my 2 cents

Research trumps brand loyalty

PR can support marketing on both fronts

Marketers spend billions every year to build loyalty for their brands, but does it work?  Is there, in fact, such a thing as brand loyalty anymore?

Look back 40 or 50 years and brand loyalty was a very real fact of life.  I can remember as a kid having friends whose father was “a diehard Buick man” or “a loyal Ford man.”  They’d had good experience with the brand, and they felt it fit their image and their budget.  Every car they purchased would be from that marque.  It was the same for appliances, healthcare products, food items.  Wonder Bread “built strong bodies 12 ways” and that was that.  Why consider anything else?

On the retail side, many consumers felt a loyalty to specific stores, for a variety of reasons.  They liked a store’s merchandise selection, the ads made them feel it was their kind of store, they appreciated the personal attention and good customer service.  Price often didn’t figure much into the equation.

But that was 50 years ago… before consumers began reacting more to price.  Once price became the major factor, loyalty pretty much went out the door.

So it’s not surprising to see some recent research showing consumers place little value on brand loyalty when it comes to buying decisions these days. A study reported recently in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily shows a major deciding factor is now consumer research. 

Let’s look at the loyalty part first.  The report says only three percent of consumers in the 25 -49 age group surveyed indicate brand loyalty as a major factor in their purchase decisions.

I wouldn’t take that as a sign for marketers to abandon their consumer relations and community relations goodwill efforts.  Community relations to build loyalty can save a brand’s hide when disaster strikes.  Fast food chains, for example, have been able to weather things ranging from rat infestation to being blamed for the nation’s obesity problem because they’ve built up a level of trust with the public.  Jet Blue weathered a spate of horrendous news when they treated passengers poorly on some planes stranded on the runway in bad weather.  But they came out ok because they had built up what some call “a trust bank” of goodwill, understanding and loyalty.

So public relations efforts aimed at building trust and loyalty are still very important, in my opinion.  Even if loyalty doesn’t boost sales quarter-to-quarter, it can save a brand from sinking when bad news hits.

Now let’s look at the other key finding in the report cited in Marketing Daily.  Forty-three percent of those surveyed say they base their purchase decision largely on research.  Of those, 97 percent do their research online.

And what do people find online?  Articles and product reviews from newspapers, magazines and, increasingly, e-zines and blogs.   Where do many of those articles and reviews originate?  From material and media contact from PR sources.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that public relations isa viable and effective part of the marketing mix, even as consumer buying habits change.  PR programming can helpthe results come up favorably when consumers do their research.  And it can be crucial in building that loyalty and understanding that might end up being a lifesaver if and when disaster strikes a brand.

Ford spoofs PR person's nightmare

Advertising Age reports on a new viral campaign Ford has rolled out for its Ford Focus.  It centers on the car's new orange spokespuppet Doug.

The three videos I watched were funny -- kinda made me think of Triumph the Insult Comic from Conan O'Brien's NBC show.  (I think Triumph belongs to NBC, so he may not be on Conan's new show.  But that's another story.) 

I think the clip from the news conference introducing Doug is especially funny to a PR person.  It's the nightmare we've all had before a news conference.  This shows a few things marketers and PR pros need to consider, including:

   Do we use a celebrity spokesperson?

   Is he or she the right person for the job?  Any history of bad behavior?

   Has the spokesperson been fully prepped for reporters' Q&A?

This is all in fun, of course.  Doug is in other videos where, despite his bad behavior and rude interruptions, the viewer gets the message about some of the features of the Focus.

I'm not sure how many cars this will sell, but it's not a costly campaign if plans for distribution rely mainly on viral viewing online.

And the press conference clip should be mandatory viewing in PR classes.  Here it is.  Check it out...

 

TMI: How much is too much info for bloggers?

There's an online newsletter called HARO (Help A Reporter Out) that links reporters and public relations sources.  Three times a day, HARO puts out a list of queries from reporters working on stories, asking for information, background, quotes and other resources from PR people who get the newsletter.

A few weeks ago one of the headlines for a query struck me as odd.  It read:

   Blogging while black.

What could be or should be different about blogging for a person of color as opposed to someone who is white or latino, Roman Catholic or gay.  When I took a closer look at the details of the query, the headline came into focus for me.

