Mike’s Points

Maybe it’s USA Today’s fault, maybe blogging is to blame or maybe I have Twitteritis. But, my attention span and getting around to putting together a post of any length is lacking of late. (Good thing there’s a monthly TalentZoo column and the periodic free-lance gig to keep me honest. See page 10.)

Regardless, here’s one post with a couple points for your digestion and review:

A lot on the Internet is free — but there’s still a price

There’s a lot of “things” free about social media. Blogging is free. Social networking is free. Sharing pictures and video is free.

Outside of social media, a lot on the Internet is free. Email is free. Job searching is free. And, a lot of information is free.

And, some of that information is questionably accurate. As an example, Sandeep Krishnamurthy  has a very interesting article at iMediaConnection: Beware: the search advertising sky is falling. There’s good food for thought in Professor Krishnamurthy’s column. However, some of his stats — from compete.com — were questioned by Bill Burke.

Website stats from compete.com are free. So are those from quantcast.com. And, I’m sure there are similar others.

Ah, remember, you usually get what you pay for. Buyer beware.

While social media — which clearly should be a subset of public relations (I ain’t talkin’ advertising) – may be free, doing it well requires an investment in time. Time to get to know the online community to which you are marketing. Time to develope a relationship and comfort level with the community. You don’t need to be buddy-buddy, but any good PR practitioner knows that true success is about relationships. Not about getting “hits.” It’s about connecting your employer or clients’ products and services with the needs and wants of your audience. (For more on this, see one of my TalentZoo columns.)

How best to teach?

You often hear or read in sports that the best managers and coaches know as much about human nature and pyschology as they do about their sport’s fundamentals and tactics. They know which players to pull aside privately to deal with an issue and which will respond better by a public tongue-lashing.

Chris Brogan publically called out a company this week for poor pitching. Chris Anderson at Wired called out a bunch of supposed PR pros for poor pitching. CrunchNotes does it. And, when it occurs often enough, the BadPitch Blog does as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s easy to pick on mistakes PR people make.

I’m not saying what Chris B. or any of the others did was wrong. Sometimes, to get someone’s attention, to really get through to him/her, you need to call ‘em out.

There are times — guess it’s up to your own judgment — when a private approach is best taken to teach someone the right way to do their job.

Just because you can easily give someone a public tongue-lashing, doesn’t mean you should.

– Mike

Photo from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_two_headed.html

No matter how effective a particular tactic is, if it doesn’t reach a large enough audience, how effective is it really?

From MarketingCharts:

Print newspapers ads reach people at all stages of the buying cycle - inspiring web research at the beginning and prompting in-store/web purchase at the end, said the Newspaper Association of America (NAA), citing a Google study.

Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo conducted the study for Google.

“Newspaper advertisements drive readers to the web, where they search, find and obtain products,” said Spencer Spinnell, head of the Google Print Ads program.

On the other hand, according to Editor & Publisher, the Newspaper Association of America (same group involved with the above), reported its “worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.“

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 — the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950….

As newspaper Web sites generate more advertising revenue, the growth rate naturally slows.

The NAA reported that online revenue now represents 7.0%* of total newspaper ad revenue in 2007 compared to 5.7% in 2006.

*The NAA originally reported in the release that online revenue represented 7.5%.

I’m not poo-pooing newspapers. My original love is journalism. And, I’ve repeatedly posted that newspapers need to capitalize on their online presence and their local news-gathering resources — resources few other media can compete with. The point about newspapers being one of the best go-to sites is backed by another NAA report.
But, it does seem that the NAA and others involved in the print newspaper ad effectiveness survey forgot that advertising revenues are dropping.
-Mike

(*First, if you are reading into the headline that I or PR communicators should treat their target audiences like children, you’re reading too much into the headline, taking it literally or trying to start something. That’s not the point of this post. If you still believe it is, please leave. Otherwise, I would most appreciate it if you continued reading and left your $0.02 with a comment.)

During some email back and forth a couple weeks ago with Ann Handley regarding a comment I left on her blog, I was reminded how much my children teach me. Then it hit me — that much of what I’ve learned being a parent is very relevant to public relations and marketing communications.

