my 2 cents

Other Voices

Are you hiring rabbits to swim & fish to run?

Under the heading of Other Voices, we sometimes give this blog to other people who are not bloggers. 

Jan Vincent heads her own organizational/performance development practice in New York.  Before launching her own consultancy, she had a long career with a leading global professional services firm. Jan and I are also cousins.  Although you can't pick your relatives, Jan says she would have chosen my friendship  despite the "relative" connection.  (Aww shucks.) 

...

Extensive research shows that, no matter how big or small the company, in any position you have some people who come to work every day and hit the ball out of the park... your top performers or stars.

And you also have people who come to work who are neither so good nor so bad as to call attention to themselves.  These are the average performers, or passengers along for the ride.

And then you have some who come in who you almost wish would stay home.  These are the bottom performers, who cause 66% of the problems managers must face.  Imagine what your managers could accomplish if 66% of their time were suddenly freed up.

People who come in to hit the ball out of the park have many things in common... how they approach their job, their attitude about work, how they process information and handle and de-fuse problems.  These commonalities can be effectively and objectively identified in order to accomplish several things that will help you make good personnel decisions:

*  You can predictively duplicate your star players in your hiring and promotion process, so you are more likely to hire and promote star performers every time.

*  You can evaluate average workers so you know immediately where to concentrate your efforts to coach and improve their performance, moving them up toward star level.

*  You can receive objective feedback that tells you, without exception, who, regardless of how much training, financial investment and mentoring, will never move up to star level.  Management guru Peter Drucker noted that most organizations spend more time, effort and resources trying to elevate incompetence to low mediocrity, rather than focusing on competence and elevating it to excellence.

What this allows you to do, as a caring and concerned employer, is to know objectively that you have not necessarily made a bad hire, but that you may have tried to fit the wrong person for that particular job.  That same person in another job (or maybe in another company) may become a star because he has the traits that are compatible with other star performers in that position -- or, in other words, a good job fit.  Harvard Business Review research shows that the most important factor in determining success in a job boils down to a good job fit.

This, then, gives you, the employer, emotional; permission to admit you've made a good decision in a person, but perhaps a misdirected decision in fitting the person to the particular job, saving you money, time and emotional investment... and leaving you and the employee feeling better about themselves.

So, the question remains... Are you hiring rabbits to swim and fish to run?

Jan Vincent can be reached at janpvincent@msn.com

A Perfect Match

Sponsorship of events is a giant business because it can be a great way to generate exposure for a brand that, if properly done, generates sales and develops customer loyalty.

I saw it work firsthand some 30 years ago, when I helped develop an event sponsorship for client L'eggs pantyhose. Those were the days of women coming into their own in sports and fitness, when it had become acceptable – or even fashionable – for women to sweat. We organized a nationwide series of women-only road races – the L'eggs 10K Series. The program cost about $250,000, but it generated several million in publicity and cemented the loyalty of countless active women.

That sponsorship tie made sense.

I've seen so many other sponsorships that make little or no sense. If you have to think about why a company or brand is sponsoring an event or program, then it probably isn't a good fit.

But I read today in The Wall Street Journal online about a new sponsorship that made so much sense I had to laugh out loud. As we approach the Fourth of July, we also draw closer to the annual rite of gluttony – the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest at Coney Island. It garners news headlines far beyond the metro New York area; it's become a national – or perhaps international – news story.

Every year, when we see the news coverage of guys stuffing themselves with hot dog after hot dog, we gag at the thought of eating so much. Our stomachs ache just watching someone like Joey Chestnut down 68 hot dogs (with buns) in 10 minutes.  Ugh!

So what better brand to become the sponsor of this annual pageant of piggery than Pepto Bismol? Actually, according to the Journal story, the brand will be sponsoring the Nathan's contest, which is part of a national series of eating competitions under the banner of Major League Eating.

Over-stuffing yourself with Nathan's hot dogs and Pepto Bismol – what a perfect match.

(burp)

Excuse me.

A Peek at News Priorities

Columnist Simon Dumenico, writing in Ad Age.com today, looks at the mix of news stories on Google News.

Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus each had several thousand mentions on Google News a few days ago. Gaga had 11,319 and Miley scored 8,070.

Major ongoing international stories that may really impact us, like the war in Afghanistan, which recently beat out Viet Nam as the longest war in U.S. history, scored an average of around 14,000 Google News mentions a day.  Iraq hovered around 20,000 daily mentions.

The subjects that consistently seem to get the most mentions on Google News are those about social media (Facebook and Twitter, mostly) and Apple. Over the past month, Facebook and Twitter both hovered around the 30 - 31,000 mark, and Apple was in the 20,000 range, with recent spikes up to 51,700 mentions in a day, as news of the new iPhone comes out.

