1/30

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46719-2004Jan25.html?nav=hpt

It struck me as I read this that companies could do the same thing and build deeper relationships with target audiences.  There are many uses for such interactive online Q&A.  Investor relations could use it in addition to the earnings teleconference.  CEOs could use it to explain major corporate decisions, such as divestiture of a unit or acquisition of a company.  Boards of Directors could use it to explain succession issues, such as what will happen to replace a departed CEO.  The HR department could use it to explain benefits.  Most companies today have an intranet and can conduct such online discussions easily.

I am sure some companies do this already, but I haven't read a case example I can point to recently.  One would think every company would be using this kind of interactive approach regularly.  Early in the days of the Internet,  companies such as Ford Motor tried the technique but it was more of a stunt than useful tool.  CEOs could engage in such give-and-take regularly if they wished.  I'm not sure why they aren't. 

I suspect it is partly a matter of familiarity with the technique and partly because communicators fail to think about it when they planning programs.  We all have favorite techniques and approaches.  It is hard to change them because we know them so well.

The next time you have a big announcement, suggest to the CEO that he take time to answer questions from employees or investors or the media online.
 

01/29

That's what I like to think.  But I'm wrong, as usual.  The fact is that what I do is not so far from what other practitioners do, and if I work hard understanding my clients it is because I have time to learn.  I am not pursued by furies of imminent deadlines and looming events that soak my attention and command waking hours.  Other practitioners are.  In fact, they are so mired in deadline execution they have little time to reflect on anything.

I managed a group of women once who were caught in this bind.  I was parachuted into the situation because the women were threatening to quit (which they did eventually.)  The women were carrying a huge burden of marketing PR that stretched them into 16-hour days.  Because they worked at the client's offices, they had no cover from the pressure of the omnipresent client.  While talking with them, I learned they had little idea about any of the products they were promoting.  They didn't have time to learn.  If I was in their place, I wouldn't either. 

Was I a better practitioner than they were?  Not on your life.  They had managed to keep this client happy for the better part of three years, and the client was notorious for being grumpy.  So they were caught in execution, and they were exhausted, but in the end, they were as effective as I could have been.  That was good enough.  The distance between high-end practitioners and low-end publicists is small.  I have to remember that.
 

01/28

Aside from the crassness of airing commercials as programming material, what is annoying about this promotion is the voting scheme.  There is no science to it -- nor accuracy, for that matter.   Of course, one can respond that when picking a favorite of anything it is de gustibus and there is no science anyway.  That is true.

But, on the other hand, the online voting is symptomatic of a laxness generally in the matters of surveying and voting.  Theoretically, anyone could vote on the AOL site.  Practically that isn't possible or true.  Only those on AOL can vote, which is a biased sample to begin with.  Secondly, if one is allowed to vote more than once -- and how can you can control this? -- there will be ballot stuffing. 

CBS'  and AOL's response will be that what they are doing is a good example of multimedia cooperation and promotion.  I would agree with that.  The blend of TV and internet is so close now that movement between the two is nearly seamless as far as viewers and users are concerned. 

Still, it is a phony promotion.  The two firms could have done better.
 

01/27

Instead, I walked away and was conflicted by my colleague's comment.  The problem with writing thoughts that include personal experience is that friends and acquaintances inevitably end up in print, even if unnamed.  Sometimes they are pleased and sometimes offended. 

My conflict is that I don't want to offend anyone with whom I work.  I do want to use my experience to teach how PR operates versus what theorists say.  But I can't have it both ways.  If I talk about colleagues, I have to accept I am placing my relationship with them at risk.   No one tells you this when you start a blog.

I am not about to give up writing.  I have learned too much from it, which is the real secret of recording one's thoughts.  Writing forces one to remember and to examine thinking before committing to paper.  Even if no one read this blog, I would consider writing it worth the effort.  

Yet, my colleague's comment lingers.  He is right.  The argument could have ended up in a column. It was a matter of principle about which I am pigheaded.  I realized that halfway through the discussion and withdrew objection, but it was too late.  Now, if I would only think before I speak.
 

01/26

I started thinking about this because of two incidents in the last week.  On Sunday, I went with my wife and daughter to a mall.  There are two in the neighborhood.  One is ritzy, and one midline.  My wife "can't stand" the midline mall.  Her feeling is not directed primarily at the stores but at the bathrooms, which are dirty.  There are 30 or more stores in the mall -- most of which are well-run chains -- but her negative impression comes from the bathrooms. 

This is not a criticism of my wife.  It is a criticism of mall managers who should know better because a dirty bathroom and ill-kempt store does not turn off one person, it turns away hundreds.  It is no different with service stations.  One forms an impression of a service station not from the gas pump where the station makes its money but from the bathroom where the service station makes nothing at all.  The condition of a bathroom is a statement of how a station manager thinks about customer service.  It is an intangible that leaves an indelible impression.

So too, Howard Dean's infamous yell last week at the end of the Iowa Caucus conveyed little about the man's intelligence but a lot about the man's emotional make-up.  What people saw, they didn't like.  Dean will have to work extra hard to overcome a mistake of a moment. 

Is it fair?  No.  But perceptions are not fair.  The owner of our agency never tires of reminding clients that one "never gets a second chance to make a first impression." 

In Dean's case, it was not a first impression or even the hundredth.  He has been on the campaign trail for months.  But, unfortunately for Dean, his mistake was made when national TV was watching.  In the case of bathrooms at the mall, it might have been a rare off-day for a mall manager who corrected the problem within minutes.  But, it was too late.

In PR we deal with perception management.  Most of the time, we work to reinforce or turn around embedded perceptions.  Getting the right first perception pays dividends beyond measure.