What is public relations in the web 2.0 world is something I often think about as I work to improve the marketing efforts at Mimeo.com. Today's New York Times further fueled that thinking with an article by Clare Cain Miller called "Spinning the Web: P.R. in Silicon Valley."
The Times article describes changes in the PR from the traditional to the "buzz" creation tactics of one of its lead Silicon Alley practitioners Brooke Hammerling. The article does an excellent job of describing the direction PR is heading with the need to "whisper" into the ears of opinion leaders such as "Jay Adelson, the chief executive of Digg; Biz Stone,
co-founder of Twitter; and Jason Calacanis, the founder of Mahalo." Gone is the traditional press release, the PR agency pitch and all of the traditional media approaches of the past.
As an interesting aside, Fast Company magazine showed how Madison Avenue leaders who are introducing products they develop are more reliant on PR than advertising as a tactic to promote their fledgling low budget brands.
All this said, I think the article left out an important component or flaw in the approach of most PR agencies, the need for some ROI accountability. In this environment it is difficult to ask for the thousands of dollars needed per month for PR agency fees when it is unclear how any placements fuel the business. While intuitive that it helps, it is difficult to support as hard chioces on funding cuts are being made.
I'd propose that PR should start thinking more like DR, what I call PR DR or direct response public relations. Why can't a press placement have a call to action similar to a direct response campaign. For example, a green energy company can invite editors to experience an online carbon savings calculator. The number of visitors can be measured as well as those that go on and become leads and revenue for the company. PR as described by Brooke Hammerling is fine when publicity is the goal, but support for PR programs will be fleeting. They may feel good, as I'm sure the Wordnik people are reacting right to their mention in the New York Times, but the attention is fleeeting without understanding how traffic will translate to revenue.
Hulu, the new NBC owned video site that promises to "help people find and enjoy the world's premium video content when,
where and how they want it" is running a curious advertising campaign that is focused on the idea that...wink wink...television rots your brain, but if you want more of it, go to Hulu.
When I see a "poke fun at yourself advertising campaign", I envision myself as the lead account executive at a major agency selling the campaign. My guess is it went something like this:
Agency: Our research shows that people that watch television and online videos think that others watch more and that isn't cool. So advertising needs to speak to heavy viewers that dismiss video viewing as a good use of time.
Jason Kilar, CEO of Hulu - Now are you sure. I find it odd that our target audience doesn't really want more of our product. What you are saying is that we need to say that people that watch it more than you are losers.
Agency: Exactly, so we need to communicate how are product will work against you. More television via Hulu is a bad idea.
Jason Kilar, - so my product, where people can get hard to find video clips and great television programming, maybe even the platform of choice for Internet Television, is actually a bad idea...and that we have to be a bad idea in order to be a good idea.
Agency: Right - That's exactly it. And to communicate that bad idea we are going to pick celebrities that are cool and who reinforce that even though they are in television shows that appeal to millions each week, watching more of them will rot your brain. Besides its a great media placement idea to buy the adjacency next to their shows as a way of promoting Hulu.
Jason Kilar - Well if that's what the research is telling us......
My perspective is simply that there are an infinite number of directions to choose from when developing an advertising campaign.
Hulu is a great platform that promises to reinvent television. Why then, would you choose to invest millions into a campaign that mocks your own existence, draws a parallel to the old world television technology and risks mocking your heavy viewing audience that loves TV.
My guess is they will be looking for a new agency within the next 6 months. Just Watch.
Microsoft announced this week the introduction of Bing, not a search engine, but a decision engine. I do appreciate the nice positioning twist on this. Now Google works fine thank you very much, so I don't quite understand why the world needs a Bing. It is in the same vain that world didn't need a Zune when we all liked our IPOD so much.
I can't understand why Microsoft continually violates the law of branding. There are #1 brands and #2 brands and they don't change places. #3 brands are out of the game completely. Live and Microsoft are the #3 brand in search.
Now I haven't seen Bing so I have no idea if it truly reinvents what a search engine is and can do. The only way that a brand can change the physics of branding is to either wait for the #1 or #2 brand to walk away from the category benefit or for Bing to be so innovative that they completely disrupt the balance of the search universe.
My guess is that Bing will work well, just like the Zune does. And just like the Zune, it just isn't an IPOD or in this case, it can't out Google, Google. That said, Yahoo appears adrift. It might be time for Microsoft to push Yahoo out of the race for #2. If they can't, Bing will be a Bomb through no fault of Microsoft . Physics is physics and not even Balmer and Gates can change that.
I'm somewhat envious of the marketing team. Failure opens up the door to innovation and risk. Success causes caution and reliance on the tried and true. My favorite experiences were working on suffering or underdog brands. If forces out of the box thinking creates an environment where everyone is willing to separate themselves from being constrained by their personal history.
