my 2 cents

PRedictions for 2010

In some ways, 2010 may turn out to be similar to 2009.

Before starting my look ahead, I took a look back to what I predicted for this year that's almost behind us. I said 2009 would be both good and bad for the public relations agency business, with smaller shops in a better position to do well during tough economic times.

I also said we'd see more journalists move into the p.r. field, as a result of media layoffs and the search for greener financial pastures.

And I expected to see more p.r. people getting into social media.

I think I was fairly on target with those predictions.  And I think we will see more of the same in this new year, while we're (hopefully) emerging from a recession.  But it won't be business as usual as the economy gathers back its strength.

2010 will be another challenging year.  Marketers will still be under pressure to get the most out of their budgets.  That could be good news for the p.r. agency business, since p.r. can be more cost-efficient than advertising.  But agencies will need to show measurable ROI, which is always a challenge and will become even tougher as more agencies add Social Media Management to their list of services.

Again in 2010, I think smaller agencies with lower overhead will be in a position to do well, while the large agencies may still be in a cost-cutting mode in order to make their bottom line look acceptable.

We will see more "virtual agencies," where there is not a large fixed staff, but instead a loose affiliation of p.r. pros who work together on business as the need arises.  My agency is, in fact, built on that premise with minimal payroll and experienced p.r. pros who are brought in on an as-needed basis, depending on a particular client's needs.  It's worked pretty well, since we don't have to try to fudge to make staff experience fit a client's needs and hope for the best.  Instead, we bring in the best people who have experience and skills that best respond to what the client's program calls for.  I'm seeing a few other small agencies working this way, and there will be more in the coming year.

Social media will be part of the agency menu.  Some p.r. people have been dabbling in social media -- blogging or active on Facebook and Twitter.  As more clients recognize the potential of direct contact with customers and prospects through social media, they are turning to the agencies -- advertising, public relations, SEO or the new crop of social media specialist shops.  Since, in the end, it's more about content than the technology, p.r. agencies should be in the best position to add social media management to their menu of services offered.  2010 and beyond will see more p.r. shops move in that direction.

Traditional media relations is not going away.  Despite constant talk of shrinking traditional media on one hand and chatter about the death of the news release on the other, media relations -- publicity -- will continue to be a large part of what p.r. agencies do for clients.  And traditional media will still play a major role, even as we pay more attention to online and social media.  It's still publicity, but with a larger and more complex playing field.  Targeting, rather than mass mailings and email blasts, will still win out in terms of bringing best results.

Writing will remain a key skill for young people entering the p.r. field.  A working familiarity with social media will be a skill that is assumed.  But above all, the better p.r agencies and p.r. departments will still want young people who can write well and who can learn to think like editors, so they will understand what the media want and how best to present it to them.

 I'd love to hear any thoughts readers might have, as well as any other predictions that we should add to this list.  And in a year, we'll take a look back to see how we did.

And as always at this time of year, we send our best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year. 

HAPPY NEW YEAR from NEW YORK CITY!

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?

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.

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.  

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."

FTC catches up with social media

Beginning December 1, bloggers and twitterers can be liable for hefty fines if they promote products and services for pay without disclosing that they have a financial arrangement with an advertiser.

For the first time since 1980, the Federal Trade Commission has updated its rules on endorsements and testimonials in advertising.  The new rules now specifically require bloggers and twitterers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, which includes payments for ads or promotional copy, or also for free gifts given in exchange.

Fines can be up to $11,000 for each violation.

For most bloggers I know, these new rules won't be a problem.  They already make it clear if they've received a free product or book for review.  Even Joe Jaffe, who stirred up people a few years ago when he over-hyped his free digital camera, made it perfectly clear he had been given a demo camera.  Readers were then free to make their own judgment about the impartiality of his blog posts.

The real problem seems to stem from a few segments of the blogosphere where outright greed and deception seem to run rampant.  Mommy bloggers (not all, of course) have been big abusers, with some so greedy that they've made it clear their policy is "no pay, no play."  Want to get written up in a popular mommy blog? No problem, as long as you send a nice payment or a major appliance or a trip to Disneyworld.  No freebie?  No coverage.

There's also been some abuse in the health area, where some bloggers recommend remedies only because they've been paid to do so.  Consumers have a right to know that the blogger may have been influenced by payment, which is what the new FTC rules are about.

It's probably abuses in these areas that brought the FTC's scrutiny.  For those who've been deceptive and greedy, their blogging practices will have to change.  It'll be hard to fly under the radar, since the FTC will probably be looking for a few cases they can use as high-profile examples.

It should be interesting to watch over the next several months.  For most of us, though, it's business as usual.

Thinking of a celebrity endorser? Think again.

It's not unusual to hear, in agency creative meetings, "Let's get a celebrity to pitch our product."Does a celebrity endorser work? 

Evidently not, if you believe the findings of a recent Adweek poll.

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents said a celebrity pitcher does not influence them at all.  Only eight percent said a celeb might influence them to buy a product, while twelve percent said it would likely cause them NOT to buy.

Consumers 55+ are even less likely to be swayed by a celebrity hawking a product.  Twenty-four percent of that group said it would deter them.  Men are lot more likely, at 15 percent, than women (11 percent) to be turned off by a celebrity endorser.

Of course, there are exceptions -- Oprah is on a level all her own.  But what advertiser could afford her -- if she would agree to do an ad?

