Measuring Up

Can social media bring divided factions together?

Anyone who’s ever worked inside a large company understands that corporate politics and turf battles are almost always a reality of day-to-day business. From our consultant viewpoint, we’ve pretty much seen all of the ways companies get stuck in their own inertia. One run-of-the-mill infrastructure issue we often see involves functional departments competing over budget sizes and resource allocations. And, within departments, managers often jockey for control over specific projects/campaigns or groups of employees. In these cases, the end goal (whatever it might be) is typically sacrificed because of power battles.  My least favorite (though) is when great ideas (that have the ability to “move the needle”) are killed for no other reason than because of petty personal insecurities (i.e. it didn’t come from me, and I don’t want that guy to look good).

We were discussing many of these issues last week during a day-long workshop that Peppercom co-led with CableFax, the cable industry trade publication, and Access Intelligence (its parent company). The workshop focused on how cable and media companies can learn to leverage social media more effectively within their current internal and external communications/marketing efforts. No surprises really came from this group. In many cases, even the largest companies are just dipping their toes into the digital water right now. Others haven’t created a social media strategy due to lack of resources, expertise or because their organization is still figuring out where this new functional discipline should be housed internally.

We also had two excellent guest speakers, a research team from MTV Networks who discussed how their organization is using social media research to serve its many properties (i.e. MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.) from a content and marketing standpoint. What I found most interesting, though, is how they’ve leveraged social media to unite so many different business functions within the organization. In their experience, this still misunderstood medium can bring many factions within a company together for the first time. And that’s exciting.

How is this possible? Well, after applying some logical analysis, it makes sense. What we heard is that most companies (at least in the cable and media industries) have not yet created one social media function or division within the organizational chart that runs across the company. Instead, various resources are often siphoned from different departments within the organization to take the lead on figuring out social media. These people are then deemed “social media experts.”  I’m sure that outside specialists are also brought in to show the way in many cases as well. But the point for MTV Networks is that, because its many business lines, brands and marketing areas are all intently trying to learn how to apply social media to their communications/marketing/audience engagement efforts, these factions find themselves opening up, integrating and simply working better with each other to learn and leverage best practices. More specifically, our guests discussed how social media research serves to play this unifying role (i.e. everyone wants it to make better decisions about specific campaigns/projects that should be created or not based on this first-time research).

In essence, because social media is so new and still somewhat mysterious (at least to its ultimate effect), it can actually serve to change the unwritten political rules that govern how internal behavior works within large organizations. Of course, this was but one example from one workshop. But, the possibilities are still pretty exciting.

What’s not to like about Steven Singer?

Ever hear of Steven Singer Jewelers? I’ve probably heard this company’s quirky radio commercials a thousand times and never thought anything about them. Until it finally hit me this morning just how bizarre Steve Singer’s marketing strategy is. You see, Steven Singer’s web site is www.ihatestevensinger.com. And, whether the company  is simply promoting discounted jewelry (as it always does) or special 14 carat gold dipped roses around Valentine’s day (yuck), this web URL is proudly highlighted over and over again in all of its advertising.

I found it quite odd that a company would promote such a negative statement about itself. So, I Googled Steven Singer to see if anything is being written about the URL name and then went to its Web site. I couldn’t find much being written, but the “About Us” section of Steven Singer’s Web site gave me what I was looking for. It seems that founder Steven Singer is quite a successful entrepreneur and businessman. He started the company at an early age and then expanded it in the Philadelphia area not long after. He’s won countless awards and has played a key civic role in the community as well. The positioning doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but Steven seems to feel that with each successful move he’s made, it’s a great reason for people to hate him (i.e. when people say, “Don’t you just hate the guy?”). Pretty weak, eh?

Regardless, his contrarian strategy to create a lot of noise around this negative (completely comical) Web site URL seems to work pretty well because the company keeps expanding. I only call this point out because it shows how sometimes counter intuitive, yet very creative marketing strategies can actually work when implemented the right way. With Steven Singer, he actually has Howard Stern preaching the company’s accolades, all while he makes fun of the URL ihatestevensinger.com. That’s caught on with Howard’s fans big time.

Who knows. Maybe this will start a trend and we’ll see Apple create www.ihateipod.com , or Disney promote www.idespisemickeymouse.com. Well… I can’t see this really becoming a trend (and I wouldn’t recommend it to any clients.) But, if it works for Steven Singer, that’s great.