Here's some of what the query asked...

What are the challenges and disadvantages faced by bloggers of African heritage?  Do you consciously avoid imagery that will define or brand you as black?  Have you ever been asked or challenged on the tone or look of your site based on race?

It posed some interesting questions I had never considered.

My blog began just for fun, but I quickly realized its potential impact and it has become an extension of my public relations agency and my brand.  From the start, I decided to keep personal info and activities to a minimum on the blog and to steer clear of politics -- a rule I've broken a few times.  But the bulk of the content is reporting, analysis and commentary about media, marketing and public relations -- the business of Reich Communications.

I've never tried to hide who I am, although I don't flaunt it.  My photo is there with my bio, so anyone who looks will see I'm a white guy.  The grey hair clearly shows I'm from the boomer generation.  I've occasionally made reference to Jewish topics such as Rosh HaShanah, the Jewish New Year.  And I think my bio mentions I'm president of the Jewish Community Council in my hometown.  My contact information is clearly posted, so anyone can quickly see I'm a New Yorker.

I don't post my political preferences or party affiliation.  But regular readers might have figured out I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin.  They might also know I love jazz and New York City.

But the HARO query made me wonder if some seemingly innocuous information like the color of a blogger's skin might hamper him or her in business.  I'm not such a pollyana as to think that race,  religion, country of origin or political or sexual preferences might never impact someone's decision on whether or not to hire or work with a person.  I know that even in these times, prejudice still is alive in some hearts.

I realize that someone in my field who is black may have faced discrimination in business more than I have.  So I can understand their reluctance, perhaps, to include their photo on their professional blog.  Although at some point, photo posted or not, a potential client may meet you and see that you're black.  And if that's a problem for someone, wrong as it is, that old prejudice will still be acted upon.

My feeling is if someone won't work with me because of my color or my religion, there's a pretty good chance I wouldn't want to be working with them either.  But that's just me.

I wonder how others feel about including personal information on a business or professional blog.  Do you or might you keep some information off your blog?

 

Filling the news gap

 

It’s not news that the shape of news in the U.S. has changed over the past 10 years or so.  More than ever, it’s become about building ratings and readership, while context, relevance and sometimes even accuracy seem to be less important. 

The reasons for this change are manifold – increasing pressure on the bottom line of newspaper publishers and broadcasters, the public craving for juicy gossip about stars and celeb-wannabees and the media’s willingness  --eagerness, it often seems – to feed us the latest on bad behavior by the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen.

Over the years there have been some steady beacons in the news business, especially in the area of investigative journalism.  Public broadcasting – NPR and PBS – have consistently done a good job filling a gap too often left by the major commercial media outlets.  Brett Zongker, writing for the Associated Press, makes note of this in a story today that talks about more than $90 million that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has used over the past three years to focus on “new journalism initiatives, including a $10 million local journalism initiative that is paying for the creation of five regional centers that will help local PBS and NPR stations cover news that affects wider geographic areas.”  Much of this is going to reporting that informs the public about happenings in business and government, thus holding those institutions accountable.   This has been happening at the same time as so many newspapers, TV networks and local stations have been cutting news and editing staff and shutting down news bureaus, doing less enterprise journalism.

The AP story points out how funding stations through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides insulation, of sorts, from pressure by the government on stations whose programs might be seen as contrary to official government positions on issues.  Thus, stations can feel more at ease to exercise journalistic integrity and report news as it is, rather than how the government or an advertiser might prefer to have it told (or not told).

Yet even as those same public stations provide a valuable role in a free and open society, they are coming under fire by some who want to drastically slash funding that comes from our tax dollars.  Many Conservatives, who see public TV and radio as no friend, are using the current fiscal crunch as an excuse to cut funding, as a way to silence that important voice.

Some funding for public TV and radio comes “from viewers like you,” and those of us who are members of public TV and radio stations should try our best to continue that support.  But the bulk of funding for public broadcasting comes from our taxes, and we must remind our representatives in Washington that maintaining independent news resources is a very important function that cannot be cut.  There are certainly many other items in the Federal budget that are bigger and far more wasteful than the money  that helps support public broadcasting.

And that shouldn’t come as news to most of us.