my 2 cents

Ad Tracking -- Yes or No?

Several weeks ago, a study came out, followed by a flurry of articles in the trades, talking about consumer resistance to online behavioral targeting.  Sixty percent of adults surveyed by researchers at the Universities of California and Pennsylvania said they don't want to be shown ads based on their interests.

That number climbed to nearly 80 percent when the researchers explained how ads are targeted, ie., using information garnered from our actions online.  An invasion of privacy, most felt once they learned about behavioral marketing.

Yet advertising and online marketing experts say behavioral marketing will become more commonly used, as marketers with tight budgets try ever harder to rifle-target their ads to hit the most likely prospects.

Some consumer groups have been pressuring Congress to pass legislation that limits online tracking and especially behavioral marketing.  Right now there are no laws preventing the sale of online data. 

At the same time, other reports show consumers prefer to see ads online that are targeted to their interests.

Can we have it both ways?

Possibly we can, if consumers can be given an easy way to opt out from having their online actions tracked and then used for behavioral targeting.  It could be like the no-call option to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls.

Certainly there will be lots more discussion on this subject, probably after some major abuse of online data gets exposed.  It's bound to happen eventually.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

Not only on Thanksgiving, but every day I give thanks for all that I have.

I don't have Donald Trump's riches and I don't drive a sparkling new luxury car.  But I know that what I have is of much greater value.

I'm fortunate to have love -- the love of my family and my wife and best friend of 38 years Roz.  I have two fantastic  children, Jennifer and Michael, and two grandchildren, Jack (named in my father's memory) and Gabriel.  I still have my mother to keep me on the straight and narrow.  I have the memories of those who came before me.

I have many friends and a smaller number of really close friends -- the kind that, even if you haven't seen them for months or more, you can pick up the conversation comfortably, as if you'd just spoken the afternoon before.

I'm fortunate that I love my work.  I love where I live, right next to the greatest city in the world. 

I am thankful for the gift of music, especially jazz.  It never gets boring.  It inspires, soothes and moves me.

All of these things -- and so much more -- make me cherish each day that I am fortunate enough to wake up.  For it all, I always give thanks, every day.

Other Voices: Rush to Technology Outpaces Need to Use Intelligence

Other Voices

This guest post is by Kenneth J. Weiss, director of e-commerce for Hoover.  Ken has a new book out titled Slightware -- The Next Great Threat to Brands.  You can download the first chapter free at www.slightware.com.

.....

Companies are turning up the use of technology for marketing and operations.  Unfortunately, the rush to do it is outpacing the need to do it intelligently.  Last month, the brand hits kept on coming and, remarkably, companies thought they could shrug off brand damage with a carefully constructed press release.  Some examples...

App Absurdity

A few months ago, Apple took a huge PR hit when it released a "Shake the Baby" game in its App Store.  When the animated baby started to cry, the user needed to shake the iPhone until the baby stopped.  After a huge backlash, Apple simply removed the app and offered the typical "Sorry" press release.  Not to be outdone as the leading classless iPhone app, Pepsi launched one in October to help users "Score with women."  Enter the type of woman in question and the app would offer ways to make her feel bubbly.  The app got plenty of coverage, but nearly all of it was negative.

PhotoSchlock

The fashion industry has been hammered repeatedly for settinn impossible standards of "thinness" for women.  So how does Ralph Lauren respond?  By Photoshopping a model to non-human, stick-thin proportions and then firing her when she complained.  The story broke in mid-October when Fillipa Hamilton was fired for being overweight.  Ironically, the Photoshopped ad showing Fillipa was supposedly approved by Ralph Lauren himself.  The company claims the ad was only intended to run in Japan.  Somehow, an internationally known model and brand would be immune to the dynamics of the "World Wide Web," right?

