Last updated by at .
Trendwatching.com’s April 2012 Trend Briefing covered the consumer trend of transparency or companies being “flawsome.” Flawsome is the name for brands that are still brilliant despite having flaws. Even being flawed can be awesome. Therefore, flawsome.
Everything from disgust at business practices to the influence of online culture is driving consumers away from boring brands in favor of brands with some personality. And consumers are benefitting from increased brand transparency.
This isn’t a new theme. Back in 2008, Shel Israel coined the phrase “Lethal Generosity” — the idea that companies that are more generous with information are more credible and influential and as such, can devastate their competition in the marketplace. Lethal generosity results in rising to the top not just in followers and engagement, but in search results as well. Sharing information freely means sharing the flaws along with the good stuff – usually counterintuitive to corporate lawyers.
Let’s be real: things go wrong all the time. Brands that open their kimono, admit fault and work to fix the problem will engender good will and trust among consumers. Why? Human nature dictates that people have a hard time genuinely connecting with, being close to, or really trusting other humans who appear to have no weaknesses, flaws or mistakes – and the same holds for brands.
Those brands that work at sharing information and giving back to their communities – even if they have a flaw or two – are most likely to succeed in earning the trust of consumers. Take TangoTab, a Dallas-based startup that enables consumers to find and redeem specials, events, and exclusive offers at their favorite restaurants.
“Is the phone interview dead?” asked a recent PRDaily post that declared, “reporters hardly pick up the phone to talk to sources, let alone cover stories by face-to-face meetings. Interviews are now done via email, Facebook, Twitter and Skype.”
That can’t be true, I thought. Newsrooms couldn’t have changed that much since I left them in September after 26 years. But just to make sure, I asked a dozen working journalists for their thoughts. Their responses make clear the phone interview is not dead, and why that’s a good thing for good journalism as well as good public relations.
Like an in-person interview, a telephone conversation offers an immediate exchange of information, and, more importantly, understanding. A reporter can ask questions and the interviewee can respond. Ideally they can continue until they understand one another’s positions. The telephone allows for a level of detail, clarification and nuance not possible with other electronic methods.
That’s vitally important for PR people, who want reporters to have the best possible understanding of their position. They want to be able to steer the discussion toward the stronger aspects of their story and away from the weaker ones. That’s possible on the telephone, which has other benefits: It can be used to provide very basic background, and both sides can better tell when they’re being deceived.
Of the dozen journalists I reached out to, all but one who responded did so in enthusiastic defense of the phone interview. And while most feel it’s in fine health, a couple worried about its future.
“In Washington, you get people in person or you get them by email,” said Jessica Meyers, the new transportation reporter at Politico. “There’s not much of a conversation where you call up and chat.” The capital’s pace is a factor, according to Jessica, who also observed that younger journalists may not be as comfortable using the telephone.
RANT: Shock Value and Why Time Magazine Got it Wrong
Last week we got two reminders about going too far: the one you heard about and one you probably didn’t. But they prove the same point: If you’re going to go too far to call attention to something, you had better have a good reason and you had better deliver.
Courage and ‘Emblematic Images’
The other reminder about going too far came with the death on Thursday of Horst Faas, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for his photographs of wars in Vietnam and Bangladesh. Let’s let his New York Times obituary take it from there:
Continue Reading
loading...