November 8, 2010 in Brand Strategy, Content Marketing, Public Relations by Scott Baradell
HEADS UP: Reinvention Virtual Storytelling Summit, Nov. 11-22

As I’m finishing up a book on storytelling, I thought I’d pass along a virtual conference that you may find of interest. It’s called the Reinvention Summit, and it starts this Thursday. Registration starts at just $11.11. The event has a solid lineup of speakers, covering a wide range of topics that public relations practitioners should find of interest.

Remember: bad PR people pitch products; good PR people pitch stories. It’s important to understand the difference.

Here’s Michael Margolis, president of Get Storied, discussing the event:

People who know me know that I hate traveling to conferences. But this one is virtual — so wherever I am, I’ll plan to be there. Check it out.

 
2
November 3, 2010 in Brand Strategy, Content Marketing, Media Orchard, Public Relations, Social Media Marketing by Scott Baradell
RANT: On Thought Leaders, Market Followers and Stories That Stick

I’ve finally cleared off my desk (that’s the loud crash you heard earlier this morning) and have begun to focus on getting my book finished so we can roll the presses and start trying to sell the darn thing. We’ll begin running excerpts here sometime soon, so you can decide for yourself whether it’s worth the 20 bucks on Amazon.

People familiar with Media Orchard — generally, if you were blogging about PR in the 2005-2007 timeframe, you know about us — understand that I’ve always seen social media and online marketing through an old-school lens.

While some have attempted to come up with shiny new names for what we do, cool-looking press release templates and so forth, and others have hit the speaking circuit to pronounce press releases dead or PR fundamentally, like, changed, like, forever, I’ve always pinned my sails to the truism that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I know, it’s not sexy. But it does have the virtue of being true.

Calling BS

PR, and marketing communications generally, have always been about telling stories. Stories still need a beginning, a middle and an end. They still need a purpose and a message. All that’s really changed is the variety of media we use, the complexities in identifying our audiences, and the tools at our disposal to measure success or failure.

I won’t name names, but back in 2006, many of the so-called top influencers in social media were spouting a lot of nonsense about how PR would be rocked to its core. For example, most declared that CEOs who weren’t good writers shouldn’t have blogs — because ghost-blogging was verboten as “inauthentic.”

I always knew this to be BS. It was inevitable how things would evolve — our economy dictates it, not the so-called “thought leaders.”

As I told my friend Geoff Livingston when he interviewed me back in March 2007:

When you think about it, Web 2.0 started the way Web 1.0 started. That is, you had a bunch of techies and academics and anti-corporate types running everything and thinking they could make the rules for everybody else. But guess what? They can’t. We live in a deregulated market economy, and ultimately, where there is money to be made, the market will make the rules.

I’m not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing; I’m just saying it’s inevitable. It’s inevitable in the same way that cable news stations will cover Anna Nicole Smith 24/7, no matter what is going on in Africa. All this social media stuff is going mainstream; it’s all going to be owned and operated by companies that are trying to wring every dollar they can out of it.

And, of course, that’s exactly what happened. Look around.

Stories That Stick

Meanwhile, a lot of gurus who are making big bucks from the speaking circuit today are saying very different things from what they said in 2006. Truth is, they’re not “thought leaders” — they’re “market followers.” They come up with new “leading thoughts” based on realities that are very different from what they previously projected.

It’s like listening to sports talk, where the radio host says the team sucks and the coach should be fired the day after a loss — but that the coach is a genius after the team wins the following week.

Guess what: the coach didn’t get better. The radio host’s job is to come up with something to say every day, to get people to pay attention and respond. No one pays much attention to what he said the day before.

And so it is with too many of the social media gurus.

There’s only one problem: while this “guru” model works for self-promotion, it doesn’t work as well for brands. In fact, the techniques that get some gurus attention are often the very same techniques that companies should avoid like the plague in their own communications plans.

You see, companies aren’t like sports radio hosts. And they aren’t like speaking-circuit gurus. Companies can’t hold their finger in the air every day to decide which way the wind’s blowing, and then sell something different, the way a guru can spout new opinions.