Lose Data - Lose Customers

T-Mobile and Facebook are supposed to be brands that are good with technology.  Well... both suffered massive data problems last month.  T-Mobile experienced a glitch that compromised personal data and information for thousands of users.  The company eventually came clean and said "most" of the data had been recovered.  "Most?"  How well is the company perceived if you are one of the people not part of "most?"

Facebook took a page from the corner-crack-dealer playbook.  First it gets people addicted to checking their Facebook page with relentless emails, and then it blocks 150,000 people for nearl;y a week.  How bad do they want it now?  Some want it more and others have happily decided to go cold-turkey.

Banks You Can Trust - Technology You Can't

No industry has more trouble with consumer trust than banking.  October started with Rocky Mountain Bank attempting to explain why it sent confidential information of more than 1,000 customers to an unauthorized Gmail account.  Next, TD Bank, which bills itself as "the most convenient bank in America," had a technical problem that prevented deposits from showing up in people's accounts.  Convenience quickly turned to panic when paychecks were vaporized.  Bank of America followed with a glitch that stopped people from making ATM withdrawals.  The problem then expanded to drive-ins and tellers.  In all instances, competitive banks reported an increase in new customers.

The drive to do business faster and cheaper will continue to fuel the rush to technology, and mistakes are likely to continue.  Brands need to realize that an apology may make the brand people feel better, but the consumer will feel differently once they've been burned by the brand.

A note from David Reich:  Ken's piece points up the need to think things through carefully by trying to put yourself into the mind of customers and non-customers.  Had that been done, it's hard to imagine the examples of Ken's "App Absurdity" section would have advanced beyond the brainstorming session.

Embrace new technology, for sure.  But don't forget to use good old common sense as well.

Even good news is bad news for newspapers

A Scarborough Research report flies in the face of headlines we've been seeing about the decline in newspaper readership and demise of newspapers.

The good news is 74% of American adults -- 171 million of us -- still read daily newspapers.  The demographics skew toward better-educated, white-collar folks with above-average household incomes.  The survey shows 84% of newspaper readers are college grads and 82% are in homes with HH income of $100,000 or more.

So this sounds like great news for the newspaper industry, right?  Why, then, are we still hearing about papers losing circulation and ad revenues, as they decimate their newsroom staffing to try to slow the flood of red ink.

The good news is part of a double-edged sword, it seems, with the two edges being print and online.Print readership continues to decline, although not as steeply as the gloom & doom forecasts would indicate.  In print, newspapers still reach tens of millions of people every day -- much more than the average prime time network show.

But print advertising in most markets continues to decline, fueled by the tough retail economy.  And printing and delivery costs are rising, exacerbating the financial squeeze on publishers. Ad revenues for the year to date  are down 29% from a year ago.  Even online ad revenues, which make up only 10% of the total, have dropped.

The bright side -- from a readership perspective -- is the tremendous growth in online newspaper readership.  Nielsen says nearly 72 million people visit newspaper websites every month -- more than three times the combined print circulation of the 125 biggest dailies.

But... newspapers are still downing in red ink and, as mentioned above, even online ad revenues have dropped.

Part of the problem is that newspapers still haven't figured out how to make real money from all those online readers.  Online ads sell for a fraction of what a print display ad can fetch. 

It's a real Catch-22 situation.  Newspapers are rich in content that people want -- news, information, analysis, advice, entertainment.  Historically, though, it's been given away free, and it's hard to get people to pony up for what they've always had for free.

But let's compare it to cable of 30 years ago.  Why would anyone pay for TV when it was free for the taking, as long as you had an antenna?  But cable gradually added value -- an amazing menu of program options, perfect signal quality, and finally, quality programming that equals or often exceeds what's on free TV.    

For newspapers, the solution may not be unlike what happened with cable.  Using available technology, tools and apps, or possibly awaiting the introduction of new ones we don't yet know, newspapers may be able to charge and receive subscription fees for offering a wider array of content that's available in very targeted or individualized packages.  It might be in the form of a delivery method we haven't yet imagined.  Or it might be organized in a way that makes it easy and fun to get exactly the news and information that you deem is important to yourself.

