Elastic Thought

Why Waste Your Money on Mediocrity?

Let me just come right out and say it here at the top of the post: the vast majority of digital marketing or social media work coming out of the large agencies is mediocre at best.

Now, that's not to say that any individual web site or Facebook page, or video, or flash game or iPhone app, etc.  is necessarily mediocre.  There are many award winning pieces out there I'm sure.  But when you look at the effectiveness of a balanced campaign on the whole--where online and offline compliment each other and work with each other--there are few examples that are really worth the $250-$450/hr price rates you are paying at those agencies.  Hell, I'd venture to say there are few campaigns out there worth $150/hr.

I'd also like to extend an olive branch out to the digital groups of those agencies: it's not your fault.  From the colleagues I've met in the various groups, you are immensely talented.  And when I meet you at the next industry event, let me buy you a drink.  Because the tension and frustration of what you deal with on a daily basis, being relegated to the last few slides of the presentation, or the last 10% of the budget (only to be the first cut when there are 'write offs' to be dealt out for 'client satisfaction' and 'overservicing.') and countless other battles you endure take their toll.

But the problem is that the 'leaders' haven't figured it out yet, so the talent is mostly wasted.

Let's look at it this way.  Have you had a Kolache?  They are fantastic for breakfast.  They are also a big trend (if you can call a breakfast food a trend after bacon has so dominated the foodscape pre-noon).  So imagine you are at the fancy hotel itching to order your $25 eggs benedict and $15 hash brown patty.  But you heard about this Kolache and you want to try it.  Now, there is this fantastic Czech bakery right across the street that has the best, authentic Kolaches in the city.  And they are $5.  But the hotel doesn't want to see you and your 3 business partners leave to try one.  That's lost revenue.  So they decide to make you one.  That way, they can still sell their $45 oatmeal bowls to your friends and keep all that revenue 'in house.'  The hotel is a big name hotel with critically-acclaimed chefs, so you decide to stay and try their version of the Kolache and pay $25.  This is a win-win.  You don't have to leave the comfort of the familiar name hotel, and the hotel gets to try and figure out how to make a Kolache on your dime.

Was it good?  I'm betting not.  I'm betting that it was mediocre at best.

But that is how digital is done at the big name agencies.  Don't just take my word for it. B.L. Ochman just wrote about it in Advertising Age.  It's a very scary and accurate look into the sausage factory.  And it's true.  As an anecdote for that post, I still remember being in very similar scenarios.  The pitch is tomorrow and somebody 'upstairs' wants 'some digital' in the presentation.  "Can you knock out a couple of slides we can 'stick' in the presentation?"  Better yet, in competing with the incumbent for one particular project, a compromise needed to be struck on who was going to do what part of the project.  My agencies response?  "our focus isn't really digital, so why don't you guys take that part?"  Let's play a quick guessing game here.  what do you think happened when our digital team took the deck we were supposed to 'stick in a couple of slides' and actually put a bullet or two on EVERY other tactic to tie in digital across the entire campaign and make it look more integrated?

But enough about the process.  And you may be saying that in today's economy, no one has the room to take a chance.  I think the phrase is "nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM?"  So to protect your job, why not pay for mediocre.  And middle of the road is not necessarily a "waste of money," as my blog post title here suggests.

Well, let's look at why it is a waste of money.  If I were to add one more thing to B.L. Ochman's post is that when a client does buy off on slide 29, typically that work that was on that slide is relegated to junior agency folk who may be experienced in social media, but not as it pertains to actual PR, reputation or other business goals.  And what happens?  Well, look at Jennifer Leggio's post last year on social media failures.  (there are plenty more of these--just Google 'social media failure').  Or let's look at a recent example: Nestle. 

