REICH COMMUNICATIONS

An Unfair Shot at McDonald's and Ronald McDonald House

 

A story in today's USA Today reports on a paper just released by advocacy group Corporate Accountablity International that says McDonald's "gains 100% of the PR benefit of the Ronald McDonald House program, while contributing only 10% of the charity's income."

I don't dispute the numbers at all.  But the business model for the Ronald McDonald House program is not at all reliant on the fast food giant contributing all or even most of the money.  And McDonald's -- and especially many of its franchisees -- put a lot of sweat equity into the program.

I don't know the actual numbers the advocacy group is reporting, but I know big bucks for the Ronald House program also come from the fast food chain's suppliers nationally and regionally.  Through my work handling McDonald's PR programming in the metro New York market more than 20 years ago, I've seen personally the hard work and dedication that many of the franchisees put in to help support the charity, giving personally, tapping their own local suppliers and local business neighbors, and supporting countless local fundraising efforts where they donate product and employees' time.

Yes, the Ronald McDonald House program is a brilliant public relations concept which reaps fantastic goodwill for McDonald's.  But what's wrong with that?  It's a win-win.  The Ronald McDonald Houses throughout the U.S. and around the world help an average of 12,000 families every day with free or low-cost accomodations near hospitals where seriously-ill children are being treated.  It simply wouldn't be happening without the support of McDonald's and its franchisees.

The adocacy group's report calls for McDonald's to change the name of Ronald McDonald House so it does not include the brand name.  They also want the company to stop using the Ronald McDonald character in connection with the charity.

Come on!  It's a program that works all around is doing great things to help families going through unthinkable trials.  Leave it alone!

 

BOSTON STRONG

 

Who should "own" Social Media?

 

Here's something to add to the continuing discussion regarding where responsibility for social media should lie in the corporate organization chart.  It's been an ongoing battle between marketing, PR and advertising, with some adding customer relations into the mix.

A survey by The Creative Group, reported in MediaPost a few days ago, adds some fuel to the fire.  The survey of marketing and ad executives shows that 39 percent of them feel social media outreach belongs under the purview of the communications/PR department.  Thirty-five percent say it should reside in the marketing dept., and 15 percent feel it should be assigned to the customer relations dept.  Five percent felt it should be a direct responsibility of the CEO.

MediaPost writer Erik Sass adds his own opinion that social media should be the responsibility of all the departments mentioned above.

In theory, he's right.  But in real-world practice, one person or one department needs to have day-to-day responsibility for the organization's social media outreach and dialogue.

My vote is for the PR department. 

The PR discipline is supposed to be sensitive to the impact and tone of communications.  The PR person or PR department is supposed to be most adept at putting ideas into words that explain, motivate or convince an intended audience.  If that audience happens to be reached via social media, the tool that is utilized is still words, or in some cases words and pictures or video.  But it's all based on the written word, which is what we in Public Relations are supposed to best at.

The PR person can't -- and shouldn't -- work in a vacuum, though.  That's where all the other departments come in.  Guidelines should be established based on input from the marketing and advertising folks, the customer service people, the lawyers (ugh) and possibly even the CEO as well.  But implementation and day-to-day dialogue via social media should be under the guidance of the PR people.

There should be protocols established so predetermined actions can be taken if a problem or firestorm erupts online, as we've seen happen.  That's when it might be necessary to have group decisions made regarding content and wording. 

But everyday communications via social media should be, in my opinion, handled and overseen by the PR people.  They're the ones who should be most adept at a company's communications with the world beyond the boardroom.

 

 

On the Record

 

Vinyl is making a comeback

 

How many of you have vinyl record albums?  Do you still listen to them?

For most of us, music on vinyl is a thing of the distant past.

I remember when I got my first CD player back in the early 1980s.  The first CD I had was Fleetwood Mac's "Tango in the Night" and I remember how crystal clear the highs were, playing on my giant old AR4a speakers.  And the lows, coming through those speakers, shook the room.

Even as audiophiles debated the true clarity and "warmth" of CDs vs vinyl LPs, I found CDs to be more convenient.  You could program it to skip tracks you didn't like as much, or you could scramble it so tracks would play in random order, just for variety.  And with a 5-disc changer, you could sit back and relax for hours without having to get up to flip a record over or put another on.  And, you could play them in the car.

The only problem was what about the hundreds of vinyl albums I already had collected – especially a really good jazz collection.  I still had my Dual turntable, so I could listen to my vinyl albums.

As the years went by, my amp lost its punch, as did those great speakers.  But by then, I found myself listening to music on CDs on the sound system we bought for the big TV.  The sound system has a CD/DVD player built in, and the surround-sound speakers, small as they may be, somehow pump out a pretty decent sound, buoyed by the sub-woofer sitting on the floor behind the TV.

I gradually stopped listening to my LPs.  In the cabinet are some fantastic albums –  a lot of great rock and all that jazz… stuff by Coltrane, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Oliver Nelson, Billy Taylor and lots more.  Most haven't been listened to in a good ten years… maybe more.

Even as I and most of us ditched vinyl way back, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), which tracks music sales with Nielsen SoundScan, says sales of vinyl records jumped by more than 33 percent through the first half of this year, compared to a year ago.  That's still only 2.9 million records, but it represents the continuation of a steady growth trend since 2006.

Ironically, the CDs that knocked vinyl out 30 years ago are being replaced by digital downloads.  People can now buy only the specific songs they want, rather than being forced to pay for an entire album.

A story in Advertising Age notes that some big retailers like Whole Foods are experimenting with vinyl record stores within its grocery stores.  And Amazon says vinyl is its fastest-growing music medium, with sales up by 745 percent in the last five years.  That's from a tiny base, but it's still real growth, even though vinyl now accounts for only 2 percent of total music sales. 

But for something that most had left for dead over the past 30 years, two percent and growing is still something.

Several months ago, I got lonely for some of the jazz I have on vinyl.  Many of the jazz LPs I have just aren't available on CD.  So I tried hooking up the turntable to the TV sound system, but somehow it doesn't work. Maybe the impedence doesn't match, and the best I get is very soft pickup of what's on the album, barely audible even when you crank up the volume. 

But I'll get it figured out one of these weekends.  And once I do, who knows... maybe I'll buy an album on vinyl.

 

 .