Measuring Up

The science of PR?

A client asked me today if the discipline of PR is considered an art or science. I paused for a few seconds before responding. I'd never really thought about it before.

I told her that public relations is more of an art than a science. But, I now wonder if the actual answer to this question is: When it's done right, it can truly be considered both.

My initial thought (and point of view) was that because no one can guarantee if a specific product, service, corporate story or entire campaign will be of interest to reporters or any other target audience, it's really difficult to prove that science is involved.

Plus, there are always so many outside (hard to plan) factors that come into play in our campaigns that impact success or failure. For example, try generating a lot of broadcast coverage for a client's great growth story announcement on the same day that a major scandal rocks the White House. Any and all interest will immediately vanish as the networks and cable channels use every resource to cover the ‘more important’ news of the day.

No, factors like breaking controversial news coming to bear, personal preference of stories or even other problems that could be impacting a client's larger reputation make it hard to predict with any scientific odds as to whether the media, digital world or larger public relations campaign will pick up traction. This is because, our world is so focused on subjective, human nature (how well do we tell our stories and will they resonate with key constituents?).

Where the science should come in is how we can leverage real facts, statistics and truths to create impressions and persuade audiences that our story should be believed. The other clearly scientific part of our work is our ability to measure results. The right measurement approach is not arbitrary or subjective at all. Just the same way an accountant would measure the results of how well a company fared financially in any given year, PR professionals can provide real numbers on how well particular components of a campaign worked. Just as importantly, we can show whether a campaign or program demonstrates objective outcomes that are worthy of the investment put in.

So, what do you think now? Art or science? I'm still stuck in the middle, believing it can be both. Now, I'm going to call my client to change the answer...

Are hospitals pushing the boundaries of social media tools?

As a marketing professional, it’s great to see how some industries are starting to leverage social media for all of its brand building value.  Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and blogging in general, can supplement traditional marketing programs, or even replace major ad buys to really impact the level of visibility and direct response aimed at targeted end users. That’s really important during these tough economic times where cash strapped organizations need to find ways to reach their audiences with the most cost-effective approaches.

Now, with all of that said (or written), here’s one case that I believe has gone a little too far: Your brain Surgery! Hospitals See Marketing Tool. As you can read, hospitals are now creating YouTube videos of actual brain surgery operations.

What really crosses the line is that while one particular patient is having a craniotomy, she remains conscious, actually promoting her surgeon and the hospital all the while her doctors prod and cut inside her brain.  The hospital (Methodist University Hospital in Memphis) is excited, as over 21,555 people have now watched this video on YouTube.

Yuck. Talk about too much information.

According to Jill Fazakerly, the marketing director of this hospital, “The goal is to further our reputation as well as to educate the community, who will ask their physicians about our care.” That’s all well and good, but what about the very real issue of patient privacy? I have to believe that this hospital is opening itself up to some real legal risks by exploiting someone’s misery (and brain matter) on the Internet in such a graphic way.

The other obvious issue is simply whether this is a matter of good taste gone bad. Yes, the Internet has created a home for sites, stories and satires that would never have existed without it. And, creative marketing has been raised to an entirely new level of existence as well. But, hospitals, by their very nature, are supposed to be a tad more conservative and careful with anything involving their patients. Showing live brain operations on Web video as if they are the same as chef making a great soufflé is just a little crazy. And, I wonder about whether these respectable organizations will look a little too capricious and whimsical because of it.

Don’t get me wrong. I love some of the other ways hospitals have become digital marketing machines. Some doctors are blogging profusely about real life experiences, so that patients and others can comment and learn about the latest in surgery and treatment. Some surgeons actually Twitter from operating rooms before and after surgeries. That’s great as long as it doesn’t interfere with the welfare of any patient. Other hospitals (like University of California San Francisco’s Memory and Aging Center) have a Facebook page that has drawn participants for hard-to-fill clinic trials. This has allowed many people learn a ton of new information about what their love ones suffer from. 

As Ms. Fazakerly said so well, these campaigns are only supposed to enhance a company or organization’s reputation. The type of marketing discipline that a marketer chooses, or the strategy and/or tactic that it decides to implement will have a tremendous impact on whether the marketing campaign actually helps to improve reputation… or hurt it. The fact that hospitals are finding creative digital means is great. But, I’d rethink this literal inside view of what really happens behind the curtain. All it takes is for one video to go awry and a supposed reputation builder will turn into a full blown crisis.

Wi-Fi in the sky

Wi-Fi is coming to an airline near you. It's about time.

Last week Air Tran announced that it would be the first carrier to have its entire fleet wired with Wi-Fi networks. Now, Delta, Virgin, Air Canada and a host of others are in a mad dash to offer the ability for passengers to connect via a wireless network to their lap tops, Blackberry or other PDA devices.

It isn't free though. And, as Joe Sharkey points out in his column today, a real question exists as to whether passengers will cough up the $9.95 fee (for short flights) or the $12.95 expenditure for those flights over three hours.

Initially, the move to wireless seemed like a natural money maker for this industry. After all, it only costs about $100 per plane to install. So, before our economy hit rock bottom this seemed like a no brainer. Now, everyone is watching costs and no one wants to be nickeled and dimed.