With this in mind, I find it confounding that the General Motors marketing team hasn't come up with a more innovative approach then their current "buyer assurance plan". The advertising campaign promises 1) resell value protection, 2) a year on OnStar and 3) 5 months of salary protection if you are laid off.
To break it down, we'll protect the value of a car that wasn't selling well before, 2) we'll provide OnStar, which is a nice to have, but not enough of a discriminator to beat Honda and Toyota and 3) we'll also match that offer invented by Hyundai and that we copied. Yawn.
For the sake of the country, I hope that General Motors starts to step up its campaign. If your cars are truly different then sell them in unexpected new ways. Create an offer that says wow instead of "that's nice". The truth is that most consumers do not want GM cars. Until you solve that problem, all the reassurance in the world doesn't work. The campaign might get individuals who normally buy GM into the show room, or maybe a few American car enthusiasts, but as the market is proving it's not enough.
Now I feel bad for GM. The sub prime crisis and credit tightening were not of their doing. And truth be told some the cars look pretty good. My suggestion is to work on getting GM into the consideration set. It means starting with the first date.
I'm waiting to be asked out again (after some dates early in my car buying life that didn't go so well).
The economy and the entertainment industry are going through a structural
change. While many in the film industry fear the threat of digital downloads, while a very real threat, it isn't nearly as significant as structural changes in consumer consumption of content. There is confusion in the market between the requirements of the older "passive
massive" film generation vs. the interactive expectations of younger generations.
It's the difference between the generation that is comfortable watching 5 hours of TV a night vs. the generation that can tell all or part of a short story using the 140 characters allowed by Twitter.
It's the difference between linear story telling with a beginning an end, vs. reading part of a story without knowing where you are in the narrative.
It's about a generation that feeds on the firing of neurons in the brain vs. a generation that is willing to allow the story's author the time to provide a neural reward.
All of the constituencies that support the film industry, from film makers to fans are
struggling to reconcile the film revenue and distribution models of prior generations and the current environment. The threat of digital film theft aside, structural change in the industry is the true threat to the status quo.
The last structural change n film was in 1963/1964 at the start of the independent
film movement. As the movement matured it became organized and legitimized by festivals such as Sundance (1985).
Today, change is being driven by the impact of technology and consumer behavior on storytelling. On-going episodic approaches are replacing stories that have a neat beginning and end. The MIT center for the Future of Storytelling , an initiative run by David Kirkpatrick, a former President of Paramount, is quickly becoming the bell weather of the "new “ storytelling movement.
Change is slowly taking route in the way advertisers tell stories. Recent initiatives such as "colors" advertising from SONY, and the Cadbury Gorilla are both examples of the new creativity and interactivity where the raw footage of the commercials were made available for the audience to re-cut and reinvent.
Today, narrative has a time value. What gets to Sundance is old by the time it is released at the festival. Even SXSW represents a point in time vs. an on-going
phenomenon. When the Kindle 2 was introduced, the Steven King book released exclusively for the Kindle became an instant best seller. The book was marketed in a way that ensured success at a particular moment in time.
In the future, film festivals like Sundance will not be able to survive unless they are on-going participants in the narrative.
The film festival itself has many attributes of "old" Hollywood. This includes:
1x Per Year Meetings for those that can attend
“Mainstream” Independent longer length films
Elite People in attendance
Film Maker to Audience (passive)
Brands imposed on “Hollywood” by Advertisers
The film festival of the future will:
Operate and organize everyday, 24 hours a day
Genre and film length have no constraints or definition
Open to all
Invites active and passive collaboration
Meeting place open to all
Brands engaged in storytelling consistent with their relevant metaphor
Marketers continue to be amazed (and quietly worried) that brand Barak Obama was able to jump to the head of the political line.
What should those that aspire to lead the film industry do in the future to keep newer firms that are born in the age of Web 3.0 at bay?
. One immediate action to take is to become the Voice of the New Industry by acting like the new industry. Some ideas include:
Start by collaborating vs. guarding assets.
Confirm and articulate a vision of the new storyteller.
Write a position paper.
Act as the forum for the new generation of storytellers.
Bridge the old with the new. Welcome both.
Organize amateur and professional industry participants including:
Writers
Producers
Cinematographers
Artists
Photographers
Directors
Publicists
Fans
.
Other things I'd do as the leader is to :
Find new models to reinvent and monetize each stage of the film lifecycle.
Provide opportunities for a new generation of co-creators.
Provide Tools to re-cut and re-mix
Work as a Partner/Friend to guide, teach and support
Education for those wanting to participate
Establish Scholarships for talented individuals that need time to develop (vs. the pressure for immediate success)
Provide the tools to publicize all manner of thought (path to Twitter, Gaming Platforms, Tivo etc.)
