REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Bad Idea: Do we really need this?

Aw, c'mon.  From Drug Store News today...

CINCINNATI — Procter & Gamble's Charmin brand is launching a new chamomile-scented toilet paper. Each roll of Charmin plus with the scent of Chamomile has the scent added to the tube to create an experience that soothes the senses, the company said.

“At Charmin we regularly speak with consumers to better meet their needs. In the United States, there are a growing number of people looking for scented toilet tissue because they either grew up with it or would prefer a scented product,” said Scott Mautz, regional brand director. “By adding the scent of chamomile to the roll, Charmin helps create a soothing, cozy bathroom experience.”

 

Do we really need this?

 

Distracted to Death

I’ve read a lot over the past several weeks about Google Glass, which keeps you constantly connected and puts the internet right in front of your eyes (or more accurately, eye).  The idea is that you can do whatever you’re normally doing, while remaining in touch visually.

In theory, it’s a great idea for those who feel such a need.   But in reality, I think it’s a recipe for disaster…literally.

As someone who spends a lot of time working in the traffic safety field, through clients like The National Road Safety Foundation, a non-profit group,  and the government’s NHTSA, I’ve come to understand that driving a car requires full attention.  Driving is not something you can do safely while you’re multitasking.

There are three types of distraction, and Google Glass falls into at least two of them. There’s visual, aural and cognitive distraction.  All can and do take your attention off the road in front of you, and when you’re moving at highway speeds of 60 miles an hour, you travel the length of a football field in 3 or 4 seconds.  That’s how long it takes to read or send a text.  So while you look at or send a text, you’re basically driving blind the length of a football field.  Doesn’t sound too smart or safe, does it?

Google says that since its Glass displays information in front of you, you don’t have to look down and you can still see what’s in front of you.  I don’t know about that.  I had the chance to try an earlier version of Google Glass a few months ago.  It’s cool, but it IS distracting.  And when your eye is looking at the displayed information an inch or two in front of it, it can’t also focus clearly on thje road and cars or people 20 or 50 feet in front of you. The eye just doesn’t work that way.

I also read this week about new displays that automaker Jaguar hopes to introduce soon, that show key information like speed, gas level, perhaps travel or map info – all on the windshield in the driver’s line of sight.  To me, that sets up the same risk for visual distraction as Google Glass.

So I have to wonder … where is the Government here?  Very simply, laws should be passed, based on NHTSA recommendations, that make driving while wearing Google Glass illegal, just as in 38 states it’s now illegal to text while you drive.  And they should also be discouraging or preventing automakers from introducing line-of-sight displays that take the driver’s eyes – or the eyes’ focus – off the road ahead.  The same should be done to prevent visual controls and displays for non-driving functions like the sound system, hands-free phones and even GPS maps and driving info.  Audio cues are ok, but the maps and mapped driving directions are a serious distraction.

I hate to sound like a “bah humbug” about this exciting and helpful new technology, but some limits need to placed on it.  Why?  I’ll tell you why… it could be your kid or mine who gets killed by a driver distracted by Google Glass, line-of-sight displays or a GPS. 

And then it will be too late.

 

Another blow for local media

Radio used to be such an exciting medium.  In smaller cities and in the suburbs, radio served a special function -- providing very localized news and information for areas often overlooked by the major media located in the big cities.

When I was growing up, there was a station in Hartsdale that served lower and central Westchester County with local news and talk, with music actually selected by the deejay rather than off a computerized playlist generated by a programming consultant in Dallas or wherever.  Those were the glory days of local radio.

Since the 1930s, the Westchester station had the call letters based on the initials of the man who founded it - Frank A. Seitz.  I think he was an engineer and may have actually built much of the equipment in the early days of the station. 

I began listening to WFAS during the summers off from college.  I was dating a girl who lived literally in the shadow of the station's awesome transmisson tower, which rose high above the tract of suburban split levels.  Coming home from a date, I'd tune into the station because the all-night deejay was a guy named Sonny Mann (real name John Manna, I later learned) who did a jazz show.  Jazz was, and still is, my musical passion.

