my 2 cents

Hometown hero

The suburban New York town where I grew up and still live -- Mount Vernon -- has been home to a pretty good number of celebrities for a city its size.

It was the birthplace of writer E.B. White, author of the children's classic Charlotte's Web.  Actors Art Carney and Denzel Washington also hail from Mount Vernon.  Eternal teenager Dick Clark is from my town.  Sports figures like basketball's Gus Hall and baseball's Kenny Singleton (he was a high school classmate) are from Mount Vernon.  Others who have lived here include jazz pianist Ahmad Jamal, Cosby co-star Felicia Rashad and biz guru Seth Godin, with whom I used to play pinball.  Rock musicians like Roy Blumenfeld of the legendary Blues Project, as well as more contemporary names like Heavy D also come from this city of 70,000.

We recently lost one of our hometown heroes, pro-wrestler Captain Lou Albano.  I didn't know Captain  Lou.  I may have met him a long time ago at a local political or charity thing.  I know his younger brother George, who is a well-respected and much-loved principal at an elementary school in town that's won all sorts of awards for excellence.  George is a nice, caring and giving person. I've had the privilege of working with him over the years on local school board activities.

So as I was reading some of the obits on Captain Lou, it didn't surprise me that the kooky-looking, blustery big guy that was Captain Lou to the world was just the opposite in his private life... a family-first person, eager to help others whenever he could.  He came from a good family, whose values stayed with him.

It just serves as a reminder that you can't always a judge a book by its cover.

Condolences to George and the Albano family.  Mount Vernon will always be proud of Captain Lou.

Odds 'n ends

A couple of things of odds 'n ends today, as I just returned from the Distracted Driving Summit in Washington. 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood invited nearly 300 people involved in traffic safety to a 2-day meeting to focus on distracted driving -- a growing epidemic that's killing  thousands of Americans every year.We've all spoken on our cell phones while driving, and many of us have texted while driving. (Not me -- I don't like to text.)  This dangerous practice is especially prevalent among young people, who have the need to be constantly connected. 

This morning I met with a couple of young people, as we were prepping for a session on outreach to youth about distracted driving.  One young man, Greg, was texting while he drove and ran into another car -- killing two men.  He now has to live with that burden and he broke down as he told us the story, even though it was four years ago.  I met another young woman who now spends her life paralyzed in a wheelchair, after crashing while on her cellphone as she drove.

New studies show hands-free cell phone use while driving is almost as dangerous as hands-on units.  A key message that has to get out -- and that's a challenge we involved in public safety marketing have to address -- is that driving a car requires our full attention.  Most of us do it practically on auto-pilot because it's easy to drive.  But taking our eyes -- or our concentration -- off the road even for 3 or 4 seconds can be a fatal error if something happens (a car stops or swerves into your lane, or an animal runs into the road, or any of thousands of unexpected scenarios) while your eyes or your mind are elsewhere.   

I've developed, for my non-profit client The National Road Safety Foundation, a program to reach teen drivers and involve them in the communications challenge.  Along with National Organizations for Youth Safety, a youth-based coalition of advocacy groups, we announced today at the Distracted Driving Summit a competition for young people to create concepts for PSAs that address distracted driving and other risky driving behavior like speeding, driving under the influence, drowsy driving and failing to buckle up.  The winner gets $1,000 and a  trip to New York to see his or her idea turned into a professionally-produced PSA that will eventually be broadcast nationally and will go everywhere virally on the web. 

Pretty cool that the Secretary of Transportation likes the idea and featured it at the Summit.  And it's going to be written about on the White House blog.  The Secretary's office put us in touch with Seventeen Magazine, who will be partnering, and we welcome other media partners to step up as well.

I'll have more about this as the project progresses.  Meanwhile, corny as it might sound, don't text or talk on your cell while driving... and tell family and others you care about not to do it either.

