Hey Look Mom I’m A Journalist

I was reading a e-book by David Meerman Scott titled The New Rules of PR. I found the information to be useful and just wanted to share it. Basically it discusses the evolution of the press release and the impact of the internet and its’ capabilities on the standard way of thinking about press. It used to be that press releases were only available to a small amount of journalist and the only way that it would get published is if a journalist “picked-up” the story. This is no longer the case. Scott defines it as “Self-Publishing Web-style”. Now because blogs, search engines, rss readers, and so on, now press releases are basically available to any individual with an internet connection. I remember doing research a while back about the percentage of journalist who are now getting their information from the blogosphere and not the traditional press release distribution channel. I can’t not recall the exact percentage, but I do remember reacting to the number I read. This e-book goes on to discuss the changes in the writing style and frequency that need to occur to satisfy this transition. Something that I began to think about was the fact that not only do marketers need to change the way they distribute their press releases but any person with a internet connection can potentially become a journalist. Because of the internet individuals no longer have to wait for the morning paper or the 5 O’Clock news to get their information. They now have the capability to gather it on their own. Not only do they have this capability, but research is showing they are often times more trusting of the information that comes from these outlets. I do a lot of the press release writing and distribution at three squared, and I found this e-book to be extremely informative. I hope you do too. And if anyone knows the percentage of journalist who get their information from the blogosphere and not the traditional press release distribution services please share.

Viral Marketing

I was reading the Spunlogic blog today, one of my favorite blogs to read, and today’s post written by Donovan Panone is about the interesting ways that consumers are interacting with brands online. There was one comment in particular that I thought was so dead on that I had to share it and that is “You can’t buy viral. Something will either catch on or it won’t. Forcing it won’t appear natural and consumers will be turned off.” A campaign that becomes viral has to do so organically. It has nothing to do with savvy marketers, developers, advertisers ect. forcing it to happen. Consumers either find it worthy of telling a friend or they don’t. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me. I do think that fun, engaging, and interactive components can be incorporated into a campaign, but that is not what makes the campaign viral. What makes it viral is the adoption of those components by mass consumers. The “viralness” of the campaign is completely in the hands of the consumer. It is them who make the decision to spread the word and inform their friends and family of their experience. Viral campaigns are not created in conference rooms or offices they are created by consumers when they make the choice to let the messages travel through them.

BTW. When you check out the Spunlogic blog be sure to take a look at the new Kevin Ferderline search engine. Stop laughing……I’m serious! If you don’t believe me take a look for yourself.

Attack of the killer pollen!!!

Thought this was appropriate information to give this time of year:-). Find out more on pollen and other allergens at atlantaallergy.com

 

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

---

Today’s Pollen Count: 3,905

This is the amount of pollen particles measured within the last 24 hours in a cubic meter of air.

Major Pollens Present: Pine, Oak, Sweet Gum, Sycamore, and Birch

Allergy Tip: The yellow pollen that blankets the area is pine pollen. Pine pollen does not produce a large allergic response. It’s the pollen that you don’t see that causes the most problem. In this area during the month of April oak is by far and above the major culprit causing allergic symptoms.

Branding

If I had a nickel for every time that someone asked me to pass them a Kleenex I would be so rich that I wouldn’t know what to do with all of my money. Maybe its’ because of my marketing background, but this it absolutely positively drives me up the wall when people do this (everyone has pet peeves:-). It is not a KLEENEX it is a TISSUE!!! Kleenex is the brand of tissue it is. People do this will all sorts of stuff. For example, while having dinner w/ my roommate he says can you pass the macaroni and cheese, but we are having Velvetta Shells & Cheese. You know….Kraft worked really hard on differentiating their mac & cheese and their shells & cheese. They used 2 different types pasta for goodness sakes! And don’t even get me started on the whole “Coke” thing. When people say they are having a “Coke” they don’t mean Coca Cola Classic they mean anything from orange juice to sweet tea.

As marketers we are taught to brand a product so distinctively that it is set apart from all of the competition and is placed in the forefront of the consumer’s mind. Create an emotional attachment to the images and ideas that represent the customer’s experience. When this is done successfully brand equity and recognition occur.These tools have become critical components of a marketers arsenal. So what has happened in the cases of Kleenex, Macaroni & Cheese, and Coke? It’s simple. Over branding! Now the meanings of the words and names associated w/ these products have been manipulated to represent not only the originals but all of their competitor’s products as well. The downfall of this is that when a consumer recalls their experience with a Kleenex tissue they may reference an experience with the off brand uncomfortable tissue. Now the messaging of quality and comfort are no longer attached to the Kleenex brand.

Frontline Trick For Ticks

It’s that time again…Spring time that is, and if you have a furry friend it can be the most uncomfortable time of year due to ticks and fleas. I am an avid user of Frontline on my little pooch. Here is a trick. Frontline is categorized by weight range, color, and animal type (cat or dog). I have a 7 lbs Maltese so I am suppose to use the yellow box for dogs up to 22 lbs. The amount of medication that is in each drop of Frontline is equivalent across all the different weight ranges what makes them different is the number of drops you get. So the bigger the dog the more medication you get, but the potency of each drop of that medication is exactly the same as it is for a small dog. The difference in price is only a few dollars (anywhere from about $3-10) What I do is buy the medication for the 23-44 lbs dogs and only use half the vial each time. I pay a couple of bucks more, but I get twice the uses out of it. It saves a lot of money this time of year, and keeps my pooch happy!