Publishers need to be creative and embrace new technologies.  What will the answer be?  Time will tell.  Hopefully, for the survival of newspapers and the important role they play in a free society, it won't take too much time.

Press Release -- Dead or Alive?

A research brief from MediaPost this week brings up, yet again, the issue of the press release -- is it a dying dinosaur?  Nearly half -- 49% -- of the professional communicators polled said releases are "as useful as ever."  

I've said it before and I'm saying it again: the news release is not dying.  It should not be the full extent of an organization's relations with the media, but it remains a useful public relations tool that supports other p.r. tools and tactics.  What is changing, though, is how the news release is used.

For the most part, the days of the mass-distributed news release are waning, and for good reason.  For too long, p.r. departments and many p.r. agencies populated by inexperienced people who don't know better have been blasting out news releases indiscriminately.  I suppose the attitude is if you throw enough stuff out there, some of it will stick.  Email has made it easier and less costly to blanket the world digitally with news releases.

Media people get frustrated, understandably, when they continually find their mail boxes overflowing with news releases, and we hear many of them complain loudly and frequently about the deluge.  It's not that they never get ideas and information that they use from releases.  The problem is that so many releases are not properly targeted and, to make things worse, they are poorly written.

P.R. people need to understand the importance of targeting, which should be easier than ever with all the online directories and other tools now available.  They just need to take the time to do some research, instead of taking the easy and lazy way.  It's our job, as p.r. professionals, to know the media and understand what they want and what they don't want.  And today, "media" includes blogs and other social media.

We must practice good journalistic writing.  A release should flow so the most important information is near the top, with further details and amplification down below.  A release doesn't have to be dull.  It can be written with creativity and flair, but don't make a reporter or producer or blogger read through three paragraphs of fluff or "cute" copy before you get to the meat.  And always put a date on a release, so the person receiving it knows it's current.  (It's PR-101, but I'm amazed at how many poorly written and undated releases I see.)

The news release still serves an important function, but it's not like "the good old days" when you could expect to see your news release picked up verbatim by the media.  Today a news release is a tool that conveys information and helps a reporter tell a story.  Even when I'm talking to an online reporter or a blogger in whose space I'd like to get attention, if my pitch sparks some interest they inevitably ask me to send them a release.  If it's properly prepared, the release gives the information they need in a way that's easy to understand and follow and, if appropriate, easy to use to develop a story by taking sentences or paragraphs or more that convey the information the way the client would like it explained.

So I think, despite the naysayers, that the news release will continue to be an important communications tool.  In cases where it's not a good tool, it's probably because lazy or amateurish p.r. people are simply not doing their job.

Long live the news release -- as long as it's properly written and used.

They won't tone it down -- mayo war

This shows how little I know or normally think about mayonnaise.  Until this morning, I thought Miracle Whip was just a low-calorie version of mayo.  We have jars of both Miracle Whip and Hellman's in our refrigerator.  If I'm going to put mayo onto a sandwich or into my tuna salad, I just grab whichever jar happens to be closer to the front.

But as I was reading the paper this morning, I learned that there IS a difference.  A full-page ad caught my eye.  (Had I been reading the paper online, I probably wouldn't have seen or looked at the ad.  But that's a subject for another post someday.)

It was an open letter to Comedy Central host Steven Colbert, who evidently made some disparaging comments recently about Miracle Whip.  Possibly he was responding to a new ad campaign the Kraft Foods brand launched a few weeks ago, trying to differentiate Miracle Whip from real mayo by talking about its blend of spices that give it a distinct flavor.  (I never realized that.)                                         graphic: District Domestic

The Miracle Whip folks are turning Colbert's joking comments into a faux mayo war which seems to me is a very clever way to get attention and promote the product benefits.  They're doing it in a way that may reach people who wouldn't respond to a traditional food product ad.

