Measuring Up

Is LinkedIn the greatest thing since sliced bread?

I doubt it.

So much is being made of LinkedIn as the “ultimate business networking solution” in this day and age. This article from Forbes.com is one of many articles showcasing the proper way to leverage this social media tool for maximum results.

Look, I think LinkedIn is a great resource. And now over the last couple of months, I’ve really begun to expand my network. (The number one rule for LinkedIn success.) This has allowed me to pinpoint a number of business queries to help find professionals who might be ideal for Peppercom to work with. I’ve heard many stories (including from our management consultant who swears by it) of executives acquiring new clients/customers through LinkedIn. Last week, a friend of a friend told me that he actually got two coveted interviews on Wall Street through the many focused tentacles that his social networking tool can offer. And, doing anything worthwhile on Wall Street right now is pretty rare.

That’s all great. I think this is a tool that is gaining momentum and is more than relevant in these troubled times. Where my issue lies (though) is with those people who seem to think LinkedIn (and other social networking tools) make for great substitutes for all of the traditional face to face, social discussions/networking that are still as critical as ever. And unfortunately, I’m also seeing that LinkedIn can and is having this effect with many who believe that if they live on their computer and just keep adding LinkedIn contacts, they’ll never need to look anyone in the face again.

Here’s a case in point which properly demonstrates the negatives that I’m referring to. An old college friend used LinkedIn exclusively to make connections with other former Drew University alumni to find people who are in the advertising business and might be sympathetic to recommending or actually interviewing him for a job. (His employment was recently terminated at a large public ad agency.)  Lo and behold, it took a few weeks, but by leveraging LinkedIn correctly, he contacted two different older alumni who are in the ad world and were initially interested in speaking to anyone who had graduated from our boutique college. Ironically, there was actually a Drew sponsored alumni event taking place a few weeks ago that my friend could have gone to for networking purposes as well. And, as it turns out, one of these senior execs from the ad world was in attendance that night and they could have met and talked for the first time. My friend decided he didn’t need to though because LinkedIn was “getting him places.”

Well, to make a long story short, my friend never did get anywhere with either of these two executives. What I heard (through the grapevine) was that when they checked him out through other mutual alumni friends/networks, all these people remembered of him was from his college and immediate post college days, when he was less than professional. Since they knew nothing about him now (including how mature, responsible and results oriented the man has become,) they decided to pass on an interview because so many other worthwhile candidates were vying for these much sought after jobs.

OK, this is obviously an extreme example. But, what makes me a little nervous is how our younger executives (fresh out of college) are growing up living online. We need to make sure that they (as well as others) continue to join the right associations, go to conferences, just meet colleagues out for lunch and drinks and keep ensuring that face to face networking is still the most important way to conduct business. There is no substitute for letting people naturally like and want to work with you because they get to feel your personality and intelligence through real social settings. Nothing on the Internet will change that.

A ray of sunshine in this otherwise gloomy sky

I thought it was interesting when Carnival Cruise lines reported a 10 percent gain in revenues for the quarter, yesterday.

There’s no need to get overly excited about this. The company reported that this growth is mainly due to slashing cruise prices, holding down operating costs and feeling the benefit of lower fuel costs. All of that said, every other cruise line I’ve read about is clearly experiencing double-digit decreases in sales because, generally, cruises aren’t selling well as consumers continue to cut back on almost all luxury spending. Carnival (on the other hand) is finding creative ways to sell out almost all of its cruises. That’s the sign of a company that has clearly become scrappy and is innovating in tough times.

I did a little research on this and found a few interesting strategies and promotions that the company has implemented to put itself in this enviable position.

For starters, most Carnival cruises target the middle-to-lower-class consumer. So, in catering to this customer’s needs today, Carnival has offered a variety of special cash-back savings promotions that customers can obtain once on the actual boat. In many cases, customers can achieve savings of up to $240 (per passenger) during Summer Cruise vacations just by booking certain rooms and types of programs. This promotion, coupled with prices that have already been significantly reduced, are presented in a way that makes the average American feel that this vacation is very affordable and could actually be a real deal.