Protecting the brand or antagonizing fans?

One of the ongoing Internet debates these days focuses on how companies can protect their brands when they are used in an unauthorized manner (often known as patent infringement), while also being very sensitive to the issue that they might be alienating, and even angering fans of that brand through their actions.

In these cases, I don’t mean obvious theft where companies or consumers are illegally profiting from another company’s cherished brand by selling product knock-offs or leveraging it on a Web site in some way to conduct e-commerce. No, instead I mean there are hundreds of cases where “fans” of that brand are just so excited about it that they set up Web sites to discuss, promote and gain an exponential amount of positive publicity about that brand by attracting hundreds (or thousands) of other fans.

One example that comes to mind is a fan site called www.ILOVECROCS.com, a few years back. The creator of this site absolutely adored this trendy rubber shoe. To show his appreciation, he built this site and promoted the brand through photos of different styles of Crocs. He attracted hundreds of new fans (and one would think) helped to provide free, positive marketing services for this company. From what I understand (told to me through a third party,) it wasn’t long after that he received a 'cease and desist' letter from the company’s lawyers. When the man tried to explain that he wasn’t making any money at Croc’s expense and just wanted to show appreciation for the brand through this Web site, the company attorneys didn’t care. In the end, the man was forced to pull down the site. And, that was that. Until anger started to boil up inside this “fan,” and he completely changed his views about Crocs. This anger manifested in his developing a site called www.IHATECROCS.com. And, of course, he now was pushing out only negative stories and vibes to those same fans about this brand that he once cherished.

Other companies such as FedEx and Dell have had very similar experiences as well.

The other day, my business partner and I received the email below. We created a completely fun, post-holiday Star Trek spoof video (in the spirit of our agency’s personality). The video was sent out to friends and family of Peppercom and posted on our Web site. You’ll see this CBS attorney (which owns the Star Trek brand) was actually very polite and tactful in her letter to us. Which is very much appreciated. CBS has every right to protect its brand rights in Star Trek and clearly its attorney is making sure that this is enforced to the letter of the law. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But, the question I ask is whether companies like this are doing more harm by protecting the brand from any type of infringement (even when the other party isn’t trying to profit in any way from it) versus allowing the brand to build more excitement and fans through our new digital world? Common sense dictates that the more Star Trek is seen by consumers, the more these same consumers will be interested in buying products, going to their trade shows and watching the latest Star Trek movie. That all adds up to more $$$ for the owner of that brand.

There isn’t an easy answer here. But, I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on the topic

Dear Sirs: 
 
I write as attorney for CBS Studios Inc. ("CBS"), owner of rights to the "Star Trek" franchise (collectively, the "Series").  These rights are protected by numerous copyrights and trademarks in and to the Series, the characters, the ships and other elements thereof (collectively, the "Star Trek Properties"). 
 
We appreciate that the success of the Star Trek Properties is enhanced by the interest of its dedicated fan base.  However, as a public relations firm, your company understands that CBS is obligated to enforce its rights in the Star Trek Properties to guarantee the Properties’ continued success.  In that regard, CBS is sensitive to consumers' desires to communicate and share information about the Star Trek Properties, and we seek to strike a balance between encouraging legitimate use and discouraging unauthorized infringement of valuable rights.  For example, CBS has numerous licensees worldwide who offer a wide range of products and services, all of which are carefully monitored for compliance with its licensing program to ensure the quality, authenticity and integrity of all goods and services associated with the Series.  In addition, CBS objects to the unauthorized commercial use of the Star Trek Properties, as well as the posting of protected material such as audio or video content, content from official websites, photographs, artistic renditions of the characters or other properties, music and sound files, and books or excerpts therefrom. 
 
It has come to our attention that your company has distributed a video utilizing the Star Trek Properties (http://vimeo.com/8707511) (the " Video").   While we appreciate your firm's interest in the Star Trek Properties, we are concerned about your use of the Properties as such use may be deemed violations of CBS's rights under applicable copyright and trademark laws.  It appears that the Video was limited in scope and timing.  We therefore request that your firm take steps to remove the Video from your website, vimeo.com, and any other website which your firm controls and confirm that your firm will refrain from using the Star Trek Properties in this manner in the future without prior written consent from CBS.
 
We trust that you understand CBS' concerns and will comply with our request.  We would appreciate receiving your written confirmation of your compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.  Should you need any additional information or wish to discuss this further, please use the contact information provided below. 

