Speaking of Institutional Investor; their flagship print publication, which comes out once every two months, allocated a page in the current edition to a topic that we've been espousing since we started blogging here a few years ago; using digital social networking applications as a means to enhance their respective brands, and connect more closely with their clients.
Here's the first two paragaphs of the article...
Financial services companies are getting personal. They are adopting the techniques of social networking — blogs, online forums and chatrooms more commonly associated with trendy virtual communities like Facebook and MySpace — to engage and communicate with their (generally younger) customers and come up with new product and marketing ideas.
An October report by Corporate Insight, a New York–based research firm that tracks financial industry services and strategies, indicates just how rapidly social networking has been spreading through the once-stodgy world of finance. In spring 2007 there were just a smattering of blogs and other interactive features, often lumped under the Web 2.0 rubic...now, 11 of 70 companies polled in the study have incorporated social media into their Internet platforms, and 70% operate "online communities serving self-directed investors or small-business owners.... ..Some firms have also started usings blogs and forums to serve clients and prospects alike.."
For those with half empty glasses, 1 out of 7 might not be a trend worth following. But when learning that Charles Schwab increased its Gen X client base by a whopping 32% as a result of feedback garnered via its online blog research, that makes the stodgy financial marketers wish they had cleaned off their glasses when this blogger was pounding the tables on the topic as recently as last year.
Yes..for a financial services firm, on-line applications that facilitate open communication between customers and between customer support staff presents a variety of compliance issues.
But one would think that a 32% increase in customer accounts might be worth throwing a dozen or two bodies at the opportunity. We'd be happy to lend a hand or some guidance to those financial service firms that think out of the box.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Dealing With The Press: Double Edge Sword & Dancing With Edward Scissorhands
For anyone that chooses, or is obligated to speak to media reporters, there's a common misconception when telling certain reporters that what you are saying is "off the record"and that it will actually be kept off the record.
Even when there's an exchange of email correspondences in which the reporter agrees to keep it off the record, and/or to not mention you as the source. Dancing with reporters is about as tricky as dancing with Edward Scissorshands. Instead of a two-step, it can become a double-cross.
Sure, you want to help get a 'story' out there, and you want your 'slant' to be incorporated--but you'd rather not have your name mentioned.
When you do that, don't forget that reporters are more determined to have their slant dominate the article. So, the odds are high that anything you say will be taken out of context. Sometimes the reporter does that intentionally; that's called muckracking. Sometimes the reporter does it because you have too much to say, and they decide which comments are most relevant or most poignant.
Most reporters honor the protocol of "off the record". Some get confused.
For example, NYT's Joe Nocera is finding himself in a bit of conundrum in his coverage of Steve Jobs, as evidenced in recent columns that he's written, including his mention of "off the record" comments that Jobs made with regard to his health. Dicey stuff. Both for Jobs, one of the most prominent CEO's in the world, and for Nocera.
Some reporters blatantly violate the code of honor regarding "off the record".
Case in point, a publication called Wall Street Letter. One of their reporters was 'tipped' via email about a story, and through great perseverance, the reporter actually identified the source, including phone #, and followed up to solicit a comment from the tipster.
In the telephone call with the source, and subsequent email exchanges, the reporter (Alexandra "Allie" Zendrian) acknowledged and agreed to keep the 'source' name out of the story. The next day, the publication ran a story that was not only completely out of context, but in addition to identifying the source's name and company, the reporter actually wrote, " when asked, [source] had no comment..."
What the source had actually said to the reporter was, "I won't comment on the record, and I won't engage in a conversation and share with you the tidbits if you publish my name.." The reporter agreed to the terms of engagement, and documented that agreement in a follow up email.
The most telling part of the story was when the tipster discovered the article online and sent an email to the reporter, as well as the senior editor and the publisher in an effort to extract a explanation for the 'outting'. Executives at Wall Street Letter had no comment..
In this case, it wasn't a "disaster" for the tipster, and some would say 'any news is good news' when you're trying to get a mention in the media. The particular publication is not widely read, and given the state of Wall Street, its fair to guess that their paid subscriber base and readership (securities industry traders and brokers) is down to a few hundred people. And few of their readers know, or actually care about the source being "outted".