Sonny would play long jazz cuts and when he spoke, it was in a slow, soft voice so unlike the typical fast-talking deejays who shouted at you back in those days.  And in the background, as he spoke he had some soft jazz playing -- the piano of Red Garland.

At school, I got involved with the college FM station and for three years did a weekly jazz show.  I patterned it after Sonny Mann's show, with a repeating cartridge with some soft piano jazz that I'd play underneath my talk between songs.  I loved doing that show and sharing my favorite music with unseen listeners.

So one summer night during Sonny's show, I picked up the phone and called to request a song.  We got to talking and I mentioned I did a jazz show on college radio upstate.  He invited me to stop in at the station anytime when he was on the air.  And so I did a few days later. 

I remember driving up to the station, which was in a small building right in front of that awesome tower that looked even more awesome at night, with its blinking red lights.  I rang the bell and this older guy, a bit disheveled, came to the door and invited me in.  It was Sonny.

We chatted for a while and then he asked me to pick out some tunes I'd like to hear.  I found something by Billy Taylor, Quincy Jones, Oliver Nelson and a couple of others.  Sonny said he liked my taste.

During a break between songs, he said he had a guest in the studio, a guy who did a jazz show on a college station.  He put me on a mic and and asked me about one of the tunes I had chosen, which he was about to play. Nervous as I was, speaking on a real radio station, I was able to explain what I liked about the song coming up next.  And then Sonny played it.

He said he was going out back to have a smoke.  He said if he wasn't back by the time the song ended, to just go ahead and play some of the other stuff I had selected.  He showed me the program log and said if he wasn't back by 20 past the hour, to read the commercial on this page, and about 5 minutes later to read the weather update which I should rip off the AP ticker in the newsroom.  And he reminded me, just in case, to do a station ID on the half hour, which I knew was an FCC requirement.

Sonny went out and I played some music.  I read ad and the commecial, and I did the station ID.  I played more music, talked a little about it and, because it said so in the program log, I read another ad and a public service announcement.  Sonny must have been out there smoking the whole pack.

Finally, he came back and told me I was doing a great job.  I asked where he was all this time -- probably close to 45 minutes -- and he told me he had gone for a ride in his car, listening to me while joy-riding.  That's when I got nervous -- what if something had happened while I was manning the station alone?

But nothing happened.  Sonny came back on after a tune finished, thanked me for sitting in and told people if they were ever up in Potsdam NY to listen to my "Jazz Scene" show on WTSC-FM, 91.1 FM.

I spoke with Sonny from time to time after that, until the station cut his show and started airing a syndicated show -- I think it was "Delilah."  A few years later I happened to read Sonny's obit in the local paper.

It all comes back to me now, as I read today that WFAS, now owned by radio giant Cumulus Media, is leaving that studio in Westchester, moving to The Bronx, changing its call letters and switching to an "urban" format.  Although the transmitter will be in The Bronx, programming will originate from Cumulus' offices in Tribeca in Manhattan, where the company has studios for the several other stations it owns in NY, as well as the shared news operation.

This is typical of what's been happening in local radio over the past 25 years or so.  I shouldn't be surprised.  But this time, for me, it's personal.

So long WFAS, with fond memories of Sonny Mann, who ended his show every night at 6 a.m. saying, "Straight ahead."

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

News Drones -- Not Ready for Primetime

 

I'm usually right there siding with the media for First Ammendment rights, since I think a free press is vital to having an open and democratic society. 

But I'm afraid I'm at odds with the more than a dozen news organizations who are challending the FAA ban on use of drones by journalists.  I can see all sorts of problems resulting from unfettered use of news drones, ranging from safety issues to personal privacy.

First of all, there's the safety issue.  Although hobbyists have been able to fly unmanned model planes for decades -- as a teen, in fact, I built and flew one with a friend -- there are strict rules regarding how high they can fly and banning them from areas near airports.  And the technology many years ago limited the height and range of those model aircraft.  But as drones now have the ability to fly at high altitudes and miles from the controller, they can pose serious risks to commercial and private aviation, putting those in the air and those on the ground at risk.