Each child is different, so you can’t parent them each the same way. Different temperaments, different personalities, different abilities, different ways they react to me (and my wife. From here on out, whenever I say me, I mean us).

The same goes with the audiences we are trying to market and communicate to. Each person is unique and reacts in different ways for what “works” for reaching him or her with the message. At the same time, there are generalities we use in parenting our children. We can’t say the same thing four different ways. The same goes for communicating to our audiences. For example, look at reporters at a particular media outlet. There might be a company-wide policy or preference for receiving news, or for when you can contact them.

Be patient because each has his/her own time table. You never really know when something that you’ve been telling or trying to teach your children will finally click and sink in. Or, when you tell one to do something — clean up, for example — he or she will do it, but do it his or her own way. If you don’t have a set time table yourself, that’s fine in most cases.

The same goes for pitching a story. It may be a great story, but the timing for that particular reporter may not be right. You may get a call from that reporter a week or couple months later — because the story was good, but he/she couldn’t for whatever reason act on it then. That’s also why you need to constantly remind your audience of your client or your employer with marketing messages — because the audience may not need your product or service now — but will in three months. Best to be top of mind.

You need to know and be involved in your children’s lives. Yes, that may be an obvious one, but it’s easy to be more of the care-giver — looking after their basic needs — than being a parent and playing with your children. My wife and I have a nearly nine-month-old daughter. While I love her as much as the others, I look forward to the time when she is less dependant on me (when we can communicate better, when she can easily sit up on her own, etc.). While the baby stage is great, it also is great when we can interact more. And, when I need to be less of a care-giver of my daughter and I can spend fun, quality and more quantity time with all my children.

The same point goes for our audience: Essentially, you need to know your audience; not just market or spew forth messages to them. Research, read, contact and even interact with your audience. Know what they like and dislike, their preferences. That’s one of the great advantages of social media: market feedback and interaction.

Yes, really knowing your audience is not easy, but you’ll have a much higher rate of success than the proverbial throwing a lot of mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. Besides, how else can you do point #1 above if you don’t know your audience?

The basics: You need to want to be a parent, or at least be open to it and take it for the important responsibility it is. There’s been enough times when I’ve heard about, seen or read about people who really should not be parents. More often than not, they’re too selfish. I have felt sorry for their children, and hoped that God would particuarly watch over them. For the vast majority of people who are parents, even if they didn’t at first want to be, they were responsible enough to know and take on the sacrifices and life re-focusing that’s often required to raise children.

As with public relations and any profession, you need the basics. You need to know stuff like good writing (grammar, how different tactics call for different writing styles, etc.), have a solid work ethic, be honest and ethical, have a natural curiosity for your clients’ businesses (and definitely your employer’s business!), and have a sincere interest in others.

After all this, please don’t think I’m elevating the role of PR and marketing communications to that of parenthood. Being a parent is by far one of the most important things I’ve ever have and ever will do in my life. That’s why, I’m looking at parenting and seeing what I can apply from it to my job — not the other way around.

-Mike

Whether you work predominantly in offline marketing (like I used to) or work predominantely in online marketing (like I do now), knowing your audience and where you can find them is invaluable.

Blogs, boards and social media in general have been around for many years. However, like most product lifecycles, they’re still in their infancy, still in the growth mode. Being so new, many people and companies are trying to carve out a social media expertise for themselves. That’s fine and good, but don’t get myopic.

The United States population now is about 303+ million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Okay, but really, most of us are not marketing to youth. As of July 2003, there were 217.8 million people age 18 and older, with a total U.S. population of about 291 million people. So about 75% of the U.S. population were adults (18+ yoa) in 2003. Let’s assume that’s consistent with 2008.

According to eMarketer, nearly 194 million people in the U.S. are online, as of a February 2008 report.

That eMarketer report doesn’t distinguish if that population consists of adults only or all age groups, so I’ll assume all. That’s only 64% of the total U.S. population (194/303). Not bad, but I’d think it’d be more. If you use the same 75% figure as above — that 75% of the U.S. population consists of those 18+ yoa — then only about 145.5 million (0.75×194)U.S. adults are online.

How many are using social media technologies like blogs, boards, sharing videos, rating products, etc.?