The best companies invest in their products, services and brand identity for the long term. This requires a consistency in storytelling — across all media, and to all relevant audiences. It requires creating stories with staying power.

Or as I put it in my book’s title, “Stories That Stick.”

More later…

 
0
April 20, 2009 in Brand Strategy, Public Relations by Scott Baradell
ADVICE: Sometimes, Your Company’s Wins Are Nothing to Brag About

david_goliath12061When your company scores a victory, it’s not always best to brag about it. In fact, it’s sometimes best for the public to think you lost.

I know this may seem a little counterintuitive to you transparency-preaching (if not always practicing) new-wave flacks out there, but bear with me a minute, OK?

Let’s look at the example of corporate lawsuits. I’m not talking about the kind of lawsuits where two corporate giants are battling each other over trademark infringement, a business deal gone bad, or other such snits. That may get the business wonks excited — but from the rest of the world, it elicits an “Is American Idol on yet?” yawn.

I’m talking about the lawsuits where an individual or group of individuals — a.k.a., “the little guy” — takes on your big, bad Fortune 500 company.

Beating the Little Guy

In the long run, John Maynard Keynes famously said, we’re all dead. Also in the long run (not quite as long, but close), deep-pocketed corporations usually beat the rap when they are dragged into court by an individual they have wronged (or allegedly wronged). This is true no matter how heinous the corporation’s misdeeds (or alleged misdeeds).

Let me guess: You don’t believe me. You’ve read too many of those “little guy wins big” headlines over the years, haven’t you?

Headlines like: “Old Lady Wins $3 Million from McDonald’s for Spilling Hot Coffee on Herself!”

It’s enough to make you pull at your hair and shout, “Damn lawyers!” — isn’t it?

The Fine Print

No one ever seems to read the fine print years later, after the esteemed legal counsel for those deep-pocketed corporations have earned their paychecks.

Remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which devastated the Alaskan coast in 1989? Despite a $5.3 billion judgment, Exxon didn’t pay a dime of it for nearly 20 years. The company only agreed to pay in 2008 — after the damages had been slashed by more than 90 percent.

As for that “old lady” who spilled her coffee — 79-year-old Stella Liebeck — she never did see the $3 million she was awarded in 1994. The judgment was reduced by 80 percent, and the plaintiff, who suffered third-degree burns, spent eight days in the hospital, and endured two years of treatment, settled for even less rather than wait through endless appeals.

And just last week, a respected photojournalist named Chris Usher, who sued Corbis after the stock photo agency lost more than 12,000 of his images — including coverage of the historic Bush-Gore presidential race — had to settle for compensation of just $7 per image after a seven-year battle.

See how it works?

And if you’re going to bring up the Greg Kinnear flick Flash of Genius, don’t even go there. Dude ruined his marriage and his life to win that case.

Hold the Press Release

What happens in these cases, almost invariably, is that it doesn’t turn out as well for the little guy as the media originally reports.

When the end finally comes, your execs may decide to take turns giving each other high fives in the boardroom. That’s fine.

But if one of them calls to tell you to put out a press release about the big win, I’d encourage you to pretend your cell phone is on the blink and to make a staticky hissing sound into the receiver. And if you’re on the office phone, I’d encourage you to pretend it’s your cell phone (the one that’s on the blink).

You see, this is the kind of victory that big companies shouldn’t brag about. Goliath beating David is not good PR for Goliath.

In fact, the best possible PR that companies can get in these situations is what they get without even trying. The media generally does corporations a big favor by losing interest in these legal battles long before the final verdict.

So sometimes when you win, it’s best to keep it to yourself.

Damn lawyers.

(Image source)

 
0
November 21, 2008 in Brand Strategy, Public Relations by Scott Baradell
ADVICE: Getting into Hot Water Once in a While Keeps You Clean

“I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.”

– G.K. Chesterton

Sometimes it’s good for brands to get into trouble — that is, for customers, and the public generally, to begin to question if a brand is what it says it is. In fact, I would argue that the more sudden and urgent the brand crisis, the better it is for the brand.