Shockey also rightfully complains that the tiny seats provided on short flights makes it damn near impossible to actually maneuver and type on a laptop effectively. No doubt that can be a hindrance. But, overall this blogger believes that the flight to finally install a real connection to our business world (as in Wi-Fi) during our flights is a long time coming. And, there is no doubt that this will be a true win-win scenario for all.

Just think about some of the "pain" you've experienced and this will make sense. How many times have you been in the middle of a timely email, only to have to shut down for three or four hours because those are the rules? Or, as you've passed the time away reading airline magazines and eating peanuts, how often have you wondered whether your colleagues received that important prospect call to let the team know whether the account (or piece of new business) was won or lost?

Yes, times are tough. But, these times will pass. And, even so, serious professionals will gladly hand out $12.95 to stay connected to the world they so depend upon and to be as efficient with their productivity as possible.

My bet is that by the end of 2010, airlines will only be kicking themselves for not installing this new incremental revenue line sooner. Who knows? Maybe one of the more marketing minded carriers will actually copy fast food franchises and offer us a "value combo." For just $16.95, we'll be given Wi-Fi access, a pillow/blanket and a thumb-sized bottle of our favorite liquor bottle to boot. Now, wouldn't that be something...

Smart marketers or sleazy desperados?

The New York Yankees are hawking every little piece of the Old Yankee Stadium. They are hoping that fans will scoop up as much memorabilia as possible for big bucks.

The question I have is whether some of the items being sold should be considered true Yankee valued merchandise, or worthless snake oil from a carnival huckster.

Exhibit number one: Dirt. Actually, it's a laser engraved crystal paper weight with a coin holder filled with a few tablespoons of dirt from Yankee Stadium. Cost- $79.99

Verdict - snake oil in the worst of ways and worth nothing. Then again from a marketing standpoint, the crystal engraved choice is very smart. There will be a lot of takers on this one.

Exhibit number two: A 4 x 35 strip of infield grass taken between home plate and the pitcher's mound. Cost - $2,500.

Verdict - absolute snake oil. Are you kidding me? This grass is changed or partially removed/enhanced every year. The sucker who buys this could be the new owner of freshly made sod. Flip the coin though, and you'll see a marketer's dream. Where else can one sell ungodly amounts of something for real currency worth absolutely nothing at all?

Exhibit number three: Commemorative seat with authentic seat back and bottom and new arms. Cost - $749.99 a piece.

Verdict - uh... commemorative means fake, not real. For $750 bucks a person can buy one hell of a comfortable, real chair to actually sit in. Oh. Excuse me. The seat back is authentic. This is a serious rip off. Beyond snake oil. Too slick for a marketing ploy even. My guess, they probably won't sell many.

Of course, there are lots of real memorable items that true Yankee fans would die to purchase. Parts of Monument Park, the original stadium facade and home plate could all be considered pretty cool. I just wonder if this organization is acting a little too desperate for the times we are presently in. Fans have to be shaking their heads wondering how this family run business will try to take advantage of them next.

One man's agony is an entire industry's gain

Zyrtec D, Zicam Allergy, Mucinex, Alavert, Tylenol Sinus and Congestion, Sudafed Allergy, Afrin Sinus Congestion Spray and the list goes on and on. These are but just a handful of over the counter allergy medications that now line our medicine closet at home. I won't bore you with the prescription based spring allergy solutions that fill my bin as well. Oh, by the way, none of them actually work. They treat the symptoms for a few hours and then the fun starts all over again.

Spring is here. Pollen is in the air. And, for the second year in a row, I'm in absolute agony.

The so called experts offer a variety of theories as to why life is miserable for some (like me) now and why it's steadily gotten worse for two to three years now.  I've read everything from global warming (of course, that's the easiest villain to pin it on), to the fact that a prolonged winter has caused a late bloom with double or triple the intensity of trees and flowers pollinating all at once (which may also be caused by global warming).

Whatever the reason, this severe reaction to Spring is new to me and millions of others. And, that means only one thing for consumer product and pharmaceutical companies who market their products as the savior to our painful sinus problems: opportunity.

That's right. These companies can smell it in the air (right next to the pollen of course). I can actually see the drool coming off of their proverbial chins (no, it's not sinus discharge either). This industry understands one key point: consumers will do almost anything to feel good and live without pain. And thus, their pills, sprays, gels, tablets and syrups are flying off the shelves faster than the first release of the iPod.

And, the numbers really do tell the story. According to a recent story in Drugstorenews.com, sales of over the counter allergy drugs are already bypassing last year's numbers by almost 30 percent. And, this broke the former sales record established during the same time last year. The allergy brands behind these astonishing sales have become incredibly astute marketers as well. Of course, we run into their ads in all of the typical places (online, print and all over broadcast media). But, I see that they've entered into the social media world through Facebook, third party blogs, as well as creating dialogue with affected online consumers who are desperately looking for solutions. As a marketer and businessman, I congratulate many in the industry. They saw an opening and jumped right in to take ownership.

