my 2 cents

PR works in digital media -- Surprise!

A story in today's Media Daily News reports on a survey that shows consumers respond more to online articles than they do to online ads.

This comes as no surprise to those of us in public relations.  It's how p.r. (or the publicity end of p.r.) is supposed to work.  A big and costly ad campaign can quickly build awareness, but it's often the articles in print and the features and news stories on TV and radio that help build the credibility that stimulates or reinforces the desire to purchase. 

And so it works online as well, the study shows.

That's good for us in the p.r. business.  And despite the hype and mystique that often surrounds digital media, it's still good old-fashioned pitching that works.  Know what the target media want, help them form a story that incorporates your material, and approach them with courtesy, consideration and professionalism.

New media... but the same old rules still apply.

photo from Journalism Assoc. of Community Colleges (JACC)

.

The Conversation continues...

The third edition of the collaborative blogger book The Age of Conversation will be published in a few weeks, according to project leaders and editors Drew McLellan in Des Moines and Gavin Heaton in Sidney.

"The Age of Conversation: It's Time to Get Busy" will have essays on marketing from nearly 150 bloggers from throughout the globe.  I'm proud to be one of them.

This began three years ago with an exchange of comments on blog posts and subsequent emails between the midwest and Australia, and it became a groundbreaking book that raised tens of thousands of dollars for a children's charity.  It also brought many bloggers together online.

Like the first two editions, volume three should be filled with interesting and thought-provoking essays from some of the most respected marketing bloggers around.  Watch this space for more news of when it becomes available or visit the Age of Conversation website.

Cover design this year is by Chris Wilson.

All the eggs...

The old expression "don't put all your eggs in one basket" holds true for social media as a marketing tool.  Today's Wall Street Journal has a story that shows how entrepreneurs are questioning the value of social media.

We hear stories of "overnight success" thanks to the internet and social media, and there's the natural temptation to jump right in.  If a small retailer of folding kayaks can succeed via good reviews in blog posts, then what's to stop every other small retailer or service provider from trying to engage customers via social media, hoping for that magic bullet post or review that will send sales soaring.

The kayak seller is the exception -- not the rule, says The Journal.  The story quotes a marketing professor at Pace University's Lubin School of Business (my MBA alma mater) who says, "The hype right now exceeds the reality."

The lesson for marketers, large or small, is to have both patience and media diversity.  Don't yield to the temptation fueled by stories about overnight millionaires thanks to selling online and through use of social media.

For sure, social media should be a part of the marketing mix for many businesses.  But the key word here is "mix."  Social media can be very tempting because it can be low- or no-cost.  But it can also be quite time-consuming if done properly.  And it can divert time and attention away from other tools that should be considered.

For the smaller business, social media can help create a presence that might be prohibitively expensive via other media.  It can build credibility for a business, but that process almost always takes time.  There is no quick fix -- at least, not for most businesses.

The Wall Street Journal article tells of one online clothing retailer who is now realizing sales from social media seeds sown some two years ago.  Social media for him has been "a patient investment." 

Those hoping for the quick fix through social media will likely be disappointed.  Building a business takes patience and careful and consistent use of a wide range of marketing tools -- from the basic person-to-person networking to publicity, blogs and, in some cases, direct marketing and advertising.

There's no simple template that works for all.  You have to get a good idea of who your customers are, what motivates them and how to effectively reach them. That mix of tools that's right for your business may -- or may not -- include social media.  You are the best person to make that decision.

Weekend Thoughts

Celebrity Stupidity

In what looks like the latest round of celebrity stupidity coupled with big doses of chutzpah and egomania, starlet Lindsay Lohan is supposedly suing e*trade for $100 million, claiming the online financial services firm used her name in an ad that ran during the Olympics.

Lohan is looking pretty bad -- pathetic, actually -- with headlines calling her cry-baby and worse.  Some gossip writers have even written that they think the lawsuit is little more than a publicity stunt.  I suppose Lohan and her handlers don't realize that not all publicity is good.

If you haven't heard, the noise is about an ad that shows an infant named Lindsay, who is referred to by another infant as a "milkaholic" who steals boyfriends.

Lohan's lawyer was quoted in the NY Post, saying, "They're using her name as a parody of her life.  Why didn't they use the name Susan?" 

An Advertising Age story says e*trade explained that they used the name Lindsay because one of the people on their creative team is named Lindsay. 

But doesn't the so-called "real" Lindsay (that would be Lohan) seem a bit thin-skinned here?  Is the "..aholic" reference and boyfriend stealing hitting too close to home?

Lohan's people have claimed that her fame has granted her the right to lay claim to the single name Lindsay, like Madonna or Sting or, perhaps, Jesus.

Great real, Lindsay (Lohan)!!

But hey, maybe she's on to something here.  I think I'll lay claim to the name David.  It's been mine for 62 years, and a lot of people know me as David -- my friends, family, business associates and the potentially millions of readers of this blog.

And just imagine how many more people will know me and read my blog after I threaten to sue David Letterman for $100 million.  And after that, I could go after David Gregory of Meet the Press, or David Lee Roth, or David who played slingshot with some big bully named Goliath.

Thanks for the great idea, Lindsay (Lohan.)

Going to the dogs... and cats, parakeets, gerbils

We do love our pets, that's for sure.

If any proof is needed, just take a look at statistics released last week by Packaged Facts and reported in MediaPost's Marketing Daily.  Even in the worst recession in decades, spending on pet products and services increased 5 percent -- up $2.5 billion last year to total $53 billion.