I also am concerned about personal privacy issues involving news drones.  It's bad enough that some big celebrity weddings get stalked by news helicopters or small aircraft hired by paparazzi hoping to get that $100,000 shot.  But drones, which are far less costly, can also be used to stalk everyday people who some news organization may suspect of wrongdoing.  Or I can see some local stations who have "Help me Howard"-type news features using drones to stalk someone who a viewer feels has wronged him somehow.

Over-zealous news drone operators can also interfere with legitimate police and emergency operttions.  It's happened with news helicopters, where they get in the way of police aircraft surveying a crime or emergency scene.  Just imagine police trying to do their work while dodging dozens of small, hard-to-spot news drones buzzing around the scene.  It's a disaster waiting to happen.

I can envision so many abuses of privacy and safety if news organizations have the right to put dozens of drones up in the air.  Just imagine "news organizations" like TMZ having free access to drones.

One possible solution might be to grant a very limited number of licenses to legitimate news organizations to use drones for newsgathering purposes, but with very specific and clear limitations that protect privacy and safety.  And solid fines should be imposed, to set an example when news drones step beyond set limits.

I know I'm going against the thinking of news organizations I admire and respect, like The New York Times, Washington Post, Gannett, Advance, Hearst and others.  But until very strict rules are set, I think we should hold off on unleashing news drones into the air.

 

 

Patch hits more than a rough spot

About 2-1/2 years ago I discovered, quite by accident, a local news site called Patch.  After looking at it more closely, I realized the Patch site I had come across was one of about 900 Patch sites reporting community events, local news and even local business openings and high school sports news.  It was all under the corporate umbrella of AOL, although I later learned it began as an offshoot of Google, which eventually sold it to AOL.

As a Public Relations person, I saw Patch as presenting a wealth of new opportunities for client news placements, especially in the face of so many other local media placement opportunities disappearing.  I've watched with dismay as local dailies got bought by big publishers, who then shut the locals down or merged them under the umbrella of what became a regional paper, while they laid off much of the local reporting staff.   And at the same time, the other major local news and information source -- local radio -- has undergone change that has too often eliminated local news.

So Patch was a PR person's dream -- a media outlet that was genuinely interested in covering truly local news that many other "local" media outlets just couldn't bother with.

Some Patch sites were really good, and others were mediocre at best, with local editors who simply picked up and reprinted verbatim whatever news releases they received.

AOL had been losing money on this venture from the start, with some reports saying the loss is between $200 - $300 million.  The company closed down several dozen Patch sites last summer, as it laid off about 350 people -- almost a third of the total Patch workforce, which included editorial and ad sales.  And it looks like the Patch experiment will be coming to an end, possibly as soon as the beginning of the new year as AOL is finally taking its losses and pulling the plug.

Media pundits are placing blame all over the place.  Some say AOL expanded Patch too quickly.  Others say it never seemed to have the "passion" for local news that was needed for it to click with local readers and advertisers.  Some insiders are saying AOL had too heavy a hand in things and made it difficult for the local people to establish Patch as a local brand.

The closing of Patch will hurt local news coverage, but maybe only for a short time.  As more journalists get laid off from daily newspapers closing down or reducing their publication frequency from daily to a few dayus a week, some reporters may see an opportunity to be entrepreneurial and start local news sites.  There's no big start-up expense like buying presses, newsprint and delivery trucks, after all.  And some local "traditional" media like radio stations and community papers, dailies or weeklies, may see similar opportunities to enhance their local news coverage and generate added advertising revenues by selling the local news sites on their own or as add-ons to ads they sell in print or on the air.

There is a natural hunger for local news and information, since what happens down the street often impacts us more directly and more immediately than what happens across the country or across the ocean.  I think whatever gap is left by the demise of Patch will eventually be filled, possibly in a better way.  

Let's hope so. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bad Idea: Using Racial Slurs in Ads

What were these ad folks thinking? 

 

Maybe the better question should be... Were they thinking at all?