Some excerpts from the ad:

"Mr. Colbert, we found your attacks a little harsh, occasionally funny and at times wholly inaccurate.... But unblike most advertisers who are so mayo, who would back down at the slightest whiff of controversy and pull their advertising not just from your show but from your entire network and all its sister entities -- we intend to do just the opposite.

"On November 12, we will dominate the airspace on your show.  With every commercial break, your viewers will be exposed to hardcore Miracle Whip attitude and revelry.  You will see our legion of "mayonay-sayers" snarfing sandwiches topped with our one-of-a-kind flavor in a very cool and totally hip way.  They will be in your face... They will not tone it down.

"Think about it, Mr. Colbert.  In a sense, we will own you.  We're raisiing Hell, man."  (Hellman's, get it?--DR.)

I don't know if this whole thing is a set-up they've done with Colbert and the Comedy Central ad sales team, or if it's just smart exploitation of an opportunity.  But here's a brand that's not taking itself too seriously, and their response to Colbert's "slight" seems in character with their new positioning and attitude.

I might even do as the ad says at the bottom -- "This is not over.  Tune into The Colbert Report November 12 on Comedy Central."

Oh,I found this Miracle Whip spot on YouTube.  When I checked this morning, the 45-second clip had more than 23,000 views.  You can see it here.  

40 Years of Excellence

One of the most famous and most-loved streets in the world celebrates 40 years this week.  It's not Broadway or Fifth Avenue here in New York, nor the Via Veneto in Rome or the Champs d'Elsee in Gay Paree.

It's Sesame Street.

Unlike most people, I came across Sesame Street not as a kid or a parent.  It was the summer of 1970 and I was finishing work on my Master's thesis, with books and note cards surrounding me on the living room floor.  I needed to take a break one afternoon at 4, so I put the TV on and this kids' program had just begun.  I was about to change the channel, but something about the show caught me and I watched it all.  And I watched it again the next afternoon and the next. Thus began my almost 40-year relationship with Sesame Street.  I was entranced by the fast pace, the captivating Muppet characters, the diversity of the human cast and the overall intelligence and humor of the show.  And they had big stars of the time as guests on the show, singing with the kids or with Big Bird or Kermit -- names like Richie Havens, Judy Collins, Bill Cosby, Buffy St. Marie. 

I became a regular watcher again about 14 years later, when my daughter was old enough to begin watching it.  I was a hit with her and her friends because I could imitate the voices of Cookie Monster, Oscar the Grouch and Grover (my favorites), as well as passable mimics of Bert & Ernie and Big Bird. I remember around that time how nicely they dealt with the real-life death of the man who played the storekeeper, Mr. Hooper.  Instead of just pretending he'd moved away and closed his store, the show dealt head-on with death and the emotions that come with it.

And about six years later, I began watching Sesame Street yet again, with my son.  Around that time I had my first real-life encounter with Sesame Street.  I was representing a client at a luncheon at Channel 13.  I got there a few minutes late, and everyone was already seated.  I was shown to a table, sat down and everyone introduced themselves.  When the man next to me turned, shook my hand and said, "Hi, I'm Bob McGrath," I acted like a star-struck teenager.  "Bob!!" I shrieked much too loudly.  One of the (human) stars of Sesame Street, sitting next to me at lunch!  Unbelievable.

We had a nice chat and I told him how I had first discovered the show while working on my Master's paper.  He laughed and told me he's heard many similar stories, and that Sesame Street has always, right from the start, had a very big following among college students.

About a year later, I attended the opening of a McDonald's in Rockefeller Center.  Mickey D's was a client, and they had just started their first Happy Meal tie-in with Sesame Street.  Jim Henson came to the opening and I had the chance to talk with him.  I had no idea what he was saying to me, because I was so distracted hearing Kermit the Frog's voice coming out of the mouth of this tall, bearded grown-up.

