Elastic Thought

The Story Behind Starting Fund St. Louis

We needed to create Fund St. Louis.

One of the fun things about startup companies is that there is always a story behind what motivated someone to get up and put their plan into action. It's one of the inherently human things about business that really gets to the core of why we spend so much time at work, and really shows you the heart and character of that particular business. We wanted to share the story of why we put Fund St. Louis out to the world and why we so passionately work for its success.

Our story begins with family. My wife Angela and I have spent the first part of our careers in a constant struggle with the St. Louis job market and have always had one foot out the door. It's been a struggle because it has always been our intention to stay "home" with family. But the bigger jobs and some of the things that can really advance a career are outside of St. Louis for a lot of industries (though not all). We've been stuck with the age-old issue of "settle for mediocrity but be close to family" or "leave and chase the big career." After years of working in St. Louis (and even as far away as San Francisco), we opted for option "C" which was try to create the best career you could with your own business so that you could stay in St. Louis with family and be satisfied with your work and be challenged by your career.

And from what we've heard, we're not the only ones that have struggled with that decision. Time and time again, we run into very talented people who feel "stuck" in their current situation. Usually we hear something like "I'd love to switch jobs, but where do I go? There's not much else in St. Louis and if I move my kids away from their friends to another city, they'll kill me." (insert countless variations here)

We were eating pancakes with the kids one morning when it hit us. We don't want our children to have to feel like they need to "settle" if they want to stay in St. Louis to be with us and our extended family. (Nor do we want them to move away, either!) They should not have to go through their careers with one foot out the door in constant mental struggle. There should be a vibrant business environment in St. Louis where they can have their pick of great jobs. St. Louis should be a place where they can really pursue a challenging career and feel fulfilled. All while being close to family and raising their kids here where they grew up.

And when we told more people about this story, they felt very strongly that they would love to give those opportunities to their children as well. It struck them that in the challenge of giving our children "every opportunity to succeed" those paths often lead to other cities. It was a recent college grad, though, that summed it up nicely. In explaining that none of his MICDS graduating class were coming back to St. Louis after college, I asked him why he was. He simply said "I owe it to St. Louis to come back. I owe it to the place i grew up in to try and do my part to reverse the trend." (and with the current unemployment rate of 8.9% in St. Louis County, 11.4% in St. Louis City and a median household income of just over $33k --we couldn't think of a better time to help our city flourish!)

Well, that's where we are. We need to stop the deportation of our best talent. We need to better the city we grew up in. We owe it to St. Louis to give it everything we have to change this place for the better. To change this place for our kids. To change this place for everyone that wants a thriving city with more great jobs, great companies, great ideas...for this generation...and the next.

So just simply creating businesses for ourselves and our employees was not enough, we needed to do more. We needed to find a way to enable as many entrepreneurs as we can to start companies and create jobs as well. We needed to begin to change the culture of St Louis to support small business, to support entrepreneurs, and to support the notion that it's "OK" to work at a company that's not well-known. That is IS a safe, fulfilling and challenging career. To be proud and FLOURISH in that career.

In short, we NEEDED to create Fund St. Louis. We owe it to St. Louis, our families, our kids, and the spirit of a thriving city to start Fund St. Louis. We're doing our part to help reverse the trend and we're very hopeful that Fund St. Louis is a catalyst to a more dynamic and small-business friendly St. Louis.

It's our time to flourish.

Edgerank for Brands and Agencies

Search marketing is big business.  And why not?  We've worked with clients that can monetize the traffic they get from searches placed in the major engines, as well as the negative impact of bad reviews or otherwise that show up on the first page of these search engines.  We've been working in the SEO and SEM industry since Alta Vista (remember that?).  The industry (and the major search engines) have come a long way in terms of sophistication, and so has the industry.

The interesting thing is that social media is changing the search marketing industry more so than anything in the past 13 or 14 years.  Not only do social media sites, blogs, comments and other social tools effect search rankings (and therefore how companies market through search), but Facebook and Twitter have their own search engines to surface content on their platforms.  While Twitter's may be somewhat rudimentary and giving rise to the popular #hastag, Facebook has grown a little more sophisticated as evidenced by their recent presentation on EdgeRank.