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or remedy possessed by CBS Studios Inc., or any other affected party, all of which are expressly reserved.
 
Mallory Levitt
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property
CBS
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
ph: 212-975-3633
f:  212-975-0114
Mallory.Levitt@cbs.com

Because of credible digital communications, I never looked “back”

Every few months my aching lower back acts up again. Like many, I’ve tried most therapies, from acupuncture  to intense physical therapy to regular chiropractor sessions. All of these have helped in making my back feel whole again for 4-8 month periods. But unfortunately, none gave any type of real lasting powers.

Ask 10 different people for advice on back therapies and you’ll get 10 different answers. Go on the internet looking for solutions and you’ll only find yourself tired, frustrated and more confused about the myriad of “guaranteed” procedures and doctors who can supposedly “cure” your pain. I was just about ready to end my Internet Google search, when this series of videos hit my screen.

; ;

In case you don’t have the time or desire to watch it, Dr. Howard Goodman (a back physician and chiropractor) discusses how something called spinal decompression can possibly help those who have inflammation or herniated discs (I have the former). What caught my eye about this series of videos (and kept me watching) is the simple, easy to understand and credible manner with which this specialist comes across. Instead of guaranteeing any type of magic solution, or trying to impress me with high brow MD knowledge, Dr. Goodman calmly explains to me what decompression is and how it can really help SOME patients (but not everyone.) He discusses it in the context of an alternative to surgery and then walks the viewer through symptoms that a candidate would have (and why.) Lastly, in layman’s terms, he describes the end benefit that this procedure can accomplish during a 6-8 week therapy timetable. I also like the fact that the entire intro video is only three minutes in length. (That’s plenty of time to explain to me the basics.) All the videos can be accessed from YouTube as well.

There’s nothing new about creating YouTube videos to educate and promote products, services and thought leadership. I just think that many in the medical field haven’t really figured out how to leverage this powerful Internet tool to effectively communicate credibly with target consumer audiences. With so many different medical “solutions” continually pushed to us, it’s incredibly hard to know which one is believable and really fits the problem at hand, or just pure snake oil (and there are quite of a few of those on the Internet these days.) So, guarantees and/or cocky promotions about medical pedigrees and language that I don’t understand are sure fire turnoffs for me.

After watching this video, I went to the Web site of New York Rehabilitation Center (which luckily happens to be physically located a block away from where I work,) and was further educated about the way decompression could really work for me. I also read articles (posted on the site) and did my own analysis on the doctors there to feel comfortable that everything seemed legitimate. In many ways, Dr. Goodman and his staff did everything right to successfully create a credible social media offering. The large amount of positive reviews about this video certainly helps to reinforce that. I think that others in the medical field should take notice.

Will this work for me? That’s a good question. I’m on to my 5th decompression appointment and the old back is actually starting to feel better. But, only time (6-8 weeks) will tell. I’ll be sure to report back to you how I’m feeling then.

One size fits none

Our crack PepperDigital team conducted a very interesting study on social media trends across the global spectrum. They are currently writing a 12-part blog series based on analyzing a host of interesting findings.

Not surprisingly, one of the core insights that was proven (though) shows how different cultures, crossing different countries utilize the Web and communicate/socialize much differently from each other. Marketers everywhere need to pay attention because overall campaigns, product introductions and/or relationship building clearly needs to be tailor made and implemented uniquely for each and every demographic and country/region that is targeted.

Our PepperDigital team offers a number of examples of how this is acutely true. I can think of one specific example that recently happened with a former client (not to be named) in which the senior executive in charge wanted to gain more attention for a blog post he had written on key business ethics principles. He asked us to generate a lot of international exposure among online communities where his customer base (senior HR managers) socialize and go to for thought leadership content. This all sounded great except that these principles were very US-centric and although they were smart and strategic, we believed they wouldn’t resonate with target audiences in some parts of Europe and Asia.

Although we pushed back, this former client was adamant about making this happen. So, we reluctantly backed down. Of course, the result was many comments on his post. About half were positive (from US business managers) and the rest chose to negatively dig into the very fact that these comments didn’t take into account social business norms in other key countries (like the EU). Not what our former client wanted.

If you’re interested in this topic, please take a few minutes and check out PepperDigital’s 12 different forthcoming posts. I think you’ll find them interesting.

Where social media is not socially accepted yet

I've spent most of this week in London. This trip has been extremely interesting because
I've had the pleasure of having long discussions with many government experts.