Now there is plenty already out there on Nestle.  But I will link you to this blog that interviewed Porter Novelli.  One of the takeaways from the Facebook debacle?  "One of the things Nestle did wrong was to use a junior position to respond to the comments, but they should have used a more experienced senior position to deal with the online attacks. "

This is not all that uncommon, though.  The same arrogance or misunderstanding of the medium that causes Slide 29 to happen are the same people that don't think highly enough of the medium to put skilled people on the project.  And as much as I disagree with a few points in this next blog (will be another post I'm sure), it still gives a great viewpoint of how agencies still think of the medium: 10 Ways digital agencies F up social media

So, I come back to my thesis statement.  The large traditional agencies do mediocre digital work at best, and overcharge you for it.  Perhaps it's time to break out of your comfort zone and go try that Czech bakery across the street?  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  And at $5, what does it hurt?

If you are looking to try something new, here are some tips on how to choose an agency:

For further reading on Small Agencies vs. The Big Guys:
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/a-case-for-small-agencies-part-1.html
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/the-case-for-small-agencies---the-people.html
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/the-case-for-small-agencies-part-3.html

Does Humor Belong in PR?

 Humor, parody and satire have been around since classic Greek literature.  It permeates music, politics, movies and popular culture.  And as of late, it's now made it's way into one of the last bastions of non-satirical holdouts--the mainstream news media.

Saturday Night Live has 30+ years of background in this.  The've poked fun at everything from presidents to popular culture and their Weekend Update has been the satirical news of record.  The Onion took a further step at creating new humorous antidotes, stories and otherwise and placing them out as a news media outlet (print, video, online, blog) like any other.

Then came the popularity of shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report .  The Daily Show taking what was started with Weekend Update and expanding to new audiences and The Colbert Report taking on the political blow-hard pundits who are gaining in popularity as of late.

But the traditional news media continued to stand firm.  They did not even acknowledge the other avenues existed.  The news was paramount.  And important.  Important enough that humor, parody and satire had no place.  And those that delivered the news?  Just as important.  There were no humorous angles to Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.

And thus, public relations as an industry followed suit.

But things are changing now.  I'm sure there is no one instance that was the tipping point, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was the Daily Show.  An IU study found the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news.  A Rasmussen Report showed 32% of adults ages 30-39 believe that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are capable of replacing traditional new outlets.  And nearly one-third of younger Americans see Colbert and Stewart as true alternatives to traditional news outlets.

That's a big impact.  So how did traditional news outlets respond?  They started slowly.  They played clips on their shows (well, the cable news guys did--they have a lot of time to fill) to get a laugh, to prove a point that fit their political agenda, or attacked the satirical shows in retribution.

But then Brian Williams from 'NBC Nightly News' started showing up as a repeat guest on The Daily Show.  It was humorous, genuine, and a reach to cross into the audiences that watch the program.

But last night was a new milestone in my opinion.  If you haven't seen the piece on Chatroulette, you must go now and watch it.  (I'll wait). Did you count the media personalities in that piece?  At least 5.  All 3 major new network anchorpersons (ABC,CBS, NBC) as well as some cable news for good measure-- MSNBC and Fox Business.  And they weren't just mocking the video roulette site.  They were poking fun of themselves.  They were poking fun of their industry.  And they were doing it on The Daily Show's terms.

They showed that the news doesn't have to always take itself so seriously.

Why?  Well, for one, to get viewers.  But it's more than that.  It's an attempt to show that they are human.  They are endearing themselves to their audience, or better yet, a new potential one.

And they did it through humor and self-deprecation.

So, if you made it with me this far into a long blog post, my question is this: why hasn't the Public Relations Industry followed suit?  Why have they continued to act as if they are above the fray?  Why have they insisted that the news is more important than any humor based program you can think up.  (And by news, I mean EVERY press release every written for any client need--big or small)  Why would they not follow the actual media they are working with?

This is not an indemnification of the industry as a whole, only to say this: lighten up, you may just actually be more effective as an agency/industry if you do.

We have found at Elasticity that humor, parody, and the lighter side of human nature have phenomenal appeal.  Stories are placed more frequently.  Programs take off and go "viral" with greater frequency, and we're able to break through the clutter.  We're able to endear our clients to their audiences.