According to Forrester’s Social Technographics data obtained in late 2006, only 48% of the U.S. adult, online, consuming* population are using social technologies. It’s simple math since the graph stats 52% are not in any of the categories Forrester measured. (*I’m not sure what % of the adult online population Forrester counts as “consumers” so my numbers may be off, but still good for the point being made.)

If you take 48% of the 145.5 million adults online (0.48×145.5), you get a little less than 70 million U.S. adults online using social media technologies.

To have success in social media, word-of-mouth activities, you really don’t need a lot of people. And, with the ability to niche your market, you likely only need fewer than that to call a social media marketing campaign a success. So, that’s still. a. lot. of. people.

However, don’t get caught up in your own online, interactive, digital world and think “everyone’s online.” They’re not. A sizeable part of your and your clients’/employer’s audience may be offline or — believe it or not — simply not using social media.

The good news is that, enough of them may be online. And, likely that online, adult, U.S. population using social technologies will be growing. (But, that’s another post for another day.)

– Mike

I’m not social scientist (though I like to think I play one in my job), but I wonder if there are any studies that show the natural evolution of socialization. And, if that natural evoluation of socialization actually builds up walls rather than bringing the larger community together.

Let me explain more of what I think could happen regarding online social networking….

Through blogs, discussion boards, social networks, communities and even virtual worlds, we have opportunities to “meet” and “know” more people than we can via face to face networking.

Through my own professional interest, I have way more than 50 blogs in my Bloglines account. Sure, I have other categories for my other, usually personal interests, but none that compare in quantity.

Sure, for various work projects and other activities related to work, I explore other topics and niche blogs and communities in social media. But, while they are interesting and I love to learn, if it wasn’t for work, I doubt if I’d explore too many or any of those other topics.

Is the norm to stick to our own interests as we grow our social networks, or is it the norm to go outside of our comfort and knowledge zones?

Without social media technology, our networks are face to face, and their size largely depends on if we tend to be introverts or extroverts.

Then, social media opens new opportunities. But do we still tend to aggregate to circles that are comfortable — despite the great opportunity to expand our horizons, given our limited time between life, family, work, community, etc.?

If we stick within and expand our given comfort level due to the opportunities afforded by social media, will that ultimately decrease the opportunity to really develop and become part of larger communities? Will we simply have larger cliques? Larger cliques, of course, that take up our already busy schedules and cut us off from expanding our real, social horizons to grow?

Another angle: I’ve been tossing around this post in my head for some weeks now. In the meantime, Shawn Sieg — a friend I knew before we added each other via Facebook — sent me an interesting link asking if social networking is making us anti-social. That’s another view of social networks — are your friends really friends, or is it some ego contest to see who has the most?

– Mike

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)

As we get wrapped up in our work, setting — and meeting/exceeding — goals (hits, placements, coverage, etc.), it’s easy to loose sight of what we are really doing. We can get too wrapped up in numbers.

Driving traffic to Websites.

Getting online and offline “hits” for product or company coverage.

Click through rates.

Unless you are making a “pitch” in face to face, it’s easy to become separated from your audience sitting in front of a computer or even on the telephone phone. Just type, click and distribute.

A post by CityMamma/Stefania Pomponi Butler about a BlogHer session reminded me of the importance of knowing who we are dealing with in our work: People.

“In the “State of the Momosphere” session on day 1 of Blogher07, I listened as not one, but two PR guys stood up to tell us mothers how proud they were of their strategy to ‘hook’ moms into trying their products by pretending to read our blogs (so we’ll trust them) before offering up whatever it is that they’d like us to blog for free.”

Two things stand out as being VERY WRONG in the above.

First, in media relations (as in sales), if you’re really good at what you do, you don’t “hook” people to publish your story (or buy your product). You match needs/wants with what your product/service/company can offer. Generally, bloggers and traditional media have a need for good content to maintain and grow readership. If you can show how your ________ can legitimately help them, then you have a great chance for getting a hit. (And, there are other reasons to have bloggers and media review your______ than just coverage.)