Now, this is completely expected.  With so much conversation going on in Facebook, it's getting hard to hear anything.  Imagine if your newsfeed had everything from everyone you follow (from important stuff to lost sheep in Farmville).  You couldn't keep up.  So Facebook put an algorithm in place to help decide for you.  This blog post isn't to explain what an object or edge is, or how affinity, weight or time decay do to the edge score.  For now, let's just go off of the preface that you need to have great content that people interact with recently to show up.

If it isn't heated already, this should super-heat the space for "news feed optimization" or just plain "social media optimization."  And it's like the beginning days of search marketing in the search engines all over again.  We just have a few new engines (and algorithms) to pay attention to now.

And it matters.  Businesses are utilizing social media more and more, and being "found" is crucial.  And, like traditional search engines, the basis is understanding the "rules of the game" (the algorithm), but more importantly, coming up with great content.  Now, every bit of great content still needs a boost to be seen, for sure.  Smartwater didn't just put Jennifer Aniston on YouTube and figure it would go viral.  They "seeded" it.  It's a great piece.  And with some proper PR, social media support, and seeding with influencers, it has over 6 million views in 3 days.  Well done.

EdgeRank is just the beginning.  The traditional search portals are looking at integrating what they can from the social sites, and the sites themselves will continually work on their algorithms.  Social media "optimization" is going to be the thing that the agencies all begin to start touting.

And that's a good thing.

PR and social media disasters are abound these days as companies and agencies continue to relegate their actives to young, inexperienced team members figuring they "know social" more due to their age.  Social media is quickly becoming an art AND a science.  And that should help shake out some of the so-called "social media experts" in the field.  Anyone can create a Facebook page or post on Twitter (or, or, or)…but you start to separate talent when you need engagement and results from your social media activities.  Now, you need to account for the algorithm along with creating content that engages, and figuring out a plan to make sure that great content is seen.

It's not easy anymore.  And the harder it gets, the better the agencies will have to become.  That's good for businesses as there will be fewer (but more qualified) candidates in the industry.  Although, it will be interesting when the question moves from "what's your twitter strategy" to "what's your EdgeRank strategy?"  At least the second is a pertinent and real question.  I don't think many of our competitors would have a good answer to the second.

However, if you would like to know ours, or want us to put one together for you….

 

Will Facebook Places Have Relevancy?

 So is your Facebook page filled with check-in posts now?  Ah, yes.  Thank you, Facebook Places.  My news stream just got a whole lot less relevant to me.  For those that haven't figured out a way to annoy your friends, here is a field guide curtesy of Mashable and ABC news.

So the question is, will people continue to use this after the initial launch euphoria?  As it stands now, I'm going to say no.  And not to be controversial, or otherwise.  But simply because rewards will win over convenience, IMHO.  Here's why:

It's all about incentives.  Call it "game mechanics" if you will.  But people check-in for a reason.  And that reason is not just to tell everyone where they are.  They want to be the mayor.  They want to have more points than their friends, they want more Gowalla swag, (insert your list here based on Shopkick, Swagg, Loopt Star, Topguest, Checkpoints, etc.)

And now that companies have wizened up to location-based potential, people check-in now for free drinks, their mayorship free cheeseburger, the contest for that bottle of wine, etc.  There are tangible benefits now.

But not with Facebook Places.  Yet (I assume).

Now, I know that Dennis Crowley (co-founder of Foursquare) has called Facebook Places "boring" and "unexciting", but there is some potential now.  What if all the check-ins went to the business Facebook page?  What if there was an incentive to the company?  That would cause new incentives to be created by the particular venues.  They could create their own, or use a service like Izea's We Reward.

What will be interesting is that the game mechanics of the other services make it easier on the company.  Giving away a free lunch to the mayor is easier than something to everyone that checks-in.  And if you have to give something away to everyone, you can bet that it will be smaller in value.  Probably so small, it won't be worth posting for.