Their specialties range from working directly in high level government communications/advisory positions, to corporate public affairs folks, to very senior agency practitioners.

I learned quite a bit more about the inner workings of Her Majesty's government. And, although the viewpoints on a variety of topical challenges and opportunities varied some, one constant remained through all these meetings: social media is rarely being leveraged to communicate/persuade or educate key stakeholders in the public affairs world.

Don't get me wrong— it's clear that a few of the more progressive political candidates leverage the Internet to frame their message/brand and woo consumers. But, when I asked about whether campaigns (focused on motivating consumers to act) now target the most obvious virtual places they communicate and socialize in (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, target blogs, etc.), the answer was generally— no.

I'm naturally inquisitive. So, I asked why? And, the responses weren't too surprising. In most cases I heard, "Most within our industry have yet to really understand how to harness and, more importantly, not be afraid of this new medium."

Those in the world of public affairs (whether in US or UK) tend to be much more about strategy and leveraging political connections than creativity (at least that's been my general experience.) But, on this side of the ocean there are countless examples of any number of dynamic association and/or corporate campaigns that have rallied consumer sentiment online to achieve lofty goals. I know of cases where a groundswell of online support came from consumers to push their Congressmen to vote down taxes, vote a certain way on a bill and even impact the new and progressive ways that legislators now communicate back to their constituents.

It's clear that this industry based in "the States" is much more savvy about leveraging the Internet and is probably a good two years ahead of their British counterparts. Success tends to breed more openness, familiarity and desire to take risk in previously unknown channels. What those who are still clearly afraid need to know is that it's impossible to control just about anything anymore. Once a good or bad story gets out, the buzz simply lets loose on the Internet. But, like anything else, if a client's story is positive, or the truth, and is communicated in the right, transparent (and maybe creative) way, this new medium called social media should become one of the most powerful and often used tools in a PA agency's tool belt.

On the reverse end, those who don't learn to adopt, accept and become ‘social’ will go the way of the British monarchs (who actually had power) very soon.

You need to "live it" to get it

This morning, I read about Rupert Murdoch's bold prediction to stop the flood tide that is swiftly forcing almost all online media/content to be free. More specifically, Mr. Murdoch announced that he intends to charge for all of his company's news Web sites. And, he confidently believes that this will create a counter revolution, allowing for all other media to follow suit.

Rupert Murdoch is one smart dude. He's established a global media empire in the shrewdest of ways. There should be an entire class in business school offering case studies of how this man successfully built the News Corporation from the ground up.

But this time, I think he's finally lost his golden touch. You see, from everything I've read, it appears that Mr. Murdoch has only actually been on the Internet once or twice (and never by himself.) So, it just seems kind of crazy for a man to think he can be the force that halts the Internet's natural evolution towards providing free content and actually find a way to reverse current consumer wants and demands... when he clearly hasn't even experienced what it's all about.

Free. Yes, we've all heard it many times. Free is the optimal word now for news and information online.

Why?

Well, it's pretty simple. There are just too many free blogs, information sites and knowledgeable Web columnists with opinions for the masses to read. And, when almost any news story (or opinion about that story) can be searched in a second and clicked onto for free, why in the world would consumers pay to receive it, even if it's coming from a newspaper that they subscribe to or read every day?

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Some folks like and need the special alerts, feeds and other information that can provide up to the minute news. Thus, any number of trade magazines and even internationals such as The Financial Times do make revenues from real subscriptions. But, those are anomalies (and we're not talking about a lot of money generated, either.) The fact remains that the media industry has never found a way to create a sustainable revenue line from consumer subscriptions. And these days, many are facing real uphill battles maintaining their only real source of income -- selling advertising.

Maybe Mr. Murdoch's entertaining announcement is nothing more than a blustery (but weak) attempt to bridge attention away from his weak earnings (off more than 30 percent this quarter.) Or maybe, he has some grander scheme in mind to prop up one or more of his media properties in the hope of catching the eye of a suitable buyer.

Either way, it makes no difference to me. It just feels like his provocative prediction would prove a tad more credible if the man actually put himself in the shoes of today's consumer by actually "living" on the Internet for a while. Lord knows, he'd certainly have a better understanding of the subject at hand.

Michael, A foreign affair

It's official. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is seriously weighing a 1,500 word resolution in Michael Jackson's honor.