From a marketing standpoint, the company has launched a unique interactive computer-animated aquarium in cities across the country. In Baltimore, this display is held in a vacant storefront in a high-traffic pedestrian area. When people walk by, fish movement is activated, and plants in the exhibit start to sway. The computer display is intended to mirror the Carnival vacation experience. I’m not sure how much it can actually “mirror” a real cruise, but it has helped bookings (according to Carnival), so clearly its turning heads and people are wanting that Carnival experience.

The bottom line is that Carnival is fighting hard to make sure it remains relevant in these tough times. That’s important. I believe strongly that those companies which continue to maintain a “business as usual” attitude will most definitely be hurt the most in the months ahead. At Peppercom, every day we think about how we can provide greater value to our clients through new offerings that will directly increase their revenues or greatly enhance or protect their brands, as well as focus on just doing what we do that much better. Some food for thought for any business executive who isn’t thinking about what can his company do better...

Out of context is not out of the norm

I was media training a client the other day. This senior executive had no prior experience conducting media interviews. So, we spent a lot of time discussing 'the basics,’ including how journalists sometimes take meaty phrases or sound bytes that an interviewee might provide, only to use them in the absolute wrong context or another unintended part of a story.

This is either done because the reporter simply ‘screwed up’ and amateurishly forgot where the sound byte should have been used. Or, as is often the case with broadcast media, it happens because that reporter has to find a way to prove his or her story. I would say the latter point is all about a reporter having a preconceived agenda. But, in either case, they both illustrate a real degree of unprofessionalism.

The client asked me what's the best way to stop this from happening. Unfortunately, I told him there isn't a foolproof method. But, if the interviewee is focused on his/her core messages and doesn't get led astray to discuss sensationalistic or non-relevant topics, he/she will have a better chance of controlling the outcome of the story.

CNN really disappointed me on Tuesday morning with its coverage of the AIG bonus mess. I used this case in point to show the client how even one of the more prestigious national networks can be guilty of committing this shameful act. And, in this case, there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it. The story focused on (what else) how and why AIG would have the gall to dole out $165 million in bonuses. Naturally, CNN was attempting to work viewers up into a tizzy through this segment.

That part didn't actually bother me. (I'm used to the media taking the role of consumer activist now.) What did upset me is how the piece started off. The anchor said that Fed Chair Ben Bernanke is steaming hot about AIG's mishandling of this entire affair. Then CNN showed a clip that was taken two days before during a 60 Minutes interview with Bernanke. In the clip, he openly discusses his anger with AIG for causing its traumatic mess (that's it). With this dramatic effect made, CNN then moves on to report further on the public and political outrage to these bonuses. The piece ends with the anchor asking the question as to whether the administration will find a way to "get the money back."

Here's the rub: Ben Bernanke was interviewed on 60 Minutes solely about the government’s continued involvement in helping this behemoth to survive. His quote (and that clip) about how he is mad at AIG had absolutely nothing to do with the bonus issue. It had everything to do with AIG's responsibility in creating this mess and the government needing to bail out the near bankrupt insurer. It couldn't have been about the bonus issue at hand because the interview with Bernanke was conducted before this news ever went public.

Yet conveniently, some unprofessional producer at CNN decided to use this Bernanke segment his/her way to make this story as controversial and one sided as possible. And, do you know what? It worked. I'm sure many in the public are that much more outraged because they believe the Fed chairman is mad as hell at AIG on this very issue. It's really shameful because we don't even know if Bernanke is actually mad at AIG senior management about the bonus issue. And, through irresponsible reporting, CNN has undoubtedly influenced countless more people with erroneous proof points.