So, in the short term, look for Facebook Places to be annoying at best here in the earlier weeks and then fading into the background.  That is, until they figure out how to bring incentives to this.

But by that time, look for the evolution of the other programs to give relevant feedback on where they should go.  To predict on previous visiting habits, likes and dislikes, time of day, etc. on how to help people discover new and great places.  To stay ahead of the Facebook behemoth.

UPDATE: @simonowens at http://www.bloggasm.com passed along the graphic above created by Jesse Thomas.  It's a great depiction of the relative sizes of all the major Geo Social applications.  Check it out.

When it's all said and done, did the Old Spice Guy WORK?

If nothing else, we've (mostly) all heard about the media darling that is the Old Spice Guy.  And we've heard countless debate on the effectiveness of this campaign.  There are two camps and they bolster themselves with plenty of data.

One of the first in the camp of "it didn't work" was MaggieMcGary1 on socialmedia today.  Citing an article in BNET she states that sales were down.  "Shocking."  The BNET article actually has corrected itself recently, but they stated:

"But sales of the featured product—Red Zone After Hours Body Wash—aren’t necessarily tracking with that consumer appeal: In the 52 weeks ended June 13, sales of the brand have dropped 7 percent according to SymphonyIRI. (That amount excludes those rung up at Walmart.) P&G execs were not available to comment."

This was quickly followed up by BL Ochman: "The bottom line: there is no such thing as a social media strategy. There is business strategy incorporating social media. But if that strategy doesn't include sales, it's nothing more than a tactic. Tactics don't move markets."

On the other side of the debate is PR Week who are reporting:

"The brand's ad agency Wieden + Kennedy developed and coordinated 186 customized video responses that contributed to a 107% increase in Old Spice Body Wash sales over the last month, according to Nielsen data from Mike Norton, director of external relations for male grooming at P&G."

So which is it?

Media Bistro asks us to wait and see.

But the interesting thing is to actually look at the numbers.  The "sales slump" was a 52 week number ended June 13,  PRIOR to the social media blitz.  The 107% figure is a monthly figure for the previous 30 days.  (measured by Symphony IRI in June).  This would include early data AFTER the recent blitz.

So we can assume it "worked," right?  Well, Ad Age also points out that the campaign was bolstered with a high value coupon.  It also notes that the other P&G body wash in the category, Gillette, rose 277% in the same space in the same time.  And they didn't have Mr. Mustafa pitching them.  (Granted, they are a smaller player in the space).

Back to Media Bistro, we will have to wait and see.

If we are defining "worked" by sales register data.

And that is the rub here.  Is it all about immediate sales data?  Kevin Green of Digital Influence Group said:

"Doesn't the increase in connected consumers create significant opportunity to market products? Don't get me wrong... I agree that more direct integration could have been included, but the value of the connection has to be worth a significant amount and the effort. Does engagement always have to include conversion? I would argue that it does not."

And here is how I tie it back to Elasticity and a few opinions from our side of the debate.  First, let's go back to the numbers.  Actually, let's go to a comment on an NPR story they did on the Old Spice campaign.  A follow up to a popular story read that not everyone is comfortable and liking the "Old Spice Guy."  One listener complained that Old Spice was the "scent of gentlemen," and represented countless men for generations prior to ours that were true gentlemen.

Perhaps that is why the brand was on a slide.  (back to the 7% decline).  Today's consumers thought of the brand as their grandpa's brand.  One they didn't want.  So to hold steady or even gain in a period is a good business outcome.  Even better, to appeal to a broader audience and begin to walk away from that perception is even better.  The business objectives may never be public, but they seem apparent.

When asked by our clients about ROI, we always ask what they are trying to achieve.  It may not always be about conversions.  It may be reputation, it may be perception, it may be search results, or numerous others.  Not all of which are measured by sales.  That said, they are measurable and we can prove results on any objective with true data, relevant and timely.