Why is this something that the Foreign Affairs Committee should possibly care about? Perhaps it’s because the resolution calls Jackson a "global" humanitarian. The resolution was introduced by Republican Lee of Texas. It praises the entertainer's many charitable activities that took place throughout his life. It states: Resolution Number 600-- honoring an American legend and musical icon.

Clearly, people tend to get carried away when someone famous dies. And, this resolution seems a tad over the top. But, this seems to be par for the course for Michael. I just heard this morning that a grassroots effort in Jacksonville, Florida is now underway to rename the city after the fallen pop star.

The media have also covered Michael's sad story (in both positive and negative ways) nonstop on a 24/7 basis for two solid weeks.

All of this has led to countless blogs, emails and just plain conversations from many that they are sick and tired of being forced to watch this story everywhere. I've heard some rant a few days back that after a week of coverage, no one cares any more. And, others grumble they are simply annoyed that this entertainer's death should receive the same CNN-like headlines as "more important" real stories like the Iran election battles, American journalist abductions in North Korean and our President's diplomatic discussions in Russia.

I don't disagree with any of this. But, on the other hand, I'm kind of surprised that so many people can't understand why news about the Prince of Pop has reached epic proportions.

Our culture has always been obsessed with celebrities and especially entertainers. And, that will never change. Some might claim that this is a chicken and egg question. (Which came first?) They believe the Jackson feeding frenzy is happening simply because the media won't stop reporting on it. Thus, the public are forced to consume it. On this topic, I tend to disagree. According to Nielson Media Research, over 31 million viewers watched Jackson's funeral on TV (and the Staples Center was completely sold out as well) and CNN.com served out 4.4 million video streams to a ravenous public who simply could not get enough of this story’s details.

Michael's ratings drew more views than two Presidents' memorial services (Reagan and Ford) and came in a close second to another beloved celebrity like figure years back (Princess Diana) who had 33 million people watching.

The bottom line is that after Elvis and The Beatles, Michael Jackson might be the next most influential rock/pop icon ever. The deaths of both Elvis and John Lennon incurred tremendous public interest also. And, I'm sure if either had passed away in today's age, we'd be experiencing similar 24/7 obsessions across the globe as well.

Entertainers create controversy. The media love to cover all of it. And, we consumers eat it up. Call it crazy. But, all this craziness surrounding Michael Jackson's posthumous interest seems very normal to me.

It will start to slowly fade away. My suggestion to all those people who are pulling their hair out-- turn it off whenever you can and just tune out all the time. But, stop fighting it. This is a continuing big global news story because our international society wants it. Whether you like it or not, that simply won't change.

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.

Still searching for the perfect PDA

I'm sitting in the airport watching various passengers fumble around with their many mobile communications devices. It's a funny sight to see.

Let's see. There's the 20-something business woman who is constantly going back and forth between her iPhone (for music), a BlackBerry for email and another plain cellular phone to make calls. She seems to be a tad stressed searching through her bag to find each one.

I'm also sitting next to a mid-40s gentleman (my guess on age) who is desperately trying to receive emails from his iPhone. The problem is that they aren't coming in quick enough. So now he's turning on a laptop to wirelessly achieve download fulfillment. This guy is just plain frustrated.

I could point out three other people with similar stories... but you're probably beginning to see my point.

I think many of us are still longing to find that one-size-fits-all, perfect PDA. I know that this is true for me. Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly happy with my latest BlackBerry. Because I only want to carry around and use one device for efficiency's sake, this one generally serves the purpose. The only issue at hand is that my calls (I have AT&T) seem to be quite expensive (and I'm not sure why.) So, while I choose to use it as a mobile phone as well, it isn't quite nirvana because my company is paying far too much for what is now a commodity feature.

I don't get why so many people like, or maybe the word is are 'satisfied,' with having to cart around two, three or even four electronic devices to fully communicate and be entertained. To me, that's simply a hassle.

But, then again, I'm still wondering why one of the many technology leaders out there hasn’t created a single device that can provide the masses with one-stop shopping across the board. Apple and RIM (the maker of BlackBerry) are racing to the finish line with something that can appeal to both consumers and professionals alike, but it just feels like this particular innovation should have become a reality by now.

Until that happens, I'll just keep using my BlackBerry to satisfy all my email/Internet/cellular needs (albeit at a higher cost.) And, I'll entertain myself by watching more soon-to-be fellow passengers stressfully switch back and forth among their many cumbersome gadgets to successfully live in this new digital age.