My household has certainly contributed to that increase.  Some spending last year on Loki, our 9-year old black Lab --

    *  A tooth absess and tooth extraction  ($2,200)

    *  A fractured vertabrae disc, thankfully healed now  ($2,000)

    *  Ongoing skin allergies, requiring vet and alergist and dermatologist treatments  ($1,200)

My Oxford Health Plan doesn't cover Loki, and the IRS won't let me include those medical expenses in my Deductibles.

But that's ok -- Loki is our third child, and he's the only one who hasn't left home after college.  He's always there, happy to see us when we come home, regardless of if we've been away for five minutes or five hours.  He greet us, tail wagging wildly.  (OK, so the wagging tail has claimed a few glasses that it's knocked off the cocktail table.  But it's not like he did it on purpose.)

Pets as kids -- that's a major factor in the strength of the pet market.  "The pet-parent sentiment has never been higher," says the editor of Packaged Facts.  "The human/animal bond is an excellent insulator against recessionary cutbacks."  So strong, in fact, that the publications expects sales of pet products and services to jump another 35 percent by 2014, hitting $72 billion.

Many pet owners, says the report, are unlikely to cut back significantly on pet spending, and in many cases would only do so after cutting back on their own needs.  It's equally true across the economic spectrum.  Pet owners who have cut back in other areas continue to spend on small indulgences for their pets, like biscuits, treats and toys.

Although "restraint" is the word that characterizes how many of us now shop, it doesn't always apply to the 61 million pet-owning households in terms of what they spend on their nearly 400 million pets. 

We hear talk about how the 20-somethings will lead us out of the recession with their spending, but pet owners will be right there with them.

If, like me, you're an animal lover, you might enjoy this blog from The Delta Society, a non-profit group that works "to improve people's health and well-being through positive interactions with animals."

 

Personalized News -- A Double-Edged Sword

A new report by the Pew Research Center looks at how we get and use news.  It shows that most of us rely on multiple platforms for our daily dose of news.  Nearly half of us get our news from 4 - 6 different places on a typical day.

That's not news, but what I find interesting -- and potentially dangerous -- is the ability to personalize the news we get.  The Pew report says 28 percent of internet users now customize their home page to receive news and information from sources and on topics that interest them.

Personalization can be a great time-saver, helping direct you to stories on subjects of interest.  It can filter out all the stuff you don't care to see.

But news personalization can be a double-edged sword.  For those who rely mainly on their personalized news feeds, what they get can be very limited in both scope and point of view.  It can lead to a dangerously uninformed populace.

The great thing about newspapers -- dinosaurs though they might be -- is that the reader sees the full range of subjects.  The front page won't be only sports or entertainment or politics or business, but a mix of what the editors feel represent the most important or relevant information of the day.  Even if you normally make a beeline for the sports section, your eye might catch a non-sports story on Page One or elsewhere as you quickly leaf through the paper.  TV news is similar; if you watch a half-hour newscast, you'll get a smattering of a range of topics.To rely solely on personalized news feeds would be like watching only Entertainment Tonight or The Food Channel and nothing else for news and information.  It may be interesting, but it would be like wearing blinders.

I have a friend who, before the days of the internet, personalized her news intake by reading only Page Six of the NY Post and the entertainment and gossip magazines like Entertainment Weekly and People.  She never read The Times and, when reading The Post, would venture beyond the gossip pages only to check out how the Mets were doing in Sports.

I remember when she was job hunting and she told me of some questions she was asked in an interview, like who is the Secretary of State and what Supreme Court nominee had just gone through a grueling Congressional interview process.  She didn't know the answers, and she didn't get the job.

My friend's limited knowledge of current events beyond gossip and sports may be the exception, but I wonder how many young people who haven't grown up reading newspapers or watching TV news are already in the habit of personalizing their news intake to the point of severely limiting their awareness and understanding of what's happening in the world around us.  As we know, an uninformed population can open the door for political and corporate corruption and decisions based on narrow self-interest.

That could be the downside of personalized news.

Tonight's the night

Tonight's the night Jay Leno returns to his old spot at 11:35.  Drama comes back to 10 p.m., which is sure to make NBC affiliates happy as they hopefully get back viewers for their lucrative local newscasts at 11.

Pundits are predicting that Jay's show, which will surely have big audiences this first week, will eventually regain its #1 spot in late night from David Letterman on CBS.  But they don't expect "The Tonight Show" to ever return to audience levels of even two years ago.

The days of big audiences for late night may be gone, and it's not due to NBC's bungling of their late night changes.  Viewers at 11:35 have so many good options beyond the talk shows now -- quality engaging dramas on cable, combined with time-shifted viewing via DVR.  It's a whole new ballgame at 11:35.

Leno's loyal viewers will come back, despite the beating his reputation took because of NBC's clumsy handling of Conan O'Brien.  And Conan wasn't ousted by Leno, by the way.  He lost his show because he just didn't pull the audience the network and the stations needed.  Maybe if all those vocal Coco loyalists had been watching his show regularly, his numbers would have been better and it would be Jay having time to play on Twitter instead of Conan.

As for me, I plan to check out Jay's monologue tonight, to see what he has to say about the whole debacle.  When his first guest, loony Sarah Palin comes on, I'll click back over to Dave, even if his guest is just the sneezing monkey.