Since first learning to string words together into a sentence, teachers and now college professors have steered me away from playing fast and loose with grammar. They’ve imprinted upon me the absolute necessity of suitable sentence structure and precise punctuation in achieving the correct (non-colloquial…) tone in writing. This, they would say dramatically, was to prepare me for the dreaded “real world.”

Coming to STARKMAN this summer reinforced what I learned about using formal language and maintaining the proper tone when communicating with clients. I’ve learned how to craft a memo and a press release into something unique and interesting while still using accepted business language.

However, a significant aspect of my internship here at STARKMAN has involved keeping up with the news on behalf of clients, which means spending quite a bit of time reading a broad range of publications. As a committed member of Generation Y, that means more than getting a little newspaper ink on my hands. I compliment traditional news mediums with online ones, such as blogs and Twitter. All of these sources play an integral role in my daily interactions with the outside world. Twitter has real time news updates that keep me current, and blogs are particularly poignant when searching for opposing opinions on a trending news story or seeing what major industry players are talking about on a given day.

Interestingly – and opposite my expectations – I found social media content from corporations to frequently disobey the golden rules of grammar, punctuation and style. And I’m not quite so sure that’s necessarily a good thing.

For example, consider a common blog and Twitter occurrence: the made-up word. Pronouncing a word wrong and creating a new one in error has happened to everyone – even Sarah Palin (see the completely fictional word ‘refudiate’), but the type of word to which I’m referring is when two words are forcibly smashed together and form a new, (supposedly) more accurate word (such as the word in this title – twiggle: a giggle caused by twitter). This used to be a common tactic of branding professionals to develop names for companies and products, but now it seems everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.

Let’s look at a few self-crafted words for reference:

• Carmageddon = car armageddon
• Spux = spandex tuxedo
• Mancession = man recession
• Pepsiverse = Pepsi universe
• Tweeps = Twitter peeps (people)

While it is expected that conversations among friends and family will be peppered with informal words and incorrect usage, corporations used to adhere to some degree of formality in their communication with targeted audiences. But, not anymore. Why is that? An easy explanation may be that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it probably is a duck. Corporations are delegating the role of social media upkeep to Gen Y employees thus ensuring the authenticity of their communication to the target audience.

Without a doubt, however, it also reflects a desire, almost desperation to connect to the everyday reader or, as marketers like to say, “to engaaaaage” their audience. There is so much competition in a consumer-driven world that every entity trying to reach a consumer (or more specifically, their wallet) must differentiate themselves in order to be heard above the din. Corporate lingo and buzzwords don’t resonate well with the everyday consumer, as companies now increasingly recognize. And, as the list above illustrates, even professional journalists are throwing out their AP and MLA Stylebooks in favor of a more relaxed writing style.

So while the made-up word may be silly sounding or even a ridiculous substitute for a perfectly reasonable real word, it pays, literally, to be accessible to all the Gen Y-ers out there with massive consuming power. Because, while I might not know what a Spux is at first, with closer inspection, I realize that a tux made from spandex is equally as ludicrous as the word Spux. I’m able to appreciate the humor and relaxed tone the writer is trying to convey with this type of word.  However, my appreciation for this type of humor doesn’t necessarily extend to corporate-to-public communication. While I understand that print publications are fighting to regain the credibility they once had and connect with a new generation of readers, this may not be the route to take.

When readers look to a source for reliable, trustworthy information, they don’t want to feel like the subject of a marketing campaign. A reader wants to know that they are being passed correct information and being taken seriously, not as mere lemmings seeking entertainment value. So while the medium for connecting with readers might be changing, the language should not. A real word can easily take the place of a fictitious one and can create an appropriate tone for a publication or company pursuing a credible image.

Sadly, this means that although its summer for a while longer, leave your flip-flips and “LOLs” at home with your personal life and pull out your loafers. After all, a well-crafted message using strong key words can still make a reader twiggle.