UPDATE 10/16/09:   My client The National Road Safety Foundation, is running a competition for teens to come up with ideas for a PSA on safe driving.  It got the attention of the Secretary of Transportation, who is now working with us the project.  This story is appearing this weekend on some 200 TV stations nationally on "Teen Kids News."

....

I just saw this on the O'Dwyer's PR blog and had to share it... 

Before I began blogging almost three years ago, the letters WTF meant nothing to me.   Had you asked, I might have guessed it's the call letters of a radio station somewhere.   Then one day, when someone used it in a blog comment, I asked a friend who's a texter and she told me.  Oh... ok.  Since then, I've used the expression myself.

Pity the poor unsuspecting folks at the Wisconsin Tourism Federation.  When the group was formed 30 years, who would have thought those letters would eventually come to mean something that has nothing to do with Wisconsin or cheese or lakes or whatever else that fine state has.

It's sort of like the public relations company that handles lists and release distribution -- PR Aids.  It's now called Cision, once Aids took on another unfortunate meaning. 

So the people in Wisconsin have finally made some changes.  It's now the Tourism Federation of Wisconsin -- TFW. 

Let's hope texters don't come up with some other shortcut that uses those letters.  New logos and stationery gets expensive.

.

.

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?

NBC's big gamble... Will it pay off?

Monday night at 10 p.m. will be the start of "do or die" time for NBC, as The Jay Leno Show debuts.  NBC has been hyping it heavily and I think a lot of people are rooting for Jay to succeed.  He comes off like a nice guy... an "everyman" sort of fellow, and most of America wants to see him do well.

The new show is a gamble for Leno, who's been at the top of the late-night heap for years.  But as he's made clear in recent interviews, he feels he doesn't have anything to prove and if the show should stumble, he can still make a very nice living doing standup in Vegas and/or in big venues around the country.

The real gambler is NBC.  They've been justifying the move by talking about the profit factor, saying they can make money even with lower ratings because the cost of the Leno show is way cheaper than scripted dramas or comedies. 

But there's another factor at work here -- the local affiliates, who need a strong 10 p.m. show as lead-in for local newscasts, which can be the real moneymaker for the stations.  So even if Leno succeeds in profitability terms for the network, if the ratings are down significantly, it means fewer eyeballs tuned to NBC that might hopefuily stay tuned when the late news comes on.

That could cause an uproar from the affiliates.  Some might eventually try to put other programming in at 10, rather than carry the Leno feed on the network.  NBC brass could have a mutiny on their hands.

What can we expect?  I'm sure the new Leno show will have strong ratings at the start, especially with guests like Jerry Seinfeld.  The real test will be after a few weeks, or maybe a few months, when the newness has worn off and people start migrating to other shows.

Topical comedy will draw people, but it may not be enough to bring people back five nights a week.  Maybe if Jay allows his on-air humor to be a bit more biting, people may tune in to see what he has to say on the day's hot topic.  But what about days when there's no big, hot issue or news item that has everyone's attention.  Every day can't be a giant news day a la Michael Jackson, Bernie Madoff, Bill Clinton and the blue dress, etc.

And he'll have to have guests who we don't see all the time on the usual talk-show circuit, hawking their latest movie or book or CD.  Leno's bookers will have a real challenge.

Like most of America, I wish Jay Leno luck in his new gig.  I'll be watching next week, like many of us.  After week 2 or 3, I'll probably become an occasional Leno viewer, depending on who his guest is, what else is on the tube (and that includes the hundred-plus cable channels, pay-per-view or whatever I've DVR'd), or if I'm engrossed in a good book or on the computer blogging, twittering or just surfing the web.

Quite a challenge for Jay Leno and NBC.  It certainly will be interesting.

Never forget

.

September 11th - New York City

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.

Man on the Moon: That's the Way It Was

It does seem like a long time ago, but I can't believe that tomorrow it will have been 40 years since man first set foot on the moon.  When I realize how many of these 40-year old major news stories (Woodstock, the Beatles first appearance on American TV, the Kent State shootings) I can remember, it makes me feel old -- or at least to wonder how did so many years pass so quickly?

