our industry and the opportunity for new companies to spring up quickly (relatively little cost to entry) means that there is competition to (hopefully) keep us on our toes. It also means there are enough poor quality practitioners to give the rest of us a bad name.

In that whole bunch, you get the good, the bad and the ugly.

I firmly believe that most companies operating in PR — whether off line or online or a combination — are good. Honest. Ethical. And, that gives companies a lot of good choices — whether they want an “integrated” firm or one specialized in some way.

But, there’s enough of the bad. Some unintentional and just poor, but honest judgment. But, in the end, they give the majority of the good firms a bad name. Clients feel ripped.

And, then there’s the ugly. Not only poor judgment but seemingly intentional poor work. And work that is readily exposed by the BadPitchBlog and others (granted, mostly in the blogosphere). There’s also the ugly when those in PR bad mouth its own industry or seek to cannibalize it. Fine to be critical, but don’t set out to eat your own kind. There are ethical and unethical ways to gain new business.

Okay, my rant is over.

Mike

Yes, this is old, but like Marie/Flackette and Todd, I’ve been busy (even shoveling snow here in SE Michigan). But that’s likely not why you’re here, so . . . for an update on the YouTube copyright saga, see here.

Now, in a logical and common sense world, in every decision we, clients and other corporations make, we weigh the positives and the negatives. The risks and the rewards. The opportunity costs. (There’s that social science theme again.)

Technically, I would agree that YouTube is in the wrong for allowing users to air copyrighted material from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart or David Letterman’s Top 10 Lists.

But, if unless those uncopyrighted, illegal re-broadcasts are taking money away from Viacom and the producers, portraying the particpants in a negative light, or otherwise doing some harm, what is the problem?

Could it be that these unauthorized re-broadcasts are cramping CBS’ own use of YouTube?

I’m no lawyer and am definitely open and eager to hear both sides of the argument. However, unless you can show where harm is being done, the only thing that these other YouTube broadcats — and similar unauthorized re-broadcasts/re-use of copyrighted material — are doing are giving more people more opportunity to hear, see and enjoy Viacom-owned material.

And, I would think, increase Viacom’s audience share. If there is harm done, then go after them. (I realize that, to protect a copyright, you have to try to prosecute everyone — even churches — but there has to be some common sense involved.)

Again, it is about using common sense, and weighing risks (such as possible negative publicity, even though you are legally right) with rewards (obtaining evangelists for your brand).

– Mike