The only lesson I can take away from this is that if your organization is in the heat of a crisis, understand that there are no holds (or ethical rules in this case) barred as far as the media are concerned. PR professionals and their senior executives need to understand that some media will do whatever it takes to build that perfect story. And thus, one needs to approach any media relations strategy with a real understanding that even if your organization has valid points to get across, it might not entirely matter with those journalists.

AIG just doesn’t give two sh*ts

When I first heard yesterday about how AIG had handed out $165 million in new bonuses, I thought it had to be a joke. Then, I knew it wasn’t, when I saw this article.

As a public relations practitioner, my first thought was – how could AIG have screwed up so badly again? Yet another body blow to a company that is hated, laughed at and is considered to be an almost unbelievable business case example of what is wrong today.

I mean… it’s CEO, Edward Liddy, concocted two reasons for the bonus hand outs that are simply implausible based on the situation our economy is in and based on who actually owns this insurance giant now.  They are:

Point #1 – AIG is contractually bound to pay these bonuses or the company will be sued.

Answer #1 – Ok, you are right Mr. CEO. AIG might be sued if these bonuses aren’t paid. But, who cares? We are living in unprecedented times. And, these times call for unprecedented actions. The fact is that if the government didn’t step in THREE times to pour billions of $$$ into AIG, the company would be bankrupt. Do you know what that means? There would be no money to pay bonuses anyway. Now, the public owns 80 percent of your company. So, much like the automakers did (can’t believe I’m saying something positive about this group,) all existing contracts/agreements and any other special considerations should have been considered null and void. Because the only thing that matters is the company’s survival. Not, whether it’s executives (many who helped AIG lose billions) continue to get rich. Bottom line – the bonuses were just plain wrong and are clearly a public relations tsunami.

Point #2 – AIG has to pay these bonuses to retain talent or they will leave for competitors.

Answer #2 – I have one question for you, Mr. Liddy. Where will they go? Last I checked, Wall Street has shredded over 400,000 jobs. Financial firms, insurance companies and everyone else in the industry are still laying off thousands. I’m really curious on this one– what other competitive jobs exist right now that will take in these high priced senior executives (many who have egg on their faces)? That’s right. It just doesn’t add up because there are no jobs to be had. And because of that, there is no credibility in this message.

Let’s get back to my original premise above. It took me a while (sorry, sometimes I am slow to see the obvious,) but now I get it. This really isn’t a public relations blunder for AIG, because AIG doesn’t care about its public image at all. That’s the only conclusion I can come to now. Over the last seven months, the company has continued to make mistake after mistake, with each one growing noticeably larger in the public’s eye. The most recent disaster was handled in such an amateurish way (the contents of the letter sent to our current Treasury Secretary,) that it’s almost inconceivable to me that AIG’s senior management  is even attempting to rebuild faith with the public or any of its key stakeholders (except those who received big bonuses, of course.)

Let’s keep our eyes wide open as to what comes next. With the President, Congress and the AG all swooping in, I think this might be the last mistake this now cartoonish looking company will be allowed to make.

The need for Business Ethics 101, 102, 103…

We continue to scrutinize and blame so many business leaders, regulators, entire financial institutions and our political and governmental policy heads for causing the current global financial meltdown. But, one constituent group that has conspicuously been left out of the scapegoat mix, is the one that is actually responsible for training and laying down the foundation for how our current and future business leaders think, act and lead… or follow.

Let’s discuss Business Schools.

I’ve represented numerous business schools over the last 20 years. I have friends who teach at a few of the more prestigious ones and I (like everyone else) know many people who have earned their degree there and then go on to lead very distinguished careers.

With all that said, it is my opinion that although the business school industry may have had the best intentions, they have indeed played a very real role in this economic free fall.  And, that should be noted.  Why? Well, business school students are taught a variety of critical skills and ways to approach issues, but almost no where can one find a serious focus (beyond a class or two) on teaching the ethics behind business, or risk management and the need to understand complex regulations.