PR/IR and Marcomm Rules to Remember:
Rule 1. Unless you have an existing relationship with a specific reporter, or have otherwise been given to understand they are generally honorable, be circumspect about what you say to them.
Rule 2. If executing a "guerrila"PR or IR tactic via emails to reporters as a means of stimulating interest in a story, but don't want to be identified as the 'tipster', don't use an email address that can be easily traced back to you.
For example, if you've previously published a document on the internet that incorporates your email address (a resume for example), your email address can be easily Googled, and in turn, your identity is easily unmasked. Even if you think you've removed the document from the internet. Once its up there, it stays up there.
That said, we know that even the very best Marcomm Gurus forget some of the basic rules of engagement. This 'case study' should help remind you not to forget.
Even when there's an exchange of email correspondences in which the reporter agrees to keep it off the record, and/or to not mention you as the source. Dancing with reporters is about as tricky as dancing with Edward Scissorshands. Instead of a two-step, it can become a double-cross.
Sure, you want to help get a 'story' out there, and you want your 'slant' to be incorporated--but you'd rather not have your name mentioned.
When you do that, don't forget that reporters are more determined to have their slant dominate the article. So, the odds are high that anything you say will be taken out of context. Sometimes the reporter does that intentionally; that's called muckracking. Sometimes the reporter does it because you have too much to say, and they decide which comments are most relevant or most poignant.
Most reporters honor the protocol of "off the record". Some get confused.
For example, NYT's Joe Nocera is finding himself in a bit of conundrum in his coverage of Steve Jobs, as evidenced in recent columns that he's written, including his mention of "off the record" comments that Jobs made with regard to his health. Dicey stuff. Both for Jobs, one of the most prominent CEO's in the world, and for Nocera.
Some reporters blatantly violate the code of honor regarding "off the record".
Case in point, a publication called Wall Street Letter. One of their reporters was 'tipped' via email about a story, and through great perseverance, the reporter actually identified the source, including phone #, and followed up to solicit a comment from the tipster.
In the telephone call with the source, and subsequent email exchanges, the reporter (Alexandra "Allie" Zendrian) acknowledged and agreed to keep the 'source' name out of the story. The next day, the publication ran a story that was not only completely out of context, but in addition to identifying the source's name and company, the reporter actually wrote, " when asked, [source] had no comment..."
What the source had actually said to the reporter was, "I won't comment on the record, and I won't engage in a conversation and share with you the tidbits if you publish my name.." The reporter agreed to the terms of engagement, and documented that agreement in a follow up email.
The most telling part of the story was when the tipster discovered the article online and sent an email to the reporter, as well as the senior editor and the publisher in an effort to extract a explanation for the 'outting'. Executives at Wall Street Letter had no comment..
In this case, it wasn't a "disaster" for the tipster, and some would say 'any news is good news' when you're trying to get a mention in the media. The particular publication is not widely read, and given the state of Wall Street, its fair to guess that their paid subscriber base and readership (securities industry traders and brokers) is down to a few hundred people. And few of their readers know, or actually care about the source being "outted".
PR/IR and Marcomm Rules to Remember:
Rule 1. Unless you have an existing relationship with a specific reporter, or have otherwise been given to understand they are generally honorable, be circumspect about what you say to them.
Rule 2. If executing a "guerrila"PR or IR tactic via emails to reporters as a means of stimulating interest in a story, but don't want to be identified as the 'tipster', don't use an email address that can be easily traced back to you.
For example, if you've previously published a document on the internet that incorporates your email address (a resume for example), your email address can be easily Googled, and in turn, your identity is easily unmasked. Even if you think you've removed the document from the internet. Once its up there, it stays up there.
That said, we know that even the very best Marcomm Gurus forget some of the basic rules of engagement. This 'case study' should help remind you not to forget.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Poll Says: 65% of Senior Execs Don't Know Internet Metrics
Almost astounding. We informally polled 100+ senior execs (encompassingCEO, CMO EVP Sales; EVP/IR; and EVP Communications) and 65% of them told us that "really didn't know" the data points with regard to their company's online strategy
Little things (not); like: search and visitor metrics with respect to their company's corporate website, or their on sales site.
i. most visited day(s) of the week
ii. most visited hours on each day
iii. the daily/hourly frequency of online searches i.e specific phrases, or words.
iv. most popular key words that drive traffic to their site(s).