Share This Post

During his earlier career as a political reporter, he no doubt frequently found himself on the receiving end of “you-didn’t-hear-it-from-me-but” calls from politicians, candidates, aides, lobbyists, and the like looking to plant stories that would smear the opposition.  So when he jumped to the other side and entered the PR world by joining Burson-Marsteller, that’s the playbook he brought with him.

Mercurio and his colleague Jim Goldman, another newly hooked BM employee fished from the journalism sea (Goldman is a former CNBC reporter), soon learned that what works in the political world doesn’t necessarily translate to the business sector, particularly when public – or soon to be public — companies are involved.  There are simply too many constituencies with a real vested interest — investors, employees, customers, analysts, vendors, and regulators, to name a few — for the usual chicanery of politics to prevail.  If Mercurio and Goldman didn’t know that when they set out on their secret mission to raise privacy concerns about Google’s Social Circle, my guess is they do now.

The media’s outrage to date has focused primarily on Facebook’s hypocrisy for secretly trying to point a damning finger at Google given its own track record with user privacy transgressions.  Despite founder Mark Zuckerberg’s claims that he’s all about transparency, the company is reportedly close to signing a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission for its repeated violations.  With the Burson stunt, Facebook was clearly trying to end their ignoble reign as poster child for online privacy violators by dragging Google up to the podium with them.

Despite the industry’s professional code of ethics requiring PR practitioners to reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests, it shouldn’t come as too great a surprise that Burson-Marsteller chose to violate it.  While the company insists that Mercurio and Goldman breached the firm’s ethical guidelines, BM got caught doing pretty much the same thing for Microsoft two years ago with respect to Google’s planned acquisition of DoubleClick.  Having a code of ethics is the easy part; expecting employees to adhere to it is something entirely different.  After all, even Enron likely had a well-written code of ethics in its new employee onboarding package.

The issue of bigger concern is the inevitable adverse consequences when people from the world of politics infiltrate senior corporate communications positions, or in the case of Facebook and Burson-Marsteller, are allowed to run entire companies. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, whose responsibilities include overseeing communications, is a former Treasury Department Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration. Elliot Schrage, vice president of communications, marketing, and public policy, also is a political veteran. Mark Penn, Burson’s CEO, was a close aide in the presidential campaigns of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“Reputation management” has a very different meaning in politics.  It’s about swaying public opinion by any means necessary.  Politicos and lobbyists spin and leak stories, and political reporters lap it up and keep score.  The effectiveness of this constant spinning is measured in news cycles; if you are featured positively in more news cycles than not, you’re ahead.  Is it any wonder that Congress and the media are routinely ranked as America’s least trusted institutions?

Accordingly, individuals steeped in politics instinctively see nothing untoward about anonymously casting doubt on a rival.  I believe BM’s claim that it was Facebook that insisted it not be identified as the sponsor of the campaign against Google, but I’m highly doubtful that Sandberg and Schrage weren’t a party to the decision.

Moreover, the very cynical side of me suspects that, despite the negative press, Penn, and perhaps Sandberg and Schrage, view BM’s whisper campaign as a huge success.  Yes, the disclosure that Facebook was behind the campaign is somewhat of an embarrassment but the fundamental message points have been well reported.

Sadly, the Facebook-BM-Google debacle isn’t an isolated incident of a dubious corporate PR campaign being run by a former politico.  Leslie Dach, who held various positions in the Clinton Administration, was the architect of the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog.  It was positioned as being penned by a couple of genuine pro-Walmart customer enthusiasts, but was really an initiative of Walmart’s PR firm.  That ill-advised campaign ranks among the biggest PR blunders by a major consumer corporation.  Dach launched the campaign while working at Edelman, but he’s now Walmart’s executive vice president for corporate affairs. (For more on Dach and his corporate communications activities, read this damning profile in The New Yorker.)

The financial services sector is now turning to politcos for its communications counsel.   Citibank recently hired Ed Skylar, a former aide to Mayor Mike Bloomberg, as its head of public affairs, and Goldman Sachs last year retained Clinton aide Mark “Master of the Disaster” Fabiani to help clean up its image.  John Thain, CEO of CIT and the former head of the NYSE, has relied on former state department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler for his communications counsel for several years.