Secondly, and most importantly, the comment by the supposed PR pros gave little credit to the bloggers they dealt with. They’re not bloggers. They are people. Assumingly, smart people. People with their own personality, expectations, objectives in blogging. They are individual human beings. Not just bloggers or possible hits.

If good marketing is anything, it’s about how to connect with people. And, social media is so much more because it can be so personal; so one-on-one — even if you are just sitting in front of a computer.

So, the better we can keep in mind that we are dealing with people — with individuals — the better our results will be.

– Mike
Point to Ponder: For another great perspective on that each individual is worthy of being treated as a human — not just another face or a number — see a post from September and follow the link to a column by Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael Miller.

In media relations, social media and similar communications efforts — where you’re often communicating with one person, one at a time — personalization is best. Know who you’re communicating with, and craft the communication to that person’s preferences (while still being honest, sincere, etc.).

But, in the bigger picture of website design and even larger of corporate identity, should we cater to our primary audience?

According to an eMarketer story today, women use websites more so than other sources when researching products:

“Over half of US female Internet users ages 25 and older say the Internet is their main research source for checking out potential product purchases, according to Burst Media’s “Online Insight” report, published June 2007.

The Internet was named far more often than other methods. Around 10% or fewer of respondents said they got their information from “asking family and friends,” newspapers and magazines, television or other sources.”

So, if a certain demographic is a sizable portion of your target audience, should you develop branding materials (logo, color scheme, etc.) to cater to that audience’s preferences?

If you don’t want to play with your “corporate look,” should you cater your website to your audience’s preferences? Maybe adjust the color scheme, design, features, etc., to a certain key demographic?

Or, should you try to please everyone with general user-centered design?

I guess it depends on how big or significant your key customer and prospect base is.

But, in growing world of being able to connect one-on-one or join online communities specific to our interests, how far does that specific connectivity go in an increasingly global marketplace?

– Mike

While we all are interested in “who’s the biggest,” size does not necessarily equate to quality. (Heh, I sound a bit like SWBU, but look much different.)

Guess I’m puzzled why this is such a big deal: Aegis, WPP Dominate Digital Agency Ranks, Account For Half The Industry.

Size can be important (or, impotent for some I suppose), but it’s the quality and rating of the work that really sizes up a firm. So, for those companies seeking an online marketing partner, don’t be fooled by the size of the package. It truly is what is inside that counts.

– Mike

Now, I could use this opportunity to tout my employer, but I won’t.

This social media stuff is all about getting personal. Becoming familiar with and sincerely, honestly engaging people on a grass-roots level who are customers, potential customers or key influencers of one of the first two groups of people mentioned. And, hoping, through how you treat and involve them, that they’ll spread the word to others about you, your product, service or cause.

On the corporate blogging side, it’s also the personalization of corporations and asssociations. Putting a personality and a name (or names) to a corporation. Think of Bob Lutz with GM. Think of the Randy Baessler of Boeing. (Yes, I know GM has expanded the FastLane blog to include others more than Mr. Lutz, but no one else seems to get the response he does. And, I know there’s a new Randy at Boeing.)

But, what happens when the person behind the personalization moves on (fired, resigns or retires)?

And, what about the individual blogs? In the PR world, it’s well known that Steve Rubel/Micro Persuasion is with Edelman, and, though not a lot, there is a visual connection on his blog. Seeminly, at the other extreme, many?/most? know that Jeremy Pepper/POP PR! is with Webber Shandwick, but you’d never know it by his blog.

But, when Rubel goofs, Edelman also gets the bad publicity. IF Pepper ever would goof, would WS share in it?

In social media marketing, rash mistakes and people coming and going can be very public.

So, blogging and other social media and the personalization that comes from it gives audience/users/consumers more of a connection. A relationship. And, (hopefully) positive feelings or thoughts tied to a product or company.

But, at what cost? If that personalization is tied to a person — Randy Baessler at Boeing or Bob Lutz at GM — what impact will them leaving have (or what did it have in Randy B.’s case) have on its audiences’ perception of the corporation?

Ultimately, being able to connect on some level and developing relationships — even if only on a cyber level — benefits us. However, like everything else in life, there are downsides that need to be dealth with.

And, that’s where great planning, the right communication and the proper medium can make those downsides not so down.

– Mike