The lunar landing took place late in the afternoon on July 20, 1969.  I had just graduated college and was home for the summer, awaiting the start of grad school.  So I had the luxury of being able to sit in front of the TV to watch the event unfold.  But those who were working that day gathered in front of TVs and radios to witness the once-in-a-lifetime story.  No computers, no Twitter back then through which to share the experience.  TV was king.

The vast majority of Americans watching the lunar landing on TV saw it on CBS.  The newscast on the Tiffany Network had a share of nearly 65 percent that day.  It wasn't because CBS had better camera angles or fancier graphics.  People tuned to CBS because "America's most trusted man" was guiding us through the event --  Walter Cronkite.

As I watched "CBS Sunday Morning" today, I was reminded of how many big news stories Walter Cronkite took us through.  His was a voice of calm that seemed to help us get through even the toughest stories -- the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, the craziness of the Viet Nam era, Watergate.

I wonder how he would have reported on the financial meltdown last fall, the GM bankruptcy, the recession and all the job losses.

Cronkite ruled the airwaves when it was a much smaller news universe.  Back then, we got our news from the morning papers and the evening network newscasts.  There were no 24-hour newscasts on cable or even on radio yet.  When we thought of computers back then, we pictured warehouse-size air conditioned rooms filled with rows upon rows of machines with whirling tape drives.  The internet -- what?

In an old interview, Cronkite admits that TV news was always, to a  degree, a bit of show business.  But he and his producers remembered that, above all, it was news business.

And that's the way it was.

 

Baby, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away

Paul Simon titled a song after it in 1973.  Millions of new parents in the 70's and 80's reiied on it to document our growing families.  Professional photographers swore by it for the rich tones it brought to their pictures.

Kodachrome -- one of the best-known products of its time, in its distinctive Kodak-yellow packaging.

But it's no surprise that, as reported in today's New York Times, Kodak is ending production of the once ubiquitous film, which was introduced in 1935.  The company reports the once-mighty Kodachrome now accounts for less than 1% of its traditional film sales.

For many of us boomers, who led the charge into digital cameras 15 years ago, the Kodachrome name will stick with us even after you can't find the film in camera stores anymore. The refrain from the Paul Simon hit is one reason.  And many of us have, tucked away in closets or attics, thousands of Kodachrome slides of our early married years, our kids growing up, and shots of our parents when they were (OMG!) the age we now find ourselves at.  I bet many, like me, haven't looked at those Kodachromes for years because their Kodak Carousel slide projectors are long gone or, if we still have them, the bulbs have burned out and we can't get replacements. 

But those boxes and Carousel trays filled with Kodachrome memories are still there.

Sadly, however, the time has come for Kodak to take my Kodachrome away.

Sorry, but I'm not all a'Twitter

I wrote this post more than a week ago, but hesitated putting it up.  I know some of my readers and online friends swear by Twitter.  Many are blogging less frequently because they're tweeting instead.

It must be working for them, but...  I just don't get it.

Mike Shields, who covers digital media at Mediaweek, reported several days ago about a study by Nielsen Online that shows a 40% retention rate for new Twitter users.  Actually, Shields wrote... "just a 40% return rate."  The story compared Twitter to "similarly over-hyped Second Life from a few years ago.

Other media, especially mainstream media, jumped all over the study and we started seeing stories in the papers and on TV and radio about the weakness of Twitter, like a fad that's run its course.

Not surprisingly, the media seem to have overplayed this story.  And the comparison to Second Life is not entirely fair.  Second Life spurred a lot of talk and anticipation, and many of us took a look and even signed up and chose avatars for ourselves, so we'd be represented in the virtual world.  And then, it sort of dropped out of sight.