All of these companies are in some sort of trouble, whether it be financial, competitive, or reputational.  It will be interesting to see the tactics these companies use to turn themselves around.

Share This Post

The Internet provided an opportunity to level the playing field. The rise of the blogosphere quickly cut the media down to size and exposed their rampant irresponsibility. Mainstream publications and broadcast outlets were held to an unprecedented accountability standard and many reporters crumbled under the scrutiny.  An untold number of prominent media stories have been retracted because of eagle-eyed bloggers.

Harnessed correctly, the Internet can be a powerful marketing tool, but it’s also an effective vehicle for fraudsters, flim-flam artists, and for companies with no qualms about using deception and unscrupulous tactics to win over customers.  It’s in the best interest of the PR industry to promote and adhere the highest standards of ethics in Internet marketing.  The more credible the medium, the more potent its efficacy.

Sadly, the PR industry has contributed mightily to the corruption of the Internet.  One of the biggest global agencies was caught years ago for running the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog, supposedly penned by a couple of customer enthusiasts who turned out to have been shills paid by the PR firm.  The person responsible for overseeing the Wal-Mart account was recently deemed one of the most influential professionals in the industry, underscoring that there are no material career consequences for dishonest or questionable practices.

Some PR firms also were caught secretly paying off or bribing bloggers with products to post positive reviews, but fortunately a PR blog named “Strumpette” was quite aggressive about exposing the practice and some industry leaders became quite vocal about condeming the practice.  While blogger payola has not yet been eradicated, fortunately most recent exposed incidents didn’t involve PR firms.

Nevertheless, some PR firms still can’t resist employing deception as part of their “strategic” arsenal.  Last week, the Federal Trade Commission settled charges with a California PR firm for having its employees “pose as ordinary consumers posting game reviews at the online iTunes store, and not disclosing that the reviews came from paid employees working on behalf of the developers.”

Rather than taking the high road and saying the firm settled the matter in support of the FTC’s desire to ensure greater transparency on the Internet, the company’s owner haughtily dismissed the agency’s concerns as a “frivolous matter”, saying they only agreed to settle to save on the cost of litigation.  Perhaps most disappointing of all was the disclosure in the New York Times that the deceptive reviews in question were written and posted by interns.  Thus, a new generation of PR professionals was taught that deception is an acceptable communications tool.  That’s a toxic message to teach impressionable college students interested in pursuing a PR career.

Sadly, there is no shortage of PR firms who will welcome the skill-set these interns acquired.  It’s an open secret that other PR firms regularly engage in having employees post reviews on behalf of clients.  Let’s hope that the head of the FTC’s advertising practices division successfully eradicates the practice.  Now there would be someone I could get behind as deserving of the “most influential leaders in the PR industry” title.

Share This Post

I just don’t “get” technology. I barely passed computer science in seventh grade and it’s been an uphill battle ever since. When something goes wrong with my computer or iPod or whatever, there’s never an easy fix. My colleagues, friends, and probably Dell and Mac’s combined support staffs have learned to dread my phone calls begging for help.

But it seems there’s hope for me yet.

Six months ago I reluctantly leased a BMW. I say “reluctantly” because I actually wanted to lease another Acura, the car I previously leased for a blissful trouble-free 39 months. Heck, I would have been happy to buy my old Acura, but the buyout payment was ridiculously prohibitive, especially considering an unbelievable offer a local BMW dealership gave me. Even the Acura salesman agreed the BMW deal was just too good to pass up. So, despite a panic-attack-inducing dashboard full of high-tech bells and whistles, I went with the BMW.

I’m glad I did. Anyone who knows cars knows that BMWs are legendary for their handling. Having spent some time in the driver’s seat, I can confirm that the reputation is well deserved. I haven’t enjoyed driving this much since I first got my driver’s license! Forget “The Ultimate Driving Machine”, BMW’s marketing folks should call it what it really is – “The Ultimate Driving Technology“.

