Never Miss a Chance to Have Sex or Appear on Television

Courtesy of novelist, screenwriter, politician and modern day philosopher Gore Vidal....and for those that are questioning or pondering the strategies that are being proposed by your PR and IR wizards.

Or those that are scratching your heads about the most recent posting here..
:)

Marketing & Comm: Brandishing Your Brand

Rule 201 Brandishing Your Brand..

Every 'spinmeister' will have a different opinion when it comes to the best way to execute what's otherwise known as a 'stunt'.

You've created buzz, and along the way, you've created suspense around the buzz. You've got thousands of people on the edge of their seats. But, unlike a TV melodrama that plays once a week; your story is being broadcast 2x a day. So you need to have that much more horse power in the engine.

But the gas only lasts so long. So you go for the electric shock as a booster. That's fine. Its in every PR playbook.

Here's a tip: Don't do it unless you have a plan for the "post-electric shock" phase.

PR Positioning via Positive Messages

PR pundits pride themselves on being able to spin a client's value proposition.

The fact is, the best 'spin' isn't spin, its really about positioning a client that has a real value proposition.

Especially when targeting an 'institutional' audience; ones that are not only a bit cynical, but are actually pretty smart and contrary to what most PR spinners think, can actually read between the lines when it comes to IR and PR pieces. They get put off by crafty , "infotorials", and embrace articles that demonstrate objectivity--and most importantly, the underlying integrity of the topic of the piece.

We've actually received lots of kudos about a 'piece' prepared for a very solid client. Click on the title link and make your own decision!

Social Networking & Financial Services

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Sex Sells (but a Commitment Can Help)

Haven't we all wondered whether sexy ads (whether Brooke Shields in those tight jeans, the Victoria Secret's TV ads, or even the six-pack Joe with a six pack biceps ) actually enhance top line sales?

Sure, there are little quants running around the advertising industry that will show reams of stats that either support or refute the impact of certain types of ads. For purposes of of my own opinion on the topic, I'll stay in Switzerland...but for lack of anything more newsworthy on the topic of advertising, I'll defer to today's G-rated NYT article courtesy of Alex Mindlin

"..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..."

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

(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.