Second, let's look at Triangulation.  The original Old Spice commercial was slapped up to YouTube after it appeared and garnered a modest amount of hits (a few million I think).  After a traditional media blitz (NPR, Good Morning America, etc.) and social media engagement that linked the 3 pillars of the model, views went over 90 million.  True proof in action.

And finally, to sales.  There is a link from social media to conversion.  It often times appears in overlapping data points to draw the connection.  A client of Elasticity often employs several tactics to push sales campaigns and drives to an online channel.  When taking the social media component out of the mix, there is a trend line that can be drawn that shows a boost in traffic and conversions from the norm.  But when you layer in the social media components of the program in a week later, the trend lines spike and map back to spikes in social media activity.  This has played out multiple times in their conversion charts as well as those of other clients.

So at the end of this lengthy analysis, did the Old Spice Guy work?

I would argue that it, indeed, has.

1. It reached new audiences
2. It brought awareness to a brand that was beginning to slip into obscurity
3. It stopped and began to reverse a negative sales slide
4. It has shown signs (along with coupons) of turning sales into a profitable trend
5. It has shown the value of the oft-misunderstood social media "channel" (for those that think it a channel)
6. And it showed that slapping a video on YouTube won't cut it.  You need the additional "topspin" of a well-thought out campaign with multiple parts that feed on each other.  It's Triangulation and the highest visible example of its power yet.

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

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.

Intestine-Based Decision-Making

In the pilot episode of the political satire program "The Colbert Report," the term Truthiness was unveiled by Stephen Colbert and was used to describe "things that a person claims to know intuitively or from the gut without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

There is a long background to this term, but it is the "gut feel" that I'm curious about right now.  Where it was maligned in earlier criticism of former President George W Bush, and then reiterated from the New York Times to Canadian Parliament, it seems to be gaining in popularity.  And most often in the social media field right now.

After hearing a Southwest Airlines presentation on social media, the question was asked about what tools they use to monitor, gauge trends, measure, and qualify conversations to join and which to avoid, and general research practices.  The answer?  Roughly "gut feel."  Actually, it's more like "when you are participating in the space, you have a general feel for what is going on and you can generally tell what needs to be done and where to go."  (paraphrased)  And if it weren't for the 4 or 5 other Fortune 500 companies that have responded in the same manner within the last month or so to the same question, I would have let it go at that.  From podcasts, to presentations, to blog posts, they are heralding the intuitive properties of some of their youngest employees guts.  (maybe because they are in better shape than some of the older ones?)

But why gut feel?  Why would these companies not want further evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or other means of quantifying this field that is becoming more and more important to brand perception, company reputation, and purchase decision/behavior?  Marketers for years have used data from focus groups, point of purchase data and a myriad of psychological data to hone their craft.  Yet with social media, Fortune 500 companies are letting their online reputation be managed by gut feel.  And in some cases, those guts have only been out of college as long as social media has been around.  Barely enough time to truly understand the company's many efforts in other channels, or understanding of crisis communications, corporate reputation as a practice, or otherwise.

But they know how to use Facebook and Twitter.

Now, I'll grant you that I learned a lot from Malcolm Gladwell in Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking but I'm not sure he was promoting "gut feel."  He does argue that "intuitive judgment is developed by experience, training, and knowledge."  And granted, with the immediate nature of the online world, there will need to be some gut calls made in response.

But to publicly celebrate gut feel?  To eschew intellectual examination?  I'm not sure if that is truly what is best for the companies, their online presence or the practice of social media.  I still remember the episode of "The Office" where Michael drives his car into a lake because that's what the GPS told him to do.  Perhaps a combination of technology, tools AND gut feel will be the answer.

Until then, I look forward to a representative from one of these Fortune 500 companies that explains the intellectual side of their thought out, reasoned, and evidence-based plan.  As much as I like Stephen Colbert, I hope that the practice of Social Media or it's "best practices" are not shrouded in truthiness and that those that learn from these presentations do not go away thinking that they, too, can manage their company's online reputation on gut feel.

Illustration: Timo Elliott

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.