Whereas some people may pride themselves on having a BMW parked in their driveway, I’m not one for “status symbols” so the car means nothing to me on that level. The pride I derive from the car is being able to triumphantly say, believe it or not, that I have mastered its myriad technology operating functions and amenities. I’ve actually figured out how to use all the “extras” on my dashboard. I can listen to my iPod, use the GPS, or talk hands-free on my cellphone without breaking out the driver’s manual or calling my salesman. Remember, I was essentially a Luddite when it came to embracing new technologies so this is a really big deal for me.

There once was a time when I was equally in awe of Apple Computers’ ability to make user-friendly and reliable technologies. Mac computers were once considerably more intuitive and reliable than those of its PC-based rivals, and the company’s tech support staff was equally accessible. Sadly, those days seem resigned to the history books.

I recently was staying away from home for a while in a corporate apartment. The cable Internet connection wasn’t working with my G4 laptop, so I called Apple, thinking that its tech people would be trained to quickly and easily help me with such a basic function. Guess again.

After waiting a good 30 minutes in the Apple tech support queue, I connected with a technician and told him my dilemma. Imagine my shock to be told dismissively that Apple doesn’t support products that are more than three years old (Excuse me? Yeah, that’s a whole other blog post waiting to happen.). After I begged and pleaded, he said Apple would support me “this one time.” I’m sure there was some significant eye-rolling at the other end of the line.

To make a long and rather unpleasant story short, it took the Mac “genius” more than an hour to troubleshoot my problem. Regrettably, he managed to create a host of other problems along the way that he wasn’t able or willing to correct, including disabling the functionality of my Verizon Wireless card. Fortunately, someone at Verizon Wireless was able to get me back up and running within minutes. As Verizon Wireless doesn’t officially support Apple products, the assistance was twice as much appreciated.

My growing disenchantment with Apple isn’t tied to that one incident. About a year ago, the company redesigned its mac.com email program, for which I paid about $100 a year to use. The upgrade was fraught with major hiccups and glitches, including system outages where the site itself would be down, denying users access to their messages. And if you did log on, it would frequently log you off as you were drafting an email, losing whatever you’d written thus far. Emails you thought were sent never went through to the recipient. It was frustrating to say the least.

Other Mac users, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, report having other problems. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh recently appealed on air to Apple CEO Steve Jobs for help with a computer problem after failing to get an issue resolved via the company’s tech support desk. Apple’s response? They dispatched an engineer to go work with him. If only the rest of us could get such high-touch, personal customer service.

There is also a broader concern about reliability. Dao, our former creative director who left us to join the Peace Corps, convinced me that she needed an iMac to do her job. Well, guess what? Less than a year later we had to send back the computer because its internal workings were “fried”. Even the new MacBook Dao eventually took with her to Macedonia was infected with gremlins. I believe the tech term would be “Random Shutdown Syndrome.” According to BusinessWeek, problem-plagued Macs are clearly not limited to my little private circle.

Yet Apple continues to enjoy a cult-like following simply because of the lack of formidable competition when it comes to functionality and design. Even I can readily appreciate the superiority of the Mac operating system. And while Apple’s standards for reliability have declined significantly over the past few years, it has never introduced a product as flawed as Microsoft’s Vista operating system, which is so problem-plagued that even Microsoft’s own senior executives have issues with it.

Still, it seems Mr. Jobs is increasingly willing to compromise on the reliability of Apple products in the rush to be first to market. His tolerance of launching “almost good enough” technology is a common mindset in Silicon Valley and the focus of a highly insightful commentary by Stephen Baker in BusinessWeek last September. Technophiles don’t seem to mind the shortcomings and compromises; Dao steadfastly remains a devoted Mac user and sees nothing wrong with needing a software upgrade immediately after buying her laptop. Her successor, Jake, is another devout iPhone-carrying Apple head. (When I told Jake that Apple will no longer support my laptop, he unabashedly replied, “Well you know it is more than three years old.” UGH!!!!!)

Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I refuse to go along with the “almost good enough” mentality and the constant – and sometimes immediate – need for upgrades after products are introduced. In a way, I blame BMW. My experience with them has taught me that technology can be made both simple and reliable, and explained at a level that even a technophobe can understand. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet seen the need to publish a “BMW for Dummies.”