Another example we talked about this week.  Ole' Miss is replacing their beloved Col. Reb with a new mascot.  The story is that Admiral Ackbar is a leading contender.  We all heard this story and it took off like wildfire.  Do you think you would have heard about this story had they been thinking about replacing their mascot with a bear, or an eagle?  (though it may have been picked up by Colbert since he hates bears)

This is a highly controversial topic right now, and those who practice this type of communications are not taken serious.  But it is catching on.  There are more and more every day that see this.  And in time, the larger agencies may just play ball on our terms, much like the major news networks participated in Chatroulette.

Now, this is not to say that the news is all humorous, nor to say that no news is actually legitimate.  Only to say that humor often times breaks through clutter and the news media is starting to catch on.  You don't' have to be 100% serious 100% of the time.  Having a "human" face often times endears you to your audience.

And isn't that what "public relations" is all about?  Endearing yourself to your audience?

Agency of the Decade

Last week an old colleague of ours trumpeted on Facebook that the agency he works for was named "Agency of the Decade" …. again.  Aside from the fact that he doesn't work for Edelman it struck me as odd that this would be something to boast about.  Especially from a Public Relations company tasked with forming "relationships" between the companies that pay them and the publics they speak to.

A little background, first.  (and this is not meant to be a depressing, doomsday post -- stick with it).  A quick Google search for "job growth in the last decade" will bring up multiple versions of the same headline.  Here are a few:

• "Off the Charts -Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector" - NY Times
• "Lost Decade for Job Growth" - MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal)
• "A Lost Decade for Jobs" - BusinessWeek

In summary, at no other time since the depression have we added 0 jobs in a 10-year period.  (actually, we lost over 200K)

Add to that the fact that salaries have remained stagnant in the last decade as well.  College reports indicate that starting salaries have remained constant, or if they grew, grew slower than inflation.  (if you are doing the math on your own salary, keep in mind that you would have to have a 25-30% increase over the past 10 years to keep up).  NPR has been reporting similar stories that most Americans have seen little to no growth in their compensation over the past 10 years, as well as other media outlets.

But you can't blame a PR company for the economy, right?

Let's look at a different trend--social media.  Many attribute the beginnings of social media to the Cluetrain Manifesto.  An excerpt:

"Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do."

And these companies often made use of one of the best humorless, monotone generators there is: the PR firm.  A humorous look:

They say that behind every great joke lies a foundation of truth.  And the truth is that social media is a rebellion against corporate speak.  A statement, a movement that says "stop talking to us through the inhuman tones written by your marketing group, your corporate communications group, and especially…your PR company.  talk to us like human beings.  And for once, just tell us the truth."

Oh, and one more thing.  Have you had a conversation lately about customer service?  I don't think you need a link to a NY Times article to know that customer relations is worse than it's ever been.

Let me repeat that.  At no other time has the relationship between the public and the companies they/we deal with on a daily basis ever been worse.

So why would a company that makes its business on forming "relationships" between companies and the public boast about being the "Agency of the Decade?"   Why would there even be such an award this decade?  A decade where everything from jobs, to salaries, to general disdain for the American public has had such low performance?  In a time when the fastest growing movement (social media) stemmed from wanting to put an end to the PR dribble companies and agencies were spitting out?

If there was to be an "anything" of the decade as it relates to actual public relations, it would have to go the many early adopters of social media.  it would go to the founders of Facebook, and MySpace, and Twitter, and YouTube, and LinkedIn and countless other social media enabling sites.  NOT some public, conglomerate-held PR agency that won the award based on billings growth.  It was social media that actually began to improve the relationships between companies and public.  And will continue to do so.

So… agency of the decade?  It's kind of like the Biggest Loser, only you are not healthier after winning the award.

2 Secrets of Agencies to Watch Out For

In the general public, it's called "caveat emptor" and it does not mean "Seize the Day," but rather "Buyer Beware!"  In terms of agencies, caveats are what we put into proposals to try and mitigate scope creep on projects and more fully explain the estimate of fees.  Also, since agencies do not fit under the implied warranty of fitness,  it's a wide open playing field for an industrious account exec looking to make a name for themselves in the agency.