How long will this golden opportunity last (severe allergy season)? God only knows. But, one thing is for sure. There won't be any shortage of new products hitting the market soon because we're all still looking for a real solution and at this point the cost is almost an afterthought.

When accuracy and reason are inherent conflicts

One of the larger hedge fund managers is fighting back against the Obama Chrysler backlash. Cliff Asness, whose firm manages $20 billion of assets, has written an open letter blasting the President for his attack on the hedge fund industry in the wake of this bankruptcy. 

I find this article quite interesting because his points of view are indeed accurate and in some cases, legally binding. For example, he states that “it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers to get their clients the best return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the ‘sacrifice,’ they are stealing.”

Asness is entirely right. As a matter of fact, if you, I or even Mr. Obama (when he was a private citizen) had reason to believe that our hedge fund manager wasn’t trying to get the best possible price for our investment in Chrysler, we would have real grounds to sue his fund.  After all, we only invested our hard earned money because we believed that it’s manager was going to do everything within his legal means to generate as high a return as possible. The fact that many constituents (including our government) are trying to save Chrysler has little to do with what might be good for me or you as an investor in the automotive company’s bonds (especially if we could save some of our return if the company went bankrupt). And, to call those investors ‘selfish’ is truly a bullying tactic that fundamentally cuts across the grain of what our stock market investment philosophy has always been about.

Now, unfortunately for Perella Weinberg Partners (the investment firm behind all of this) being right isn’t always reasonable or prudent. And, in the most egregious cases (like so many collapses in this bizarre economy,) being willfully tone deaf when the President of our country is on the bully pulpit screaming at you is just kind of stupid. The reality is that every constituent within the Chrysler deal had to sacrifice something. Many had to give in to almost every concession. So, when Perella Weinberg Partners didn’t back down until the heat became unbearable, they received an oral lashing in the worst type of way from Obama. And, that translated to becoming the sacrificial lamb on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Stories in the media are like snow men. They melt away very quickly when the weather changes (or in this case another story comes along). This story too shall pass pretty quickly. Although, it feels like the hedge fund industry is finally at a point where it is about to start fighting the moniker of being the everyday man’s selfish villain. I think Asness’ letter is a smart approach to tell the industry’s side of this story. I just wouldn’t want to get caught in the cross hairs of the president’s next Wall Street damning because no one really cares about the other point of view as that is happening.

NJ hospital learns "church and state" rule the hard way

After all the public relations gaffes in the last year, some muckety-muck, powerful executives still don't get it. Because I live these types of decisions every day, it must be too intuitive to me how to handle the most basic and obvious PR decisions. That's why I really shouldn't be surprised to read about the latest bumbling move by Hackensack University Medical Center.

This type of PR blunder has happened for as long as newspapers existed.  The Record, a daily newspaper owned by North Jersey Media Group, was preparing to write a controversial article about the questionable Board connections of the Medical Center. So, right out of a "PR 101 Never Do This" guide, the hospital's Board threatened to pull its entire ad campaign if the paper had the nerve to run the piece.

Kudos to the brave daily (especially in this economy.) With the threat looming overhead, the publisher never flinched and the article was printed that Sunday. And, like clockwork, the Board pulled all of its advertising budget. We all know what comes next in this story. The Record printed another article simply stating what the Board did (threatened it and then pulled the advertising campaign.) And now, the Medical Center is on its heels, back pedaling because it looks so stupid (like a big, bad bully) through more negative publicity.

Now the Board has issued an apology and offered to reinstate the ad campaign. (The statement was issued through its PR firm.) And, I'm reading this latest article (with a few million other people in The New York Times). Need I say anymore...?

What's the lesson(s) learned here? Well, there are a few. First, I don't care how powerful you are, don't try to control national or daily newspapers with threats or money. It simply won't work. In actuality, the more powerful and/or famous one is, the greater the chance he/she will be covered by the press because that's what sells newspapers.

Secondly, our world is much too transparent now to ever think that a threat like that one given by the Medical Center Board won't be leaked or reported. So, one better understand how one story will surely evolve into more ongoing embarrassing news if this bad strategy is enforced.

Lastly, these executives (in this case The Hackensack Medical Center Board) need to learn to just deal with the issue at hand in a sensible way. Because, there are no easy answers once a crisis begins. If the Medical Center indeed does have bad practices at the Board level, well... it should have looked at its vulnerabilities and fixed these. Since it seems like that ship has sailed, then the Board needs to retain the right crisis communicators/managers to counsel them better on openly and honestly dealing with the problem.

Step one (these days) means having a truthful conversation with The Record to explain what the issues are and how they will be changed for the better.

Yes, I'm sure the Medical Center would have still taken some knocks for its questionable practices. But, assuming changes are forthcoming, the negative coverage might have stopped there and an important media relationship would still be intact. Of course, this is not the reality now.

Thankfully, the ethical boundaries separating advertising and editorial still exist in most reputable newspapers. That's important, so that you and I can continue to believe (most) of what is written these days. Hackensack Medical Center (a very good hospital, by the way) learned this reality the hard way.