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I suspect that if BMW decided to make computers, their engineers and designers would adhere to much higher performance and service standards than those currently demanded by Mr. Jobs. And the folks at BMW could no doubt give Mr. Jobs a hell-of-a-run on the marketing front. Ah yes, dare to dream…

The thought of BMW making computers might sound absurd today, but who would have thought just a few years ago that Mr. Jobs would one day be peddling music and cell phones. Suffice to say, Mr. Jobs had better hope that my dream never becomes his reality.

Okay, you die-hard Appleheads who blindly worship Mr. Jobs, give me your best shot.

Share This Post

Most of the media analysis on the proposed deal to date has focused on the sizeable challenge of melding Microsoft’s lumbering culture with Yahoo’s more freewheeling ways. But Forbes‘ Victoria Barret raises another potential problem in the February 25th issue that could be far more ominous: a free software product out of Germany called Adblock Plus.

Microsoft covets Yahoo! because of its success selling display advertising. But with Adblock, a product created for users of the ever-popular Firefox browser, intrusive banner ads and annoying videos disappear, replaced with simple white space instead. According to Forbes, three million already have downloaded use Adblock Plus [including me] and every three months another million join us.

Microsoft has antagonized a lot of customers over the years with problem-riddled products that were prematurely brought to market. So the company could be at risk if all those disgruntled customers suddenly came to realize they could even the score by simply downloading some software that badly undermined the rationale for the deal.

It could be like one of those flash mob incidents except, instead of coming together at the rug department at Macy’s to accomplish their task, the masses would descend upon the Adblock servers to get the job done. You know what they say about paybacks.

Share This Post

According to what I’ve read, a non-profit called “San Francisco Beautiful” was instrumental in getting the proposals defeated. While I commend them for their efforts to preserve the San Francisco landscape that I know and love, I cannot help but note the irony of San Francisco Beautiful having sold corporate sponsorships for its “2007 Beautification Awards Dinner” earlier in the month. Indeed, the logos of Citigroup and Parkmerced, a huge residential apartment complex that was once part of Leona Helmsley’s empire, grace San Francisco Beautiful’s home page.

While it is tempting to say something off-the-cuff and snarky about them pooh-poohing corporate sponsorships in one corner while gladly taking them in another, I’m more inclined to admire them for not kowtowing to the presumed preferences of their benefactors on the Bridge sponsorship issue. San Francisco Beautiful clearly put their constituents’ preferences first, and has earned my respect and admiration for it.

Share This Post

Rice-A-Roni is etched in the minds of an entire generation as being “The San Francisco Treat” thanks to an addictively catchy jingle that was paired with an equally unforgettable advertising campaign highlighting the city’s beloved cable cars and the jangle of their bells.

“One thing my dad insisted upon was a jingle,” his daughter Marla Bleecher told The New York Times. “He said if there is a jingle, people will say it over and over in their heads.”

Mr. DeDomenico certainly got that right.

Given that the city and its famous cable cars are so much a part of the Rice-A-Roni story, it seems only fitting that San Francisco acknowledge the passing of a man who no doubt did wonders to boost the city’s tourism over the years. Rather than a minute of silence, however, I suggest a minute of loud cable car bell ringing to commemorate his memory.

Share This Post

While I’d like to believe that Mother Nature has finally gotten to the hospitality industry, I cannot help but be cynical about the hotel industry’s collective environmental epiphany. Do they really care about the planet… or about attracting more eco-friendly consumers who, it just so happens, tend to be more upscale and affluent? And as for the little card they leave by the bed suggesting you reuse your towels and forego clean sheets? I’m sure the fact that they stand to save millions of dollars each year on laundry suds by not having to do all that washing anymore has nothing to do with it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to protect and preserve our natural resources. I think it’s great that hotels are encouraging their guests to be a little less self-indulgent and more planet-aware. I’m just not buying their motivation behind it.