Of course all of the above would come with many of the elements that make film successful. This includes:
Raw material for Inspiration/Ideation
Forums
Fan Participation and Awards
Work Spaces
Story Ideas for others to build on
New Genre Development (mash-ups, length)
Education (formal, informal training, help)
Early audience building and support
Brand Sponsorship of area and specific forums (targets; writers, thinkers, innovators)
To be the leader in this space a company will need to demonstrate that they can help others:
Turn Ideas into Reality
Develop scripts and finish them
Provide Workspace Tools
Advise on Legal Protection
Like the economy at large, the coming storm in the film industry is being driven by changes in the way we consume content. There is a unique opportunity for a new leader to not only emerge, but monetize the associated activity.
It's time for the satellite television industry to step up their advertising game. DirecTV appeared to be on a roll with the singer Beyonce singing about "upgrade, upgrade". More HD for TV lovers. I get it.
It's curious that their current campgin is the old style bunch of cable execs in a conference room being amazed at DirecTV's benefits. Maybe that advertising worked in the 1989's, but today cable is a technological leader. It's story telling that is getting in the way of the story. Inexpensive telephone, high speed internet that is lightening fast and HD is the value proposition from cable. DirecTV is worrying the cable company guys, so what.
It's time to move on. As Beyonce said, "upgrade, upgrade" your thinking and do something that reflects the true potential of telvision satellite technology. Or better yet, focus on DirecTV as an upgrade.
The guys who are almost doing it right is Dish Network. At least their advertising is focused in their long running "get more for less" platform. The only problem with Dish Network advertising is tthey never just come out and say "get more for less". It's what they deliver. You wonder why they just don't come out and say it.
Keyword selector tools are an essential part of writing for the internet. Good post today by Chris Knight on keyword analytic tools he believes can be of help . I've written earlier posts on how the new marketing is about ownership of language, both commonly used and the use of familiar phrases that are applied to new ideas.
Chris lists a few tips for owning language that are helpful such as:
1. Focus on less popular keywords which are lower down the tail (position 50 - 100) 2. The tools are an excellent source of research on new areas to write about.
The tools listed include:
Wordtracker:: Unique KEI ratings to understand likelihood of breaking through the clutter. At minimum, take the free trial. Keyword Discovery : One of my personal favorites. Great way to quickly research and build a list of effective keywords. Google Alerts: Setting up an alert gives you a sense of what people are writing about and the specific language they are using. Google Suggest: Google lists keywords that are related to your term.
Graphics for business is mystifying for most of us. I think some time between elementary school and middle school I was told, or quickly realized that I didn't have much talent for drawing. It's a natural conclusion since the kids with a gift for art are painting the Mona Lisa next to my blocks and squares.
That said, as you move into the business world you quickly realize that those graphic skills you neglected are of importance as you are trying to present ideas via PowerPoint and in Word.
Seth Godin, in a great post today, provides a list of tools for the rest of us. Simple graphic tips and tricks and that can turn that fugly presentation into something that looks as important as the ideas that are being presented.
The list can be found at: Seth's Squidoo blog post. Thank you Seth for the great list.
When you twitter you have 140 characters to get your point across. When you write on a Facebook wall, writing more than one sentence seems out of place. A text message is even shorter.
We are in the midst of a fundamental shift in the way we communicate. Posts in vehicles like this blog are going to be influenced by the limitations of speech in Twitter and text. Traditional printed media such as newspapers and magazines are going to feel even more out of step as speech gets shortened and modified to meet the expectations of this generation of communicators.
As for us bloggers, maybe 140 characters will force me to get to the point or at minimum, to at least have one.
One of the hidden secrets of the Internet is the time commitment it
takes to be successful. While to the end user blogging is
instantaneous, to those that create content it sometimes appears to be
a task with little reward applied to the achievement of some vague far away goal.
Building traffic and reader interest is a slow and arduous process. At
times I'm inspired and post every day, while at other times I ask
myself what is the value of all these published rants.
But occasionally, a ray of light shines through and you get a glimpse
of the goal. You experience a moment of clarity where you see the
potential impact of what you are doing. One of those moments was today
when reading Seth Godin's 3,000 blog post. Seth indicates how the long
tail helps to propel his ideas to the top of the Google rankings,
sometimes in unexpected places. How the blog is an essential way to
spread and grow ideas.
As marketers, we are in the business of selling ideas and concepts.
Blogging is one of the ways to refine your craft and test ideas against
an audience. Thank you Seth for the dose of inspiration that will get
me through the next 100 posts.
Recent Comments