Twitter is different.  First of all, it's not as complex as Second Life.  You put up mini-posts and respond to others -- it's quick and easy and it can be done in a few seconds from your cell phone as you're walking to work or entering the movie theater or waiting in line at the supermarket.

I think some of that quickness and ease of Twittering is what, to me, is also driving some people away from it.  A lot of the drop-off seems to be from people who, responding to the hype from celebs like Oprah and Ashton Kutcher, signed up out of curiousity or because they figured it's a way to get closer to the famous people who say they Twitter.  Maybe their expectations were unrealistically high, but when they saw they weren't really having meaningful dialogues or getting intimate with Oprah, Ashton or Britney, they let their Twitter activity slide.

I can only judge Twitter from my own, admittedly limited, experience so far.  Some friends I respect swear by Twitter.  They tell me it enables them to discuss issues, comment on breaking news and get instant feedback.  Some say it helps them keep up on the latest news.

I'm afraid I haven't seen those benefits yet. I'm not saying I never will, but so far I just don't see it as a worthwhile use of my increasingly dwindling free time.  I admit -- it could be me.  Maybe I'm going to the wrong feeds or not following the right people or groups.

I have, however, seen the benefits of having some of my blog posts mentioned on Twitter.  Some Tweets, from people I don't know, linked to a couple of my posts and I saw traffic jump significantly  for several days. And I've followed links when I've seen Tweets suggesting I take a look at something.  So I do realize that it can be great for building traffic for a blog or other site.

But most of what I've seen out there on Twitter there so far has been rather inane.  I don't really need to know that you're on the way to the bakery or that you've just ordered Chinese take-out or that you're in the drug store or the bathroom now.  (These are all real Tweets I've seen from supposedly business Twitterers.)  It's too much information, in an already overloaded information age. 

I even took a look at some Twitterers recommended by Adweek's TweetFreaks site.  More inane stuff, and surprisingly, it was coming from some people whose blogs I do read and find interesting and insightful.  But many of their random thoughts just add to the clutter of information and chatter we find ourselves struggling to keep up with.

I won't be one of those Twitter dropouts.  I'll keep trying to find my place out there.  An online friend whose blog is up there among the top marketing blogs told me (via an email) that it took him about six months to figure how to best utilize Twitter, and he agreed that there's lots of chatter that's pointless or inane.  Another online friend told me several months ago when he began Twittering that he sees his blog as professional communication and his Twittering as social -- like hanging out and shooting the breeze with friends.

So I'll keep at it, but I doubt if I'll be responding to or adding to inane stuff about what you (or I) are doing at this precise instant.  I won't be Tweeting to say I'm about to watch "CBS Sunday Morning" now, or that I'll soon be taking my dog to the woods for a walk.  Do you really need to know that?

But I will be watching and contributing when I think I have something meaningful to add.  For now, I'll continue to focus on my blog and what others are saying on their blogs, where the comments aren't so fast and random and where, hopefully, the thoughts behind the writing is more thoughtful.

(If I offended any Twitters, I apologize.  I'm only calling it like I see it.)

.

They've got to be kidding!

Check this out, as reported by Advertising Age online...

Michael Vick in Talks
to Become PETA Spokesman

Jailed NFL Superstar Looks to Rehab Image After Dog-Fighting Rap

May 1, 2009 
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Disgraced one-time NFL superstar Michael Vick, who is serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring, is primed to do public-service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals upon his release later this month. According to three people with knowledge of the matter, the proposed endorsement is part of a comprehensive PR scheme aimed at rehabilitating the quarterback's image and gaining him re-admission to the league that banned him from playing.

Of course, this makes sense for Vick to do, but what in the world is PETA thinking?

If Vick hadn't been convicted and hadn't been banned from the NFL, would he still be looking to do a public service campaign on this issue?

Get real!

.

Update: May 6th --  Advertising Age has an online poll asking if Michael Vick can be a credible spokesperson against animal cruelty.  So far, the response is 87 percent saying NO; 13 percent saying Yes.