In the end, I suppose the fact that hotels are pushing more environmentally benign practices is more important than why they are doing it. So, with that in mind, let me offer a few additional suggestions to facilitate the greening of hotels, motels, and inns everywhere:

1. Eliminate your obscene Internet access charges for guests who agree to receive an electronic copy of their bill instead of a loooong paper printout – entire forests will be saved!
2. Give Earth First! free use of your conference centers and lobbies to stage their awareness protests and offer your best corporate rates to the group’s members.
3. Rig your plumbing and lighting so that guests must listen to pre-recorded environmental messages from Al Gore before opening a faucet, flushing the toilet, or turning on a lamp.
4. Replace the tiny liquor and wine bottles in the mini-bars with full-size ones to lessen the burden of all those little plastic containers on community recycling efforts. Of course, the hotel should absorb the cost of the bigger bottles as their way of “paying” the world back for its plastic footprint.
5. Stop offering pay-for-view movies. That only encourages guests to watch television, which in turn causes more electricity consumption and leads to excessive couch-potatoism.
6. Permanently set all your televisions to the Discovery Channel and allow guests free viewings of An Inconvenient Truth.
7. Instead of offering your Jewish customers airline mileage or hotel affinity points, make contributions on their behalf to the Jewish National Fund’s EZ Tree Program.
8. Tell USA Today you are no longer willing to accept free bulk deliveries of the newspaper and stop selling newspapers and magazines in your gift shops. If guests are in need of news, they can get it on the Internet thanks to your free online access. More forests will be saved!
9. Encourage guests to take home your logo emblazoned bathrobes free of charge. Otherwise you will have to wash them repeatedly, thereby undermining your water saving efforts.
10. Offer special discounts to guests who agree to take showers together. This, too, will aid your water conservation efforts.

Who knows? Maybe one day we will witness the spectacle of Paris Hilton accepting a Nobel Prize on behalf of the hotel chain whose name she bears.

Now that’s hot!

5 of 9

• Googling Weak Journalism
• The Irony of the New York Minute
• Out of the City and Into the Woods
• Seeking a Cure for The San Francisco Treat
• Top 10 Ways to Help Hotels Go Greener
• Clearing the San Francisco Air (Part One)
• Clearing the San Francisco Air (Part Two)
• If You Are Going to San Francisco
• A Demonstration We Can Do Without

Share This Post

Portfolio’s Business Spin blog suggests there’s no longer a clear division between a corporation’s internal and external communications.

Strumpette’s editor, Amanda Chapel, announces her resignation.

How did Wall Street’s CEOs explain the disappointing quarter? Dennis Berman of The Wall Street Journal asks you to match the Wall Street earnings mea culpa to the bank or chief executive who said it.

For the 5th consecutive year the Strategic Public Relations Center at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication is conducting its PR Generally Accepted Practices (GAP V) study. If you’re a senior-level communicator and are interested in participating, you can find the survey here.

A survey conducted by McKinsey & Company regarding companies’ online marketing efforts reveals some interesting insights according to Abraham Harrison’s Marketing Conversation.

Share This Post

SABEW’s Talking Biz News points us over to Marketwatch’s commentary on the rumored tensions between CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett, and the reasons why the network needs to ensure there’s room for both.

Shel Holtz takes issue with grocer A&P’s response after a customer complained about a risqué parody rap video that two A&P employees (and brothers) filmed in a store’s produce aisle after hours one night and then posted to YouTube. Holtz suggests A&P must be shorthand for “Antiquated & Prehistoric”.

Grumpy Editor says that daily newspapers can partially blame the unappealing, content-light layout of their front pages for their declining readership.

As noted on Seth Godin’s blog, JupiterResearch released a study this week on the effectiveness of viral marketing campaigns. Apparently less than one-fifth of them in the last year actually were effective in prompting consumers to spread the desired commercial word.

“Wikiscanner” fallout continues, catching plenty of organizations and their reputation management-inclined soldiers with their naughty fingers in the cookie jar – I mean on the keyboard – as noted on Portfolio’s tech blog.