I can understand lots of interest in Twitter and Facebook, since so many people are actively engaged in those social media platforms.  And the same for the iPhone and other new gadgets from Apple, since it's something many of us can actually play with.  But c'mon -- they pale in importance to what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for Lada Gaga and Miley... it's that celebrity factor at work.  Everyone wants to know everything about celebs, even those who just barely warrant celebrity status.  But that's another story.

 

Social Media -- Marketing or Public Relations?

There's an ongoing debate in public relations and marketing circles over which discipline -- PR or marketing -- should manage or control the social media presence for an organization or brand.

Public relations seems to be winning not only the debate but the battle itself.

A study recently issued by USC's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism shows twice as many organizations are putting budgetary control of social media relations into the hands of their PR department than those that have given budget responsibility to their marketing department.  The ratio is even higher -- 2-1/2 to one -- when you compare whether strategic control over social media is in the hands of PR or marketing.

Jerry Swerling of Annenberg says the reason is that social media "entail dialogue rather than monologue... which is just the opposite of the highly-controlled world of marketing." 

I don't see it quite that way.

For a marketing-driven organization -- one that relies on selling a product or a service for its very existence -- social media relations, like the broader public relations, must tie-in closely with the marketing positioning and messages. 

I think in most cases, PR people are better equipped to develop and manage a social media presence, but they cannot and should not be doing it in a vacuum.  PR and social media activities should support or enhance or personalize the marketing messages. 

Social media is a more free-form open forum than traditional advertising venues, so it must be handled a bit differently.  Messages in SM may not be effective, in some cases, if they are too blatantly sales-oriented.  But ultimately, they should support the "what" and "why" of an organization. 

Yes, the dialogue can sometimes be a tricky field through which to maneuver.  Since the medium can give equal voice to the Chief Marketing Officer and to a satisfied or a disgruntled customer, there are risks.  But the rewards can be tremendous in terms of customer loyalty and support.

I recommend organizations establish a dotted-line relationship, where PR is responsible for strategy and implementation of social media activities, but marketing has open access to what is happening and can quickly become more deeply involved as the need arises, whether it is to help fend off a possible crisis or take advantage of an unanticipated opportunity.  I see this approach working well with one of our clients, where we talk constantly to both the marketing and public relations people.

Social media seems to be unlike anything we've seen before.  It's like an ocean, whose currents are not always visible until they're about to whip you around.  Planning simply can't anticipate every change that the fluids may take, from a ripple to a tsunami. Constant monitoring and a genuine involved presence can help you steer in the best direction as changes take place. 

In the end, however, it's largely about conversation... just with a big, unseen and often unknown group of participants.

PR people, with direct involvement and support from marketing, are, in my opinion, best-equipped to steer the ship that sails this conversational ocean.

......

A personal footnote:  This is my 400th post at my 2 cents.  Thanks for coming along for the ride.

 

Weekend Thoughts ... Father's Day

I love being a Daddy.

When my kids were little, I'd have the greatest time getting down on the floor and playing with them -- making funny faces and silly noises; teasing them with jokes and nonsensical statements; giving piggyback rides all over the house.

Being a Daddy also meant I had a legitimate excuse to do "kid" things with them, even if the kids weren't interested -- building stuff with Tinkertoys and Legos, playing vroom vroom with Matchbox cars and trucks.

As my kids grew up, I couldn't play Tinkertoy and vroom vroom with them anymore.  I still wanted to, but their interests changed and matured.  Instead, my joy that derived from playing on the floor with their toys changed to the special joy derived from pride as I watched them do well in school and develop into wonderful adults.

As my daughter has given me two grandsons over the past 4-1/2 years, I'm getting to do the "kid stuff" again.  Tinkertoys and Lincoln logs are back in my life -- maybe Lego will be soon, too, as Jack becomes old enough.

As I watch my kids moving ahead with their own life journeys, I feel like every day is Father's Day. 

I get such happiness and pride and pleasure when I hear of the little everyday things Jennifer is teaching Jack and little Gabriel.  I am so proud to see what a phenomenal Mommy she is.  The proof is there to see, as I realize what wonderful little people she is shaping.

And I am thrilled when I see the latest film work by my son Michael.  He's still paying his dues in a very tough field -- filmmaking.  But the work he's done so far is awesome, and I am always blown away by his creativity and his skill.

And not only on Father's Day, but every day, I think of my own father and all that I learned from his gentle and quiet and humble example.  I miss him terribly, even after 11 years.  But he's still with me, all the time and I know how lucky I am to have had him as the greatest example of what a Daddy could be.