Without knowing the above (and other) data points, how can you justify your online ad spending and related "sales/marketing/awareness" campaign strategies?
Without this data, how can you know that your sales people are actually missing critical sales opportunities?
Without this data, how can you have a true grasp and understanding of who your customers are?
Basic stuff, right? 65% couldn't answer the questions. This is the exactly the wrong time not to be able to answer those questions.
Little things (not); like: search and visitor metrics with respect to their company's corporate website, or their on sales site.
i. most visited day(s) of the week
ii. most visited hours on each day
iii. the daily/hourly frequency of online searches i.e specific phrases, or words.
iv. most popular key words that drive traffic to their site(s).
Without knowing the above (and other) data points, how can you justify your online ad spending and related "sales/marketing/awareness" campaign strategies?
Without this data, how can you know that your sales people are actually missing critical sales opportunities?
Without this data, how can you have a true grasp and understanding of who your customers are?
Basic stuff, right? 65% couldn't answer the questions. This is the exactly the wrong time not to be able to answer those questions.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Trifecta Win: Click, Brick and Free Booze
I'm raising my glass to Jason Fried and Seva Granik, two innovative guys that are cashing in (relatively speaking) on a great concept for this this period of "economic reflection." (Yes, this is a phrase that we've coined, but won't trademark--we'll make it available to anyone that wants to use it).
A website with alert messages that keeps an ongoing list of establishments offering 'free drinks".
This appeals to just about every "hot button":
1. Combines click and brick portability
2. The perfect DMA
3. Social Networking
4. Compelling content
5. Perfect for Sponsors
6. Free Drinks
I'm lovin' this! Cheers!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Branding (and Marketing) Strategies for 2009
For most marketers and branders, 2008 was the year that sucked. No matter how creative you tried to be, no matter how innovative you thought your campaigns were, your sales plummeted.
Blame it on malaise, blame it on the fastest falling economy in a century. That was before your grandfather was born. Get over it. 2009 isn't gong to be any easier, and you'll need to be sharper and more focused, and more flexible than you would have ever thought possible.
And in all due respect to those that say "Oh Gee, You Must have an MBA to run our marketing and advertising!!"... I say, Good luck. What's going on in today's economy isn't something that professors at graduate school have any experience in....whether marketing, branding, advertising, finance, or human talent management.
OK..here's my thought on branding, advertising (and marketing) strategies for '09:
Disregard what I might have said earlier about negative advertising, and otherwise dissing or exploiting your competition. We're heading into a take-the-gloves off battle for the purse strings.. There's only one survivor. And, as mentioned in the week before last in the WSJ, the following strategies are fair game:
Brand Extensions;
i. Compatible Products. Come up with something that complements and existing branded product. Think iPod.
ii. Ornamental Use of Trademarks. Go on to Google to find out what you can do without infringing, but otherwise exploiting a recognized logo.
iii. Comparative Advertising. My favorite (when you can actually come up with strong arguments i.e. why your product is better (because its less expensive, it works better, it tastes better, it lasts longer, or smarter people prefer it...pick one, or pick 'em all)
Hint-be careful. I did a comparative ad pitting Soapopular's alcohol-free hand sanitizer against the incumbent, sticky, smelly and irritating Purell brand. The ad headline said "Purell=Alcohol Poisoning".. and the follow up text simply said : Soapopular. So Popular because its Alcohol-Free."
[My justification was a 2007 report issued by the US Association of Poison Control Centers that found close to 12,000 cases of alcohol poisoning in kids 6 and under directly attributed to alcohol based hand sanitizers. Pretty straight forward.