To me, the main benefit of a high-profile endorser is that he or she could cut through the clutter and bring attention to your product or ad -- especially if that celeb rarely does commercials.  But after the attention, will he or she bring credibility?  That's a hard combination to put together.

And then there's the risk of your celebrity doing something that garners negative attention.  These days, it can be a lot more than "just" having an affair. We see celebrities getting busted for drunk driving, tax evasion, shootings, spousal abuse, surfing kiddie porn or promoting dog fights.  Some of these things carry a pretty big "yuck" factor with them.

Think of the damage an episode like that can do to a brand.  And that doesn't count the cost of pulling ads and quickly creating new ones.

Still thinking of a celebrity endorser?  Maybe you should think again, long and hard.

Not sure how I feel

I read in the Los Angeles Times the other day about a new ad campaign promoting Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  MSNBC picked up the story, which included a clip of the ad "Save the Boobs" from the non-profit Rethink Breast Cancer. 

The spot looks more like a beer ad than one for a disease that's the leading killer of women 25 - 49.  It features a woman with large breasts almost popping out of her bikini top, while every man

she passes stares, slack-jawed, at her chest.  Stripper music plays in the background.

Dan Neil's L.A. Times story is headlined "Breast cancer ads use lechery for good."

I'm not so sure.  It's still lechery.  It's still more of objectifying women's bodies.  It also reinforces the thinking that, when it comes to women's breasts, bigger and bouncier is better.  How does that make women with smaller breasts feel?

I understand, of course, the intent of this ad.  Get attention.  Get people talking.  It looks like that's worked (evidence: this post, the L.A. Times and MSNBC stories and others). 

I'm just not sure if this was the way to do it. Ads on serious subjects can use humor to get attention and recall.   Coincidentally, I saw another ad on breast cancer awareness (it's part of the MSNBC clip linked above) that had closeups of women with their hands on or under their chests, pledging allegiance to fight breast cancer.  Each woman referred to her breasts using a different slang expression -- my hooters, boobies, tatas, my girls, chi-chi's (never heard of that one), etc.  But they weren't in tiny bikinis; they were wearing street clothes.  And they were women of all sizes; not just the Barbie stereotype 36 double-Ds.

From what I've seen online so far, I may be in the minority here. 

The "Save the Boobs" ad is drawing positive comments from ad critics and from readers.  But I just wonder if the same message to younger women and the men who love them -- that breast cancer strikes young women too -- couldn't have been communicated in a way that doesn't reinforce the objectifying and demeaning of women.Maybe it's just me -- I'll admit it.

Your thoughts?

Exploiting bad news for marketing -- Use common sense

There was a flurry of news that moved throughout the ad/marketing world and into the mainstream consciousness when a Brazilian ad agency recently released an ad for client the World Wildlife Federation.  The ad showed lower Manhattan -- World Trade Center towers still intact -- being attacked by dozens of planes. 

The ad drew criticism from around the world and, as I understand it, was withdrawn.  WWF issued an apology.

But the ad was seen, via stories in news media and through viral transmissions online, by more people than probably would have seen it in the magazines where it was going to be placed.

Advertising Age asked its readers if 9/11 should be permanently off-limits for the exploitation of marketers and advertisers -- even those advertising non-profit and humanitarian issues like environmental concerns.  Overwhelmingly, readers who commented said Sept. 11 should not be used in any advertising or promotion.

To me, it should be a no-brainer.  Man-made disasters like wars and terrorism have been tricky ground, even for storytellers who want to use things like the Holocaust and VietNam as backdrops for films or TV movies.  But why on earth would an advertiser or its agency choose to use a terrorist event of epic proportions to communicate a message?

I can see an unscrupulous or desperate advertiser doing it, simply as a way to get attention.   Never mind that it will turn many people off, they may think, as long as it gets more attention than what they're paying for.

But a quality agency and a smart marketer can certainly come up with other means to gain attention.  There is no need to exploit an event that is still painful to thousands -- or probably millions -- of people.  Off-limits forever?  I'm not sure.  But look at how, even after more than 60 years, use of Hitler's image and Nazi insignia is still considered extremely bad taste if used for advertising.  Smart advertisers will stay away from such painful images and use their creativity to find other ways to get attention and communicate a message.

The magic demos

We all know how advertisers seem to crave the magic demographics -- people between the ages of 18 - 49.  That's what's most sought after by TV advertisers.  That's what the networks tout to marketers -- how many people in the 18-49 age category they reach.  The rest of us are just "bonus" viewers.

Maybe that made sense 20 - 30 years ago, but as so many of the boomers have moved well past the top edge of the magic demos, we're still spending money (current recession notwihstanding).  College has been paid for, the kids have moved out and are (hopefully) self-sufficient.  Except for those who were raped by Madoff, we've put money away for retirement.  So now, we spend chunks of our income on ourselves -- new furniture to replace the tired stuff that the kids wrecked over the years, nice vacations for just the two of us, maybe a new car that's selfishly indulgent, like a sports car or convertible rather than a family-friendly SUV or station wagon. 

The boomers have money to spend and we're spending it.  And yes, we buy Coke and shop at WalMart.  Ok, maybe we don't frequent McDonald's or The Gap, but we're out there shopping.

Craig Ferguson, host of CBS' Late Late Show following David Letterman, has, in my opinion, the best monologues of the late night crew.  His recent rant about advertising's magic demographics is hilarious, but it's also right on target.  He makes a lot of sense.

I'll let Ferguson speak for himself.  Click here...

Whad'ya think?