More to the point, while there is clearly a concentration on learning to understand how to maximize shareholder value (er… that means making money,) where is the curriculum that molds our students into individual, strong leaders who aren’t afraid to ask the tough questions or push back when something looks too good to be true, or just doesn’t smell right?  I would argue that in many cases, the opposite has taken place and become reality. The best business schools have done wonders providing its recipients with the deepest type of analytical focus. This allows them to master the most convoluted trading techniques and debt securitization opportunities. All this while they sacrifice any real sense of purpose, identity and individualism that should lead them to become responsible business managers who challenge the status quo (as it clearly needed to be) versus becoming more faceless sheep herding in the same mindless flock.

Yesterday’s New York Times article Is It Time to Retrain B-Schools? takes a deep look into this very topic. I think it’s a well written piece because (among other topics) it poses the question as to whether or not this industry should be viewed as a profession (like doctors and lawyers.) If so, then its members would also be guided by a rule of ethics and have a responsibility towards being long-term stewards of business versus what is the norm now.

Whatever happens moving forward, it is clear to me that the Business School model needs to be overhauled. I’m sure this industry is now feeling the heat to take a real leadership role in changing its core philosophies and missions to training our young business leaders. With capitalism on the line, this will always be an inherent conflict to overcome. But, the industry  needs to refocus if it wants to maintain relevance and earn back some respect that has clearly been lost.

The Graying of Obama

Have you ever seen so much attention paid to such a silly topic?

Over a one week period, I’ve seen no less than 80 articles, news reports and blogs written about our 44th President’s hair.

Is it graying naturally? Has the stress of the job sped up his naturally aging process? Or, does this 47-year old man color his hair? These are the three main questions that were continually asked. I’ve seen and heard doctors, “graying experts,” historians and even former professional basketball players (like Walt Frazier) provide their own opinions and commentary on this hotly debated topic.

When I look at news that matters, this story means very little to me. But, when I put my PR/marketing hat on, I see a major opportunity that could become a marketer’s dream. Any company that manufacturers hair dying products (such as Clairol, Clyde Frazier’s Just for Men or L’Oreal) were all given a one week golden ticket to turn this news cycle into a PR, marketing and sales bonanza for their product lines.
What could these brands have done?

From a pure media relations perspective, each could have arranged for their knowledgeable spokespeople to be interviewed by as many reporters as possible (who are covering this story) on whether they believe the president is dying his hair. More to what they care about, they could have found natural ways to discuss if Mr. Obama used their products, no one would be able to actually tell that his hair is becoming gray.
A nice digital thought leadership campaign could supplement these efforts with blogs written by Clyde (and company) on this very topic. And, of course, this would be followed by an outreach to other bloggers (who’ve written on the subject) that this commentary exists online and they might be interested in checking it out.

This type of headline news surrounding a president only comes out once in a blue moon. That means these corporate marketers should shift their ad buys to focus on the immediate opportunity. They should post banner ads (supporting the products) right next to those online articles that have covered it, and I would suggest pulling out some more $$$ to blanket the heavily trafficked media/search engine and retail sites with their commercial messages.

On top off all of this, a creative promotion would make a world of difference in actually convincing targeted consumers to buy. Maybe they should conduct a fun online poll asking customers whether they think Obama actually dyes his hair. The results could be publicized for even more visibility. Maybe, one of these companies could have developed a contest asking consumers to send in their own photo of the best “before and after” shots that resemble our President’s graying hair. The winners could receive a year’s supply of free products (as a hypothetical prize.) Or, at the very least, their products should be promoted with special discounts to the world of anyone needing to dye his or her graying hair.

Obviously, these ideas aren’t exhaustive. And, I’m not saying that these companies didn’t leverage this news in some way. (I did see a number of Just for Men ads next to key online articles). The real point here is that one never knows when a product or company’s chance of a lifetime comes along. So, if you’re sitting in the marketing/PR hot seat, it’s important to scrutinize the news each day for trends and have a flexible enough infrastructure to able to jump on home run opportunities such as this.”

