When it hits the halls of Dilbert’s cube farm, you know it’s becoming pervasive! Just wait and watch a few weeks, and “gossipsize” will become one of those terms you’ll see in Wired’s Jargon Watch. Sounds much cooler than “online reputation management.” Thank you, Scott Adams, for yet another brilliant way to brighten our day.
BTW, if you haven’t checked out Dilbert.com lately, you should. It’s a phenomenal example of using social media to enable a community of advocates to spread your brand. Mix, mash and share to your friends’ delight.
Very interesting data and insights from a new PR Week and PR Newswire survey of 1,231 journalists/bloggers released Monday. I can’t yet figure out what’s more amazing — the number of journalists who see the clear web road ahead, or the number that don’t see the speeding web semi-trailer in the rear-view mirror chasing down their Prius.
Now, I’m a big fan of print media. Wrote for a major daily. Edited my college paper. Even launched a magazine in my younger carefree days. And based on a recent Churchill Club event, I have renewed faith that some print media will continue to thrive — especially the ones that truly engage their audience and represent a community of interest.
At the same time, I’m a big advocate for social media. Which is why a few of the stats surprised me:
* Only 22% are blogging for their publication, and only 19% on their own;
* 38% say they’re asked to do more on the web, but only 13% cite increased competition as the top change driver;
* 70% to 89% rely on web sites, Google searches and direct PR engagement for information — but only 14% are using RSS feeds and only 14-15% tap executive blogs or podcasts as important sources.
Of course, this may reflect that blogging and podcast content is still fairly uneven. Or that some respondents didn’t make hard distinctions between “blog” and “web” content. Or that a generational gap will create big divides in the media world. Whatever the case, it’s evident that PR Week nailed the headline on this one: “State of transition.”
Congratulations to the editors of PR News for their new blog. Diane and Courtney share some refreshing perspectives and blunt commentary about things that are happening in the PR industry — something we need much more of in the industry.
In particular, Courtney’s post about the recent CMO Leadership Forum in NYC was spot on. After several hours of hearing speakers talk about PR-related topics like social media, customer advocacy, thought leadership, word of mouth, measurement and other initiatives — but never once mentioning “PR” in their comments — Courtney spoke up and challenged them on it. Which is *exactly* what we as a PR industry need to be doing on a regular basis. Thanks, Courtney, for “representin’”!
As an advocate for advocacy, one of the most shocking things I saw last year was Sprint’s announcement that it was going to “fire” about 1000 customers for being too high maintenance. Now, granted, some customers are unprofitable and some might complain too much. But a mass firing? Of vocal complainers? Who are already frustrated with Sprint’s service?
Yeah, this one’s obvious. And not surprisingly, six months later, the “price of badvocacy” became very clear and very tangible via an unplanned announcement Sprint Nextel had to make Friday. The bottom line: Sprint Nextel lost 885,000 customers during the quarter — and now has to lay off 4,000 staff, cut a bunch of contractors, close 125 retail locations and eliminate 4,000 third-party distribution points.
Of course, Sprint’s bad performance isn’t entirely attributable to bone-headed customer service decisions. But I’m sure every Sprint employee must be wondering: Will the brainiacs who fired those 1,000 customers now be on the firing line themselves?
[Disclosure: Weber Shandwick represents Verizon Wireless. I don’t work on the account, and I share this not to attack Sprint, but to remind other companies of the “price of badvocacy” as they make their own daily business decisions.]
It’s always interesting to see what happens when new media and old media collide, intermingle and morph — sometimes all at the same time. Two stories today reminded me that the typically binary view of “new” versus “old” is completely off the mark.
Case in point #1: Some “old media” vets from the Charlie Rose show have launched a new video-driven “new media” site called Big Think – funded in part by “old academia” guy Lawrence Summers from Harvard and tech/web pioneer Peter Thiel (disclosure: Peter’s a former client and Stanford student journalist colleague of mine). The site uses an interviewing technique created by “old media” documentary maker Errol Morris, and brings the thinking of “opinion leader” types from places like Davos and TED into the public arena. Definitely not your vanilla consumer-generated YouTube videos — but nothing like “60 Minutes” either.
Case in point #2: Ad Age has a new video interview segment hosted by their EIC Rance Crain, and the first interview is with the outgoing chairman of Newsweek Rick Smith. Smith talks a lot about the evolution of Newsweek’s digital properties and the blending of extensive video coverage with a traditional print outlet. Sounds “new media” for a moment. Then he sounds decidedly “old media,” lamenting how reporting is less valued, that the “exclusive” only has a half-life of seven minutes, and is followed by a “gusher of opinion” on cable, Internet — concluding that “talk is cheap” and “opinion is cheap.”
So, who’s old and who’s new? I would certainly argue that a notion like “opinion is cheap” is old school thinking, and a dangerous one for today’s media and marketers, but I would also contend that quality reporting is more important than ever. Does that mean people like Smith and the Big Think founders are old school, new school or a little bit of both? I’m not sure it really matters — as long as they keep listening, engaging and evolving, I think they’ll be all right.
OK, I just love how Canadians talk. Can’t resist an opportunity to mention Bob, Doug and the Great White North. But who knew there were so many word-of-mouth advocates in hockey country? For proof, just check out this awesome little collection of 167 WOM facts and stats from Buzz Canuck and the savvy folks at Agent Wildfire. Beauty, eh?
As a communications measurement junkie, I’m always game for debating numbers and methodologies. Many PR pros will argue that it’s hard to measure intangibles, that ad equivelancy is flawed, that “they know good PR when they see it.” To which I argue that hard doesn’t mean impossible, that earned media has inherent value (equivalent or not), and that simply seeing isn’t necessarily believing.
Well, it turns out that more “tangible” things like web site audience, reach and frequency are just as hard to measure. Or just as easy to debate. To wit, check out the battle that’s breaking out between Nielsen and Quantcast in the wake of the IAB Measurement Summit. Personally, I love it. A little conflict means there’s actually something worth fighting over. And as I like to tell clients, some well-placed tension breeds attention — and can help spotlight the issues as much as the horse race.
One of the most interesting news bits from the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Summit this month was the PQ Media report that proclaimed WOM spending will top $1B in 2007, and grow to $3.7B in 2001. Time to party? Not so fast. Despite the “meteoric rise” that Ad Age reported, WOM spending is still less than 1% of the $254B marketing services industry.
The real question: Why is WOM spending still so ridiculously low? We’ve all seen the data that says a friend’s or colleague’s recommendation has more sway than marketers do when it comes to trying, buying, registering, voting, etc. We’ve also seen that people are spending more time in front of their monitors than their TVs. And we’ve also seen the *real* meteoric rise of Facebook, MySpace and other social networks.
So what gives? Part of it is definition — PQ specifically excludes in-store sampling, event marketing, PR and other categories to “avoid double-counting.” While that’s admirable, I can equally argue that most if not all PR and events work could be counted within WOM. At least PQ recognizes that WOM is intertwined with other disciplines — which takes me back to an academic “is it the objective” or “is it the strategy” debate.
Beyond definitions, the other barrier to WOM is good ol’ habit. Traditional advertising is still very comfortable for most clients, and marketers love the appeal of 30-second spots. As a relationship and reputation function, PR is arguably much better at fueling WOM — but it doesn’t package up so neatly in a pitch. The “big idea” is more easily consumed as an “ad” than it is as a “conversation” or as a “community.” But while old habits die hard, the times they are achangin’…