Automotive News reports on a thoughtless move by General Motors' ad people when they approved a spot that uses racial stereotypes offensive to Chinese people.  As bad as it is anywhere, anytime, it's especially dumb for a company that's looking to sell more product in China.

Automotive News says "GM wants to expand sales in China and plans to spend $11 billion through 2016 on new plants and products in the country. GM is targeting 5 million deliveries in China by 2015. Sales of GM and its Chinese joint ventures increased 11 percent to a record 2.84 million last year. The company already sells more vehicles in China than its home market."

So creating an ad that calls China "the land of Fu Manchu" where all of the girls sing "ching, ching, chop-suey" is a perfect way to endear your brand with the people of the world's most populous nation, right?

The problem lay in someone's choice of music, since the offending references are part of a song that is used in the ad.  The ad's theme  is a throwback to the 1920's era, but surely the creatives at the agency could have found appropriate music without offensive lyrics.

The ad for Chevrolet didn't run in China.  It ran in Canada and also was used online in Europe.  But these days, anything can be seen worldwide and we need to be sensitive to everyone's feelings.  The South China Morning Post saw it and yesterday reported on the ad, calling it "racist" in the story headline.

"Our intent was not to offend anyone and we're deeply sorry if anyone was offended," a GM spokesperson told Automotive News.  "We're reviewing our advertising approval processes to make sure this doesn't happen again."

Someone was asleep at the switch, that's for sure.

Once again, the NRA astounds with its insensitivity

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I don't see how any person with even half a brain can buy into the idea behind the NRA's latest ad.

The ad calls President Obama a hypocrite for calling for gun-free zones at schools, while his children are protected by armed guards when they are in school.

Well yes, those guards are the Secret Service, who protect any President's family since the President (and his family) are high-profile targets for people upset with the government.

"Are the President's kids any more important than our kids," asks the ad, which is really nasty and clearly appealing to the NRA's core by showing photos of Mayor Bloomberg and Nancy Pelosi.

Of course his kids aren't more important, but no one can deny they are more likely targets of a nut-job with a gun than the average kid.

The NRA, instead of reaching out and trying to appeal to more people in a rational manner, is further closing in on itself with ads that will only serve to turn off more people. 

Who is the NRA's PR director?

 

 

Pizza topping... Worthy of Debate?

What in the world were they thinking, the folks at Edelman and their client Pizza Hut?  Were they ever really serious about pulling off a stunt at the Presidential town hall debate Tuesday... a stunt that probably would have offended and annoyed most Americans, regardless of their political leanings toward blue or red.

The fast food chain was planning to offer a lifetime supply of free pizza to anyone in the audience at this week's debate who would ask the candidates if they preferred sausage or pepperoni on top of their pizza.

Fortunately, after hearing lots of negative and incredulous backlash, Pizza Hut had the brains to pull the stunt and instead do an online survey of consumers regarding their topping preferences.  Like anyone really cares about toppings.

But people do care about the debates, when the candidates have only 90 precious minutes to explain their views on a wide array of complex and important issues.  Had someone in the audience actually shilled for Pizza Hut and asked the question, it would have wasted a minute or possibly more -- time that could have been used letting the candidates air their views on the worldwide economic meltdown or nukes in Iran.

Sure, it would have put the company name in front of 50 or 60 million Americans, but at what cost?  Certainly Pizza Hut and its agency is smart enough to disavow that old saw that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Oh, yes there is, and Pizza Hut came close to finding out by being called out by the public and the media and also, possibly, having its stores boycotted by angry consumers who really don't care if President Obama or Gov. Romney have a pizza topping preference.

If the whole idea was a stunt from the beginning, with no real plans to encourage someone to ask the question at the debate, then Pizza Hut looks dumb anyway.  And the statement from the company's CMO, as quoted in Advertising Age about changing their plans, sounds out of touch with reality.  The statement said that "the 'buzz' around the question -- tens of hundreds of media outlets picked up the story -- proved that the debate was important. 'We're no longer asking a few hundred attendees at the town hall presidential debate on Oct. 16 to pose the question, rather we're bringing the question -- sausage or pepperoni? -- to millions of Americans," the CMO said."