UBS means Un-Believable-Story

It's really becoming quite tiresome. When companies like UBS continue to spew out corporate advertising  messages that are so implausible, one has to really wonder if the leadership at these organizations has any clue at all.

Sorry to pick on UBS. But, it deserves it. Last Friday afternoon, I happened to flip on CNBC to get the latest depressing news, when a UBS ad ran across the screen. The key message was, "UBS is one of the world's most capitalized banks. You can count on us. You and Us... UBS."

Anyone care to guess what's wrong here?

Technically, UBS is correct. It probably is well capitalized (at least at this moment.) That's because the Swiss Government had to infuse a rapid fast payment of $60 billion last October to keep this behemoth from becoming insolvent.

And, "You and Us"...? Hmmm... no doubt, this bank clearly cares about its customers. One beautiful example of this is how UBS lost them (and investors) billions of $$$ worth of value by getting caught smack dab in the middle of this toxic mortgage disaster. Making matters worse (and hurting its customers even more), this is the bank that is now under investigation by our SEC (and will be paying heavy fines) for jeopardizing its customers welfare by advising them to stop paying taxes. Now, many of these customers have a serious tax problems and a large bill and fine to boot. I'm sure they are feeling so good that "they can count on UBS, now..."

I'll stop the tongue and cheek commentary now. As a marketer, it just pains me to see how negatively this type of commercial propaganda is viewed by those the company most wants to rebuild trust with again (and, that's exactly the position UBS is in.) I've watched "the average investor" either get red hot mad, or simply laugh at these types of commercials because they view the corporate sponsor to be buffoonish for even attempting to try to make this story believable. I've also seen the Internet message boards. Reading those posts from angry investors just isn't pretty. Those comments sway public opinion mightily.  Clearly, UBS doesn't agree or that Friday ad may have had a different theme.

So, what should a marketer in this undesirable position do?

It should probably realize that the corporate advertising campaign that seemed to work so well before October ‘08 now needs to be shelved for the time being. Times have changed and that means how and what a firm in crisis communicates to the outside world needs to change as well.

And, that new campaign has to focus on a believable, transparent and honest story. Anything less these days is just wasted money and will only serve to erode even more trust. Companies like UBS have little left to lose at this point.

Marketing Contributes to Growth of Brand Trial- But to Excess and Abuse?

Today, Michael Dresner, president of our licensing division, has written the following special guest post.

A March 2009 study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine revealed that “among those who don’t drink alcohol, ownership of alcohol-branded merchandise predicts both the initiation of alcohol use and binge drinking.” Key licensed products of focus– and subsequent controversy– are baseball caps and clothing.

The chicken/egg debate– whether marketing influences behavior, or merely reflects it– has raged since advertisers started purchasing media space. Let’s not kid ourselves– if marketers didn’t think their efforts would generate awareness and trial, they wouldn’t waste their time on ads, sweepstakes, websites or licensed merchandise.

So, I find merit to the argument that alcohol-branded merchandise leads to product trial. That said, I just don’t believe in the validity of research linking licensed wearables to binge drinking. Our agency has seen enough market research protocols in which clients manipulate the variables and questionnaire to get the answers they want to hear. Hence, my theory:  the Archives wanted to promote the link between t-shirts, hats and binge drinking within academic and business media vehicles.  Otherwise they would not have sent out the press release. 

Efforts to curb binge drinking should be honored. My question is– why is licensed merchandise an area of such vital focus? Full disclosure– my experience with adolescent psychology and substance abuse is low. But doesn’t common sense indicate that binge drinking– a disease– is a byproduct of peer pressure, education, home life, genetics, and mental health?  If that is true, shouldn’t the Archives be spending more time on those issues? 