Johnson & Johnson had their lawyer send my client a harsh 'cease and desist" letter. Instead of defending the ad, and telling J&J to take a walk, my client thought it better not to pinch a sleeping elephant, although we all knew that the publicity alone of a legal battle would have been worth millions in free advertising. ]
While there is no 'fact' i.e. who is right and who is wrong on this particular topic, and 'fair-use doctrines can be argued until hell freezes over, but the fact is, that wimps aren't going to be winning in '09.
Parody Advertising: Using another brand to promote a non-competing product. Case in point: Coors beer commercial spoofing the Energizer Bunny. Coors didn't pay a dime to use the Bunny. As long as you don't tarnish or denegrate the brand that you are parodying, and stay creative, you can get lots of frequent flier mileage .
Outlandish: The photo image above right was inserted into an online ad strategy this year and in less than 6 hours, it scored 10,000 unique hits--that means 10,000 people clicked it on and went to the company's website. I 'm not at liberty to disclose how much was generated in sales for the product.
Today's WSJ included a story about a Russian Ph.d who, in 1976, predicted the fall of communism, and he's apparently now getting more than a little traction predicting the end of capitalism in the US. (click on the aforementioned link).. Actually, he's predicting the end of the US as we know it. (I could have told you that we'd have a few rough years ahead, but this guy has something much more profound in mind..)
This very learned fellow is suggesting that before the end of 2010, the US will have endured a civil war, resulting in three separate unions within our border. If that ends up proving true, than following my push-the-envelope marketing, branding and advertising advice in 2009 will have proven to be that much smarter of an idea. And, if this Russian Dr. Strangelove is wrong about his dire predictions, you'll have merely set yourself apart and established the foundation for flexible thinking.
Forget about the 'thinking out of the box". Tell yourself there is no box.
More to follow as the new year rolls in.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sex Sells (but a Commitment Can Help)
"..Sex in advertising is generally thought to be more useful in selling to men than to women. But a study soon to be published in The Journal of Consumer Research finds that this effect is reversed when emotional intimacy justifies the sex.
In one experiment, the researchers found that women preferred a sexually explicit watch advertisement when the watch had a bow around it and was described as “a gift from a man to the special woman in his life.” But such positioning hurt the ad’s appeal to men. Drawing on previous research in sexual psychology, the authors note that women are more likely to “need the justification of relationship commitment for sexual behavior” and that men “typically felt quite uneasy about having to part with substantial pecuniary resources in a dating context.”
In another experiment, researchers had women proofread blocks of text (supposedly as part of a separate study), then rate a sexually explicit ad. Women who read about a loving, committed couple rated the ad more highly than did women who read about a couple in which the man was disloyal and philandering..."Tuesday, December 23, 2008
My Last Word on Hedge Fund Marketing: Case Study Fairfield Greenwich Group
Some of you know that I spent more than 15 minutes on Wall Street--actually more than 15 years.
Starting as a trader, I burnt out (truth be told, more like 'flammed out') and re-purposed myself as an operating executive, than as a risk manager, and for the past few years, I've leveraged all of those experiences and now I'm a sought after marketing guru that's been enlisted to position companies and help them craft their value proposition statements.
Having worn the hat of 'marketing exec' for several different regulated, financial firms, including the world's largest bank, I'm particularly sensitive (as were all of my partners/employers) insofar as what you say you do, and what you put in writing that you do.
And when you put it on the internet, you might as well cast it in stone for all eternity. Just like emails, just like press releases, and most other digital foot and finger prints that can come back to haunt.
Case study: a little known firm in Greenwich CT called Fairfield Greenwich Group, their website suggests there about 10-12 partners, but they seem to have lots of money under management; 15 billion according to their marketing poop. Their entities are comprised of a registered broker/dealer-which means they're regulated by amongst others something called the "SEC".
As in "Yes, I See. ..that you've violated all kinds of regs, but don't worry, we'll let it pass...do you think you have a job opening for me?")
What's my point?? Fairfield Greenwich's website actually has extremely comprehensive text displaying the very detailed, almost microscopic auditing they purportedly do on a weekly basis of the fund managers they invest in. Including auditing brokerage statements and analyzing the transactions displayed in those statements.