Control Freaks

How much control have marketers ever really had over the messages they send out? While studying marketing I had endless lectures on different advertising mediums and the advantages and disadvantages of each. One of the major disadvantages of some of these mediums was lack of control over the message. We were always taught to be aware of the risk involved when giving the control of the message to the consumer. Now that a person not only has the ability to influence individuals within their geographical area, but also across the globe marketers seem to becoming increasing skeptical of letting go of their control or the illusion of control.  Now marketers really have no choice but to let go. I am not convinced that marketers ever had as much control as we once thought. I personally feel that the control has always lied in the hands of the marketers and the consumers. One cannot exist without the other. The control that marketers have is in constructing the message itself. We determine the objectives of the campaign and direction in order to satisfy those objectives. We determine where to place the message to ensure its’ effectiveness. But human emotion and behavior is often unpredictable, and once that message is sent out it is left up to the consumers to truly give it meaning and spread it around. Until consumers bring it to life by adding their experiences, opinions, perceptions, attitudes, feelings ( I think you catch my drift) the words are just words. I think it is only after consumers begin attaching human emotion by way of their experiences to the text that it truly becomes something of value.

I don’t think that one group has more control than the other. I think that each group is dependent on the other. Groups of individuals are dependent on marketers to give them the information they need about the products they need, and where they need it. And marketers are dependent on groups of individuals to spread that information around to their selected peer groups. I feel the most efficient way to facilitate this mutually beneficial relationship is to increase the dialogue between consumers and marketers. As marketers we need to make sure that we understand the context in which our target audience discusses our product and use that information to craft a message that appeals to those discussions. Understand where these conversations are happening and make the message apparent in these mediums.

Bridging The Gap

I have been doing a lot of reading lately on Marketing versus PR. What’s the difference and what has happened in the last several years that have caused a convergence of these distinct business functions? The preservation of a companies reputation or image in the market place has forever been considered a PR function. Public Relations has historically been charged with managing the communications between a company and its’ audience while Marketing has been responsible for increasing sales and defining brand identity. I have always thought of Marketing as an analytical approach and PR has more of an emotional bond.

It now seems with the dawn of the digital age, the growing adoption of social media practices, and the increased sophistication to traditional advertising these 2 disciplines are increasingly having to converge together to act most effectively. Marketing can no long generate increased sales or positively create a brand identity through savvy slogans and tag-lines if the communications between the organization and its’ audience are in turmoil. This has always been the case but now with the information share and collaboration among consumers, due to avenues such as niche social networking site and blogs, an individual now has the ability to reach hundreds of people with the click of a button versus 10 people. It is truly amazing to me that something so grassroots as the impact of human communication on business has become one of the most talked about topics between today’s Marketing and PR professionals.  ( I feel a tangent coming on)  A person that I consider to be a word-of-mouth marketing expert recently asked myself and a colleague….. WHY NOW?  Why all of a sudden is there all of this discussion about WOM?  It has long been evident that the power of human communication is significant and that people are extremely influenced or influential over their selected peer groups.  Family and friends will always have more of an impact on each other than the traditional :30 spot.

Back to my previous discussion….I guess the question now is can Marketing and PR pull it together to most effectively generate sales and sustain a positive consumer perception in the market place??

Viacom Sues Google……Ploy or not??

Viacom, a media conglomerate, is suing Google over copyright infringement (Man…I never saw that coming:-). The $1 billion lawsuit is over 160,000 videos shown without permission on Google’s recently purchased video sharing site YouTube. The tension between Viacom and YouTube is not something that materialized over night….this cat fight has been in the works for quite sometime. Last month Viacom ordered YouTube to pull down 100,000 unauthorized clips from the site and since then Viacom has reportedly come across another 50,000 unauthorized clips available on the site. YouTube states that it obeys all copyright legislation by pulling down copyrighted material once it is notified of its presence. Viacom argues that this approach does not motivate YouTube to “curtail” copyright infringement, but rather displaces the cost and resources necessary to seek out such clips on the copyright holder. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has been quoted stating that “the growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet”. Is this Viacom’s way of beating Google to the punch. Is Viacom pressuring Google into to setting very specific ground rules, fees, and procedures in place for the appearance of copyrighted material on YouTube? As usual it all boils down to money. Viacom could careless how many people watch its’ clips on YouTube all they care about is getting paid for it. In their eyes they feel this is the best way to push Google into making sure they get their cut.  This lawsuit appears to have an ulterior motive.

Here Goes Nothing

Hello all! Welcome to my very very first blog post ever. I feel a little bit nervous (which is pretty much ordinary for me). I have become so fascinated with the practice of social media that I have finally decided to put something out there. There is a certain vulnerability that comes with putting your thoughts, opinions, and ideas out there for the entire world to read, which is probably the reason that I have not done this sooner. I especially find this to be true of a person who is….how shall I say this…..a people pleaser. But what the hell. Read it or don’t read it, agree or don’t agree, either way I am going to have fun writing it.