Fast-forward another ten years.  I was handling p.r. for The Christopher Awards (still a client) and a puppeteer named Caroll Spiney was being honored for a children's book he had written.  Most of us have no idea who Caroll is, but we all know two of his most famous characters -- Big Bird and  Oscar the Grouch.  I got to hang out with Oscar after the ceremonies, when Caroll so graciously and patiently obliged a long line of adults who wanted the chance to get their picture taken with Oscar.  When I had my chat with Oscar, I found myself, like everyone, having conversation with the puppet and not the elegant, white-bearded man holding Oscar.  It was amazing to see adults revert so quickly back to childhood with Oscar.

And last year I hit the mother-load.  Childrens Television Workshop was being honored with a Christopher Award for so many years of excellence in children's TV, and most of the Sesame Street cast was there.  I again met Bob      McGrath, along with the actors who play Gordon and Luis.  I got to play with my old pal Oscar, and I met my grandson's favorite -- Elmo.  (That's me in the picture, with, from left, Bob, Oscar and Caroll.)

Over the past 40 years, I've had many encounters with Sesame Street -- both in front of and behind the TV screen.  It's been fun, on both sides.  I hope many more generations of kids all around the globe will have the chance to learn about letters and counting and about life from our friends on the world's most famous street.

Businessmen tops as pitchers

How believable and effective are celebrity endorsers? 

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a survey showing celebs don't have much clout when it comes to convincing us to buy a product or service. 

A new survey, from Adweek and the Harris Poll, doesn't ask whether or not celebs are effective influencers, but rather which types of celebs are the most and least persuasive relative to each other.

Business leaders scored the highest out of five categories, with 37 percent of respondents rating them "most persuasive."  They were followed by athletes, at 21  percent, TV and movie stars at 18 percent, singers and musicians at 14 percent, and former political figures, at ten percent.

Business leaders scored higher among older (55+) respondents, at 46 percent.  Only 28 percent of the 18 - 24 age group put business leaders at the top.  That group prefers sports figures.This poll is a comparative survey only, ranking the five categories against each other. 

A ranking of slightly more than one-third is not very impressive.  But I'm surprised that it's even that high in this post Bernie Madoff/GM and Chrysler bailouts/200 bank failures/derivatives meltdown/record home foreclosures economy.  It makes one wonder how trustworthy (or how smart) our business leaders are, and if their recommendations of products and services are worth following.

I wonder if the rankings for business leaders might have been lower if some other choices had been included in the survey -- choices like "doctor" or "educator" or "scientist" or "blue collar worker."

Bathroom Blogfest -- Late Entry

I think Bathroom Blogfest is officially over.  I contributed a post when it began a week ago, but I just came across this and just had to write about it.

There's a new product called Poo-Pourri.  According to the press release (which is undated, so I don't know how new it actually is), this product "banishes bathroom odors with a single flush."

But, wonder of wonders, it anticipates bathroom odors before they occur.

Here's what the news release says:

    "Proven to stand up to the most offensive bathroom odors with a simple spritz, Poo-Pourri is the first bathroom spray made of all-natural essential oils to eliminate bathroom odors before they occur." The release claims it is "forever changing the bathroom experience... You won't leave any odor behind and it neutralizes any residual odor so it doesn't follow you out of the bathroom."

Say what?  It's bad enough you have to worry about trailing a piece of toilet paper on your shoe, but the possibility of an odor following you is just too much.  That goes up there with things like "restless leg syndrome."

The release explains the product creates a film on the surface of the water in the bowl, which "traps and diffuses embarrassing odors." 

The marketer is trying to create a new product category to replace air fresheners in the bathroom.  But is it really so wonderful that at $9.95 for a 2-ounce spray bottle or $14.95 for a 4-ounce bottle, it will replace Lysol, which gives you 12 effective ounces for less than three bucks?

For my money, I'll be happy to spray when I'm finished and hope for the best.