Are you kidding?   

 

Do we really need this?

 

 

With hundreds of thousands of apps available now, and more coming online every day, there is an app for everything.  But is this something that anyone really needs?

Reuters reports on a new app that helps you sort your socks.

Yes, it's true.  For only $189, you get a sorter device that wirelessly hooks to an iPhone through Bluetooth.  It lets you sort through your socks to see which ones match up -- left with right.  (Until I read this, I never realized there were different socks for the left and right feet.)

By the way, the sorter comes with ten pairs of men's black socks.  (Oh, now that makes the $189 price a bargain, doesn't it?)  The socks have electronic chips embedded that keep track of when you bought them, how many times they've been worn and washed, when you last wore them, and so much more important information that any well-dressed man must absolutely have in order to look his best. The app even tells you when the sock needs to be replaced.  I guess that will supplant my own high-tech method of knowing when I need new socks -- like when I see my toe starting to peek out from a hole.

Now that this app has been introduced, maybe those app developers can get onto some more important projects like giving advance warning for when the toilet paper roll needs to be changed or when the milk in the fridge is about to go bad.

 

In marketing, Honesty trumps all

Most people don't like to be fooled.  Marketers -- and their public relations advisors -- should always try to remember that.

When a company tries to trick people in hopes of selling product, it can be a recipe for disaster.  The folks at ConAgra were caught off guard recently when a trick they tried to play backfired.  Here's how it unfolded...

According to a story in The New York Times, a group of food bloggers and mommy bloggers were invited to a West Village brownstone restaurant supposedly run by celebrity chef George Duran, who hosts "Celebrity Cake-Off" on cable's TLC channel.

The bloggers in attendance got a surprise at the end of the evening.  They were told, after dinner, that the lasagna they thought had been prepared by Chef Duran was actually a frozen meat and cheese lasagna from ConAgra's Marie Callendar product line.  The unuspecting bloggers got another surprise when they were told their comments as they tried the faux-chef-prepared food had been taped by hidden cameras for possible PR and advertising use.

Hidden cameras are nothing new.  They are often used in ads where shoppers are stopped in a supermarket and asked aqbout a product.  And Allen Funt made a nice living from fooling people with hidden cameras on his "Candid Camera" TV show decades ago.  And more recently, shows like "Punkd" catch celebs and semi-celebs in gags played out in front of hidden cameras.

The hidden-camera testimonials obviously use segments that are favorable to the product.  On the cutting room floor are clips showing an unsuspecting person getting annoyed for being fooled or simply refusing to go for the money being offered in exchange for the unintended testimonial.

People generally don't like to be fooled.  Imagine a group of bloggers attending an event expecting one thing and then being fed -- literally -- something totally different.  They've taken their time expecting to review a fine dining experience, and then they learn they are being played to shill for a frozen food product. 

This group of people who were tricked was not just a group of ordinary people.  They are journalists with, in some cases, very big or influential bullhorns.  And they let their displeasure with ConAgra's trickery go full-blast on their blog sites.

The blog Mom Confessionals wrote about the event, saying "Our entire meal was a SHAM.  We were unwilling participants in a bait & switch...and there were cameras watching our reactions."

FoodMayhem.com wrote about the hypocracy of the host having a pre-dinner discussion session with talk about problems with artificial ingredients.  "We discussed the sad state of chemical-filled foods," the blogger wrote, "and yet (they) fed me the exact thing I had said I did not want to eat."

Many bloggers who had been tricked wrote negative posts, going so far as to list all the chemical ingredients in the food, or citing things like the high amount of sodium in the product.

The reaction should not have come as a surprise to ConAgra and their big PR agency.  A cute PR stunt like this is an open invitation for disaster.  People -- especially those with a platform -- don't like to be fooled. 

A cardinal rule in Public Relations is Be Honest; Don't Lie.  And especially don't lie to a journalist.

It's just PR 101, isn't it?