Whole Foods Market is a good example of a brand in crisis that has used its troubles as a wake-up call to shore up its reputation. When Whole Foods was forced to recall beef from its shelves in August in an E. coli outbreak, customers suddenly wondered whether its quality standards were really that much higher than other big-box grocers. It hasn’t helped that food prices have been going up across the board and the economy is in a shambles. In many consumers’ minds, Whole Foods had become “Whole Wallet.”

Since the beef crisis, Whole Foods has been working hard to prove that it is different — and not necessarily as expensive as everyone thinks. The retailer has blogged about the crisis, issued comparison shopping challenges, and reinforced its quality claims.

What if there hadn’t been a brand crisis for Whole Foods? What if the retailer had simply continued to charge high prices, had gradually lost its quality distinction in its customers’ minds, and little by little its growth slowed until, over a period of years, it began to lose market share?

Compared to this fate — which has befallen too many brands to count — a crisis that gets a company’s management moving sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

I’ve managed my share of brand crises over the years, and with few exceptions, they’ve ended up being good for the companies involved.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Jerry Seib opined today in reference to our current economic troubles and the opportunity they present for President-elect Obama:

The thing about a crisis — and crisis doesn’t seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now — is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

The same benefit is true for brands — particularly at Fortune 1000 companies, where the bureaucracy levels can rival those of Congress.

 
6
November 19, 2008 in Brand Strategy by Scott Baradell
ADVICE: Reason and Emotion Are Not Antagonists

“Reason and emotion are not antagonists.”

– Nathaniel Branden

Try as we might, it’s impossible for us to separate reason from emotion. There’s no such thing as following your heart instead of your head (or thinking with “the little head instead of the big one,” for that matter.) Virtually all of our decisions — business decisions, political preferences, life choices — are made based on a combination of reason and emotion, and that mixture is far too messy to ever isolate the point where one ends and the other begins.

Branding works because it plays on your emotions and your reason. It doesn’t give you a list of product benefits and hope you’ll rationally choose this product over a competitor. It goes after your whole mind — and frankly, you are powerless against its force, if it’s done well. You are powerless because, as Spock-like as you may think you are, you can never separate your brain from your feelings.

The Frame Is More Important Than the Picture

Facts don’t speak for themselves. They need framing to be understood — and that’s where the real battle for public opinion and brand preference takes place.

For example, “estate tax” and “death tax” are two terms describing the same thing. However, if you survey Americans, the majority favor the estate tax and oppose the death tax. But framing goes beyond simple wordplay. When done well, it aims directly at our greatest hopes and deepest fears — and ties these to our decisions, including purchase decisions.

The author George Lakoff says that, in the world of U.S. politics, Americans tend not to vote on issues; instead, they view the country metaphorically, as a family, and vote on the type of family they identify with — a family dominated by a strict father (the Republican party) or a nurturing mother (the Democrats). The emotional impact of these frames is enormous, and determines what facts resonate with the public.

Girly-Man Democrats and Erratic Republicans

For example, Republicans have been effective in emasculating their Democratic opponents by using images of the slightly built Michael Dukakis in a tank, or John Kerry windsurfing — images that reinforce the “softness” of the Democrats in the public’s mind. Similarly, the Obama campaign was effective in portraying John McCain as “erratic” — not the kind of strict father Americans could trust to lead them.

Until I read Lakoff’s work on frames, I wondered, as many political analysts have, why the public tends to line up with Democrats on issues ranging from abortion rights to a progressive tax system — but has generally voted for Republicans in national elections for the past 30 years. I was particularly interested since my own parents were die-hard Republicans despite supporting the Democratic position on the majority of issues.

The answer is that they supported the Republican frame.

Frames in Branding

You can’t brand your organization successfully without creating and leveraging frames — for your customers, for your investors, for your employees. There’s an old story about someone asking a janitor at NASA what he did for a living. His reply: “I’m helping to put a man on the moon!”

The facts are that he’s mopping the floors, scrubbing the bathrooms, and making minimum wage. But framed as part of a larger, inspirational mission, this emotional context is far more important than the facts.


Image source

 
2