Here's the link to that page. Click it now before they remove it from their website
But-
Rule 1. Never.. and I mean absolutely NEVER put that kind of stuff on a website. Many website experts even suggest "DO NOT PUT EXECUTIVE PROFILES ON WEBSITE". I'm not sure that I agree with the latter, but in this case, the excruciatingly detailed 'due diligence representations made by this regulated company are almost certain to get them tarred, feathered and embroiled in litigation for the next ten years.
Fairfield Greenwich probably won't survive the litigation, at least their corporate shells won't. The principals in this case will, regrettably for many, likely enjoy the fruits of the fees they've been paid ($500 million!) for years to come while the lawyers dicker about, and while the victims watch any remaining assets be dickered over by the "many experts" that will be retained to sift through the ashes.
Oh--for those that think its unwise or unprofessional for a marketing consultant that has clients from within the financial industry to lambast a firm from within the industry on a blog...I call 'em the way I see 'em.
Here's the link to Michael Covel's comments. Similar observations have been made, but Michael's presentation is perfectly black and white. CLICK HERE TO READ
My last word on Madoff. Actually, it appears to be Madoff's last words, or that of a creative blogger that has a unique perspective on the Madoff fraud. Click here.
Starting as a trader, I burnt out (truth be told, more like 'flammed out') and re-purposed myself as an operating executive, than as a risk manager, and for the past few years, I've leveraged all of those experiences and now I'm a sought after marketing guru that's been enlisted to position companies and help them craft their value proposition statements.
Having worn the hat of 'marketing exec' for several different regulated, financial firms, including the world's largest bank, I'm particularly sensitive (as were all of my partners/employers) insofar as what you say you do, and what you put in writing that you do.
And when you put it on the internet, you might as well cast it in stone for all eternity. Just like emails, just like press releases, and most other digital foot and finger prints that can come back to haunt.
Case study: a little known firm in Greenwich CT called Fairfield Greenwich Group, their website suggests there about 10-12 partners, but they seem to have lots of money under management; 15 billion according to their marketing poop. Their entities are comprised of a registered broker/dealer-which means they're regulated by amongst others something called the "SEC".
As in "Yes, I See. ..that you've violated all kinds of regs, but don't worry, we'll let it pass...do you think you have a job opening for me?")
What's my point?? Fairfield Greenwich's website actually has extremely comprehensive text displaying the very detailed, almost microscopic auditing they purportedly do on a weekly basis of the fund managers they invest in. Including auditing brokerage statements and analyzing the transactions displayed in those statements.
Here's the link to that page. Click it now before they remove it from their website
(There's another link below that you'll want to go to as well; authored by friend and well-known author and film maker Michael Covel. )
But-
Rule 1. Never.. and I mean absolutely NEVER put that kind of stuff on a website. Many website experts even suggest "DO NOT PUT EXECUTIVE PROFILES ON WEBSITE". I'm not sure that I agree with the latter, but in this case, the excruciatingly detailed 'due diligence representations made by this regulated company are almost certain to get them tarred, feathered and embroiled in litigation for the next ten years.
Fairfield Greenwich probably won't survive the litigation, at least their corporate shells won't. The principals in this case will, regrettably for many, likely enjoy the fruits of the fees they've been paid ($500 million!) for years to come while the lawyers dicker about, and while the victims watch any remaining assets be dickered over by the "many experts" that will be retained to sift through the ashes.
Oh--for those that think its unwise or unprofessional for a marketing consultant that has clients from within the financial industry to lambast a firm from within the industry on a blog...I call 'em the way I see 'em.
Here's the link to Michael Covel's comments. Similar observations have been made, but Michael's presentation is perfectly black and white. CLICK HERE TO READ
My last word on Madoff. Actually, it appears to be Madoff's last words, or that of a creative blogger that has a unique perspective on the Madoff fraud. Click here.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Financial Firm Marketing Strategies: Madoff
As of this posting, there have been more than 5000 news stories and blog comments, but since I'm connected to one of the several hundred individual investors that were victimized, the tell-tale signs of something awry were as plain as the nose on anyone's face.