And this is the point where, after years and years in the industry, I'm still baffled by it.  It used to be a well connected account exec that "knew a guy."  As in: " you need something that my firm doesn't have expertise in?  Don't worry, I know a guy that can do that for you."  But now it's moved beyond that.  Now it's simply: "We can do that."  Even if they can't.  And that's where I'm troubled by this trend.  Let's look at just 2 ways this is put into practice:

1. The infallible agency.  It doesn't matter what the request is, the answer is "we can do that."  And if there is no one in the agency that can, they will either a) hire freelancers with the particular skill or b) ask one of their employees to literally "learn on the job."  The issue here is that these scenarios hurt more than just the client.  For obvious reasons, the situation in (b) is just wrong.  Why wouldn't the company, then, send one of it's employees to training and learn on the job themselves?  And in the case of (a), again, why would the company not just hire freelancers themselves?  The answer that a rational person would give is that they are expecting the agency to bring a level of expertise and experience that can't simply be "learned on the job" or taught in a class.

Yet, this part is not taken into account when the agency accepts (and bids on!) the assignment.  There is no value add.  And that gives every agency a black eye.  I'd even be OK if the agency had a competency in project management that allowed for the freelance option to work.  However, more often than not, this is not the case.  And so, when one agency does this and fails, companies begin to place us all in the same category--as snake oil salesmen that will tell you anything to get the deal.

2. Put this "in a pill."  The other area that fits the category of buyer beware is this next scenario.  Once an agency successfully does a project for a client, they realize they can now sell this "solution" to additional clients.  All that is standing in the way is a well-written marketing slick that talks about how this offering is a dedicated practice in the firm and that they bring a wealth of experience to the table.  This is tricky, since some agencies have actually done this for several clients and can legitimately claim this.  And that is smart marketing.  I wonder how those agencies who put in the time and effort to hone these particular offerings, or went through the time and expense to merge with or acquire the talent feel about the agencies who claim the same offering with just a few well-written paragraphs and the notion that they can fall back on #1 above if they actually sell something?

This is not a lecture on ethics or fairness of competition.  This is not complaining that the other guy is using steroids, only to justify your own use.  This is a piece on buyer beware.  And if possible, a chance to turn the conversation into "Caveat venditor" (or let the seller beware).  With informed companies making hiring decisions of agencies, if they know what to look for, they may begin to spot these trends.  And that puts the agencies other work at risk.  If the agency is doing a good job in one area and begins to exaggerate their skills in another area, does that put the entire relationship at risk?  It is our hope that it does.  Let the seller beware.

Personal Branding Versus the Firm

Talk to a PR veteran.  Watch him or her work.  And I don't mean the young AE's fresh out of J School.  The ones who the companies go to when the national pitch is on the line.  The ones who get called in when the sh$t hits the fan.  Those PR veterans.  Listen to them talk to the editors and journalists, and lawyers and TV producers on the phone.  You start to notice something.  They don't mention the name of the PR firm they work for.  It's not that they're hiding it.  It's because it doesn't matter at this particular point in time.  The veterans doing this work have relationships.  They know who they are talking to on the other end, and the other end knows the PR person they are talking to.  Business is going to get done, and it's going to get done because of the relationship--not because of who's name is printed on the paychecks.

Now look at what's going on today.  The social media tools readily--and freely--available today allow anyone to build an audience.  And the larger the audience, the more "followers" and "friends" they have, the more power they can leverage out of the exponential possibilities of their networked audience.  People have become personal brands.

Jump back to the PR firms now.  They are racing to figure out the social media space.  And in doing so, they are bringing in some of those personal brands out there and bringing them in front of their clients.  But here is the difference about what's going on now that should make you stand up and take notice: these PR firms are touting the person, they are not touting the firm.  Look at their presentations, no real mention of the PR firm's name, they are completely branded to the individual.  The theory is that the person's brand (their built-in audience size) is more crucial to the sale of the work than the firm's history or it's client list, or it's number of offices.