Licensing plays a role in product trial. No question. But trial and excess are two different subject matters. Licensed product plays an insignificant, and arguably non-existent, role in excess and abuse. Will the absence of such licensed product take away the other factors leading to binge drinking? No way.

If I sound like an advocate of licensing– it’s because I am. People who love the Corona brand should have the opportunity to enjoy its t-shirts, hats, bathing suits, and beach towels. Corona should not have to cease its merchandising strategy because people find an unrelated way to sadly abuse alcohol. I am also an advocate of objective market research, particularly efforts without underlying motive that pinpoint genuine causal factors of damaging health problems. 

I hope the Archives wish to reduce binge drinking.  To solve the problem, I also hope they focus on what really causes the affliction in the first place, rather than wasting resources displacing responsibility on inanimate objects that nobody is under any obligation to buy.

Becoming akin with my Kindle

Last holiday season, my wife bought me Amazon’s highly acclaimed electronic book reader known as the Kindle.

I was highly skeptical at first about this new technology that was supposed to dramatically make my life easier. Ever since I graduated college, I’ve had a passion for reading almost anything. (Funny that it took so long, eh?) But, most of all, I love jumping head first into a big fat book. Makes no difference to me whether it is a historical novel, biography or even a well written and fast moving work of fiction. So, I wondered how an 8 ½ x 11 inch cold plastic tablet could ever take the joy of turning real paper pages in a hard-covered book. Or, having the ability to look back (or even forward) a few chapters to make sure that I truly understood the facts that so nicely set a particular story up.

The truth is that it can’t completely replace those small, yet important bits of fulfillment that avid book readers experience. But, what I have found is something far more gratifying in completely different ways. Of course, it took some flexibility on my part (mostly in my mind) to psychologically become at peace and in tune with the reality that the Kindle should not be viewed as a book replacement, but  instead as a true reading device which can make my life more productive, efficient and yes… even fun.

You see, I use my Kindle as a tool to do something I’ve never really been able to experience before. Much like the way I watch television (which by the way, my wife despises,) the Kindle allows me to read any one of three to four books, daily newspapers (not just a few stories, but the entire paper,) blogs and key magazines interchangeably. So, when I’m on a three hour plane ride, my typical Kindle experience includes reading a few chapters of all of these completely different books, while going back and forth between today’s New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business Week and a couple of blogs. Since, my wireless function automatically downloads the latest news that I’ve signed up for, it all automatically comes with me on those trips in the sky.

What’s better about it? Well, that’s easy. Think about how bulky my briefcase would be if I had to carry all those books and periodicals. I’m so glad to be rid of that. And, the interesting reality for me is that although I might have brought that many things to read on my past trips, I typically never opened more than one newspaper and one book because it was simply too laborious a task to keep switching back and forth. Here’s where the magic of the Kindle comes to play. This small tablet has it all and allows the Kindle to snuggly fit right into my briefcase

So, now the Kindle 2 has been launched by Jeff Bezos. That’s good. Because there are a few bad features on the original that needed to be fixed. I’d say the most annoying one is that buttons that turn each page go along the entire right hand side of the device (where you actually hold on to the Kindle to read, just like one would do with a book.) This, unfortunately, has led to me accidently turning many pages without actually wanting to. Not that big a deal, (I just turn right back.) But, it’s certainly a function that needed to be fixed. And, from what I hear, it the second incarnation of Kindle does just that and much more.

For those who are wondering whether it makes sense to become a Kindle user, I would say yes.  Just don’t think about it as a book replacement. There will always be times when you want to bring one special book on vacation, or just lay down on a lazy Sunday afternoon to turn many real pages of your favorite novel. But, what one book can’t do is provide an easy to use ability to read many different things as often as you’d like. Some might think I have ADD. Others would just agree with me that it’s fun to be able to consume disparate pieces of knowledge/information constantly. Regardless, the Kindle leverages the newest technologies to make life better. And, that’s just fine for me.