Since 2001, the marketing strategies used by Madoff were lampooned by at least two different forensic accounting firms enlisted by the very very few that were responsible enough to hire a third-party expert before proceeding with investing. Based on those reports, those particular prospective investors walked away. Two of them ran away. And those reports were ultimately circulated throughout the hedge fund industry.
1. the only 5 people with access to the firm's financial records were immediate family members, all with the name Madoff
2. the auditing firm that published the firm's statements was a 2-man office in the suburbs of NY.
3. If one asked too many questions, they were not allowed to invest.
4. Professional hedge funds, that employ mathematicians with knowledge of the purported strategies used, repeatedly stated the those strategies simply couldn't produce the types of returns promoted by Madoff.
For a successful fraud or Ponzi scheme to work, you only need one element: Greedy Investors. Those that put their entire net worth with a firm that claimed to engage in stock and option trading during a period of historic market volatility, but somehow managed to produce consistent 10 percent returns and pay out the same amounts on a monthly basis, despite a 40% decline in the stock market were delusional and greedy.
Of course, shame on the SEC for violating their own mandates and failing to examine the firms records for the past two years.
Yes, shame on the "advisors" that put their clients money into this firm and had failed to hire a third party auditing firm in advance; and shame on the third party auditors that failed to come to the same conclusion as the two auditors that distributed their "red flag" findings to the industry at large several years ago. Those that breached their fiduciary responsbilities should be held accountable. Too bad that their E&O coverage was written by AIG.
The hedge fund industry at large has prided itself on marketing strategies that otherwise incorporate phrases such as secrecy, special, select, proprietary, cannot be disclosed.
Amazingly, those marketing strategies will continue to work, as long as greed remains a primary motivator.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Layoffs and the Impact on Marketing and Branding--New Study Says It All
For those marketing, sales, investor relations, or brand management executives, if this study doesn't resonate with you, nothing will.
Leadership IQ Study: Don’t Expect Layoff Survivors To Be Grateful
WASHINGTON, D.C. – December 10, 2008 – If your company is undertaking a layoff, be forewarned: Your surviving employees are not going to work harder out of gratitude. According to a new study by Leadership IQ, 74% of employees who kept their job amidst a corporate layoff say their own productivity has declined since the layoff. And 69% say the quality of their company’s product or service has declined since the layoffs.
Leadership IQ, a leadership research and training company, compiled these results after surveying 4,172 workers who remain employed following a corporate layoff. These subjects were drawn from 318 companies that have undertaken layoffs in the past 6 months. Employees were asked questions about productivity, product quality, workforce issues and management effectiveness.
Other key study findings about the state of the workplace following the layoffs include:
• 87% of surviving workers say they are less likely to recommend their organization as a good place to work
• 64% of surviving workers say the productivity of their colleagues has also declined.
• 81% of surviving workers say the service that customers receive has declined.
• 77% of surviving workers say they see more errors and mistakes being made.
• 61% of surviving workers say they believe their company’s future prospects are worse.
According to the group that did the survey, there are actually ways to address these issues so that your brand doesn't implode altogether while you slice away your most important assets. Don't ask us, call them; they're the experts.
Or tune in to Fox Business "Money For Breakfast" at 8 am Thursday Dec 11 and you can watch and listen live.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Innovative Thinking : Premiums That Sell.- Introducing the Laptop Cabana
We may be tipping their hands, but its already patent pending--so hats off to MGS Brands of Fairfield, CT for creating a very compelling way for corporate brands to extend their message.
We all know that premium merchandise is a low cost vehicle for marketing, branding and advertising...and what better time than to introduce a particularly inexpensive, and uniquely utilitarian device?
They call it the Laptop Cabana. Blocks the piercing sun and the peering eyes. (The fabric on the inside is actually a completely sun-blocking vinyl)
Can you see your corporate logo on the outside, a family of design styles?
Less than three steps required to attach and dis-assemble, washable, portable and compatible. Totes and umbrellas and ball caps are so yesterday. This cute little laptop awning will be attracting eyeballs everywhere that you see someone using a laptop computer: campus libraries, airports, airplanes, trains, every Starbucks in the world. Need I count the ways and the places?
Those corporate brand experts that are interested should contact the people at MGS directly (Click on the headline link to get to their website).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)