What's ironic is that this isn't exactly new.  Think back to the opening paragraph about the PR veteran who did their work based on relationships.  The difference is that previously, these gurus worked in the big firms because there wasn't a way to tout their individual brand.

Now there is.

So here is my question.  Do you really need a big firm to be effective?  If each individual PR practitioner has the power to build a network, to self-promote, and to use their numbers to the benefit of the client, then what is the value of the big firm?  It's a mixed bag.  It can certainly be useful as a proving ground for young PR AE's fresh out of J School.  Theoretically, if the veteran gurus haven't left, there is a network in the firm to learn from.  But what if they leave?  There is a trend of entrepreneurial upstarts leaving and creating new firms that are agile enough to compete in today's market.  Ad Age's editorial in April was entitled "Big agencies face challenge from social-media upstarts."  (I'd link you, but they lock their articles).  Web 2.0 Journal asks "Is the PR Business Extinct?" then quickly answer: "Yes."

Though I don't see the power of PR going "extinct," I do think the traditional model has eroded enough to cause serious concern.  The new agencies that survive will not only understand the new toolset, but they will understand how to harness personal brands, and give them a reason why they should work together for a fresh, agile, smart firm that understands how to leverage their combined firm and personal brands.

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

Can Social Media Solve the Global Economic Crisis?

Probably not.  But my theory is that it can certainly help us avoid another one.  Or at the very least solve a lot of frustration with corporate communications.  What follows are some random thoughts that I tried to string together into a coherent piece.  I'd love to get your feedback.

Let's start with Seth Godin.  He did a piece on "The difference between PR and publicity."  In short:

"Publicity is the act of getting ink. Publicity is getting unpaid media to pay attention, write you up, point to you, run a picture, make a commotion. Sometimes publicity is helpful, and good publicity is always good for your ego.

But it's not PR."

Unfortunately, PR has become this:

But PR became that because of a belief (their belief) that people didn't want or "couldn't handle" the truth.  (Thank you, Jack [Nicholson]).  It became spin, double talk, euphemisms, and in some cases, just plain untrue.  Firings and layoffs became "right sizing," whistle-blowers were hustled out of town, and CEOs went on CNBC and lied about their companies financial health.

And that brings us to Jon Stewart.  If you didn't see his interview with Jim Cramer, you can see it uncut here.  At the heart of the 3 part interview is Jon Stewart criticizing CNBC (and all financial journalists) for blindly airing, or even promoting the false statements and reports of these failing companies and institutions.  Jim Cramer defends by saying that they were lied to by these executives and apologized for not looking into it further.

And that's where I thought there was one piece missing.  The debate this morning on the blogs, the Diane Rehm show and in a lot of the 24 hour cable media is focused on how the executives lied, how the journalists were duped, and how do we bring accountability into this.  But one piece that I see missing in all of these debates is the corporate communications people, the publicity people, the PR firms.  Don't forget that when the companies are going on these shows, that lady in the Apple clip above is right there in the wings telling you what to say.  And usually, it's a lot like what she does in that clip -- hide the real problem with misleading language.

The problem in this case was that it wasn't trying to peddle more sales, subscriptions, or sweep under the rug some bad decision behavior by corporate executives.  This time it was playing with other peoples' money.  Their retirement.

So what does this have to do with social media?  Well, if we go back to the roots of this, it was a backlash to "corporate speak."  It was a backlash formed by knowing that what you read on the corporate web site is hyper-inflated, meaningless content.  The real trust was being put into word of mouth, into what their peer group thought, and into comments found through the new publishing tools afforded to us all with the Web 2.0 movement.  It was a collective upheaval of that PR lady in the Apple commercial.

Now, with a lot of people paying attention to social media now, and a few actually getting that it goes beyond just using the tools and really incorporating values like transparency, authenticity, and avoiding meaningless "corporate speak," perhaps... just perhaps... these corporate communicators, publicity firms, and quasi-PR agencies will begin to move towards the values upheld by social media and in such demand by the general public.  Maybe public relations will become what it could be.  And perhaps we can begin to trust the media and its journalists again.