It makes me feel good, as I read the card my daughter gave me today.  At the end of the nice card prose, she wrote: "What an example of a father you are-- the best."

Well, I don't know about the best, but I certainly try and I love the job. 

"See the USA in your...um, Chevy"

Bad Idea

I'm not sure if this a really dumb or a really smart move.

The basic idea is dumb... of that I'm sure.  General Motors' agency for the Chevrolet brand has recommended to Chevy management that it should only use the Chevrolet name and immediately refrain from using the longtime nickname Chevy in all communications, whether to the dealer network, to customers or the general population.

A GM memo, according to a story in Advertising Age today, says only the name Chevrolet should be used, for the sake of maintaining branding consistency.  The memo refers to other well-known brand names like Apple and Coke.  Wait a minute... as Ad Age reporter Rupal Parekh notes, isn't Coke a nickname for Coca-Cola?

Chevrolet has been building awareness and equity in both the Chevrolet and the Chevy names virtually since it began making cars in 1911. 

What in the world is ad agency Goody thinking here?

Someone has suggested it's really a public relations ploy, to stir up interest in and support for the old Chevy name.  If that ends up being the truth, I hope it causes a negative backlash.  Nobody likes being manipulated.

So while a "faux" drop-Chevy move designed to stir up nostalgic support for the name may sound brilliant, it is actually just as dumb as the actual idea of dropping the Chevy name in the first place.

So, to Goodby and Chevy management:  Don't play with us in such a sneaky way, if that's what you're trying to do.  Most of us don't like sneaky, especially if the joke's on us.

Weekend Thoughts

For a Luxury Brand, It Should be ALL About Service

For this post, I'm borrowing the category of my friend and colleague Jeanne Byington, whose excellent blog "The Importance of Earnest Service" is all about customer service.

I had a breakfast meeting Friday morning.  Kim and I had met in a new business pitch several weeks ago, and we knew it could be good for us to meet again, informally, to get to know more about each other and to explore ways we might work together.   Since she was in midtown for a conference, we agreed to meet in the restaurant at the 5-star luxury hotel that was the conference site.

The restaurant had a handful of tables occupied -- most were empty.  Maybe that shouldn't have been surprising, since I had noticed the prices on the menu as I walked in ran $24 and up for a continental breakfast of coffee, juice and breads, even in this economy.

After standing for three or four minutes while the hostess just looked at us and then continued doing whatever she was doing at her station, I went to her and asked for a table for two.  Despite a half-dozen empty tables behind me, she told me they'd have a table ready in a few minutes once they set one up.  Somehow, I sensed this was going to take a while and I knew Kim had to be upstairs at the conference in less than an hour.  So I asked if we could take one of the smaller tables.  "Of course," she said.

As I sat, I then noticed those tables were only set for one.  No one came over to add another setting for us, so I did it myself -- I picked up the placemat, dish, silver and coffee cup from the next table and brought it to ours.  The hostess saw me doing this and didn't lift a finger or rush over to say something like, "Oh no, please, let us do this for you."

After sitting ignored for another several minutes, we had to ask for service.  Someone brought over menus (whoa, Nelly!) and several more minutes passed before a waiter took our order.  I don't remember if we had to flag him down or if he came on his own.  Kim's omelette and my coffee came within a reasonable time.

We sat and chatted.  Not once did anyone come to check on us.  No one offered to refill my coffee after it got cold.  When we were ready to leave, I had to get up and ask the hostess for the check.  Someone eventually brought it and again we sat and waited. 

The check, by the way, for one coffee, two orange juices, one omelette and a basket with two rolls, two pastries and a small muffin came to $60-something.

And as we waited, again for an unusually long time, for someone to pick up the check and credit cards, I got up and told the hostess how horrible the service had been, starting with her ignoring us when we had first arrived.  I figured it won't make a difference, but it would make me feel better just to have told her.

A few moments later the manager came over and asked if everything was ok.  I surprised myself by saying, "Actually, it was not ok."  I told him what had been happening.  He apologized and picked up the check and credit cards.  He returned a moment later, handed us the credit cards and said he had taken care of it and there would be no charge.  He hoped we would excuse the lapse in service and give them another chance sometime.

As we thanked him, I told him it wasn't about the food and it wasn't about the prices.  The food, once it arrived, was actually quite good.  And we knew coming in that the meal wouldn't be cheap.  But the entire experience had been marred by inexcusably poor service.

The manager did the right thing to comp us.  But shame on the management for allowing such terrible service to have happened at all.  The fact that it happened at an extremely pricey restaurant at a 5-star luxury hotel like Sofitel on West 44th Street made it even more inexcusable.