Share This Post

Like a writer who keeps random plot line ideas and bits of dialogue scribbled in a notebook kept by the side of the bed, I’ve kept the Daily News‘ infamous “Ford to City” headline in the back of my head, just waiting for the right opportunity to rip it off. Thanks to Apple CEO Steve Jobs latest orchestrations, the moment finally arrived.

The technology impresario announced yesterday that Apple would slash the price of its iPhone by some 33%, but denied that lower-than-expected sales were the reason. As he told the New York Times: “It’s very clear we have a breakthrough product on our hands, but it’s also clear that many can afford it, some can’t. We’d like to make it affordable to even more folks going into this holiday season.”

So exactly when did Apple become a philanthropic organization for the tech gadget-deprived?

I don’t know about you, but if I was one of the Apple diehards who camped out overnight a mere 10 weeks ago just for the privilege of coughing up $600 the next morning to get their mitts on an iPhone, I’d be pretty ticked off right now. And I’d go into orbit after reading Jobs’ dismissive comment to USA Today about the brand-worshipping customers who paid full price: “That’s technology. If they bought it this morning, they should go back to where they bought it and talk to them. If they bought it a month ago, well, that’s what happens in technology.”

Can you imagine the fallout if, let’s say, BMW suddenly slashed the cost of its highly popular 3-Series cars by more than 30% just weeks after they were introduced? Or if Rolex slashed the prices of its watches by 30%? The brands would be forever damaged. But the traditional rules of branding and public relations don’t seem to apply to Steve Jobs, and his fire sale discounting of the iPhone is only the latest example.

Take Apple’s exclusive partnership with AT&T. The telecom company has one of the slowest wireless networks around and a solid reputation for bad customer service. Apple offers superior technology, and while its customer support has deteriorated somewhat, it’s still way better than its competitors. The pairing of the two companies is as mismatched as Armani entering an exclusive distribution agreement with Sears.

Then there is the iPhone’s inconvenient replacement battery requirement which, with the exception of the New York Times‘ Joe Nocera, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Like all cell phones, this one’s battery will eventually need to be replaced (Apple says the original one will last 200-400 charges, approximately 12-14 months). The kicker is that is must be sent back to Apple, however, leaving people without their beloved iPhone’s for an estimated 10 days. I’m hardly a heavy cell phone user, but being without my phone for just one day would cause me some angst – and mine doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles that the iPhone does! A couple of lawsuits have already been filed regarding Apple’s battery replacement policy, but they have received scant media attention.

The cost to replace the battery will be approximately $100, or roughly one quarter the cost of the newly discounted iPhone. My guess is that Jobs will have the next generation model out within a year and he’s banking that a good number of iPhone owners will decide they’ll get better value for their money by replacing the whole phone with the latest version instead of just getting a new battery.

Truthfully, I’m somewhat in awe of Steve Jobs. I give him credit for his unparalleled ability to get away with sticking it to his most ardent customers, for getting the technology media to dance for him like puppets on a string, and for creating an aura that he is not someone driven by profits and personal wealth. P.T. Barnum has long been regarded as the greatest showman on earth, but I suspect even he would agree that Steve Jobs is in a league by himself.

Share This Post

There was an interesting story in The Wall Street Journal yesterday about the search engine optimization (SEO) industry. The article used simple language to give concise, straightforward pointers without going overboard with the technical details. Overall, a recommended read for anyone who regularly creates content for the web.

There was one pretty major point that didn’t really get covered though: How do you choose the right terms to get the right traffic. While it is all well and good to go by their easy-to-follow steps for optimizing your content, you won’t get very far if you haven’t made the right choices with respect to your search terms. In fact, you might have a hard time seeing the results at all.

When counseling our clients, the one concept I emphasize more than any other is the idea of the “Long Tail“. The term Long Tail was coined (or perhaps capitalized and made popular) in a Wired magazine article in 2004 by Chris Anderson. In search engine optimization, it refers to the notion that, while a lot of people may start off searching for one common term, they keep refocusing their term to be more specific until they find the results they desire. If you can optimize for these less-obvious terms, the amount of searchers lessens exponentially but the actual traffic you get goes up (and most likely the traffic will be a higher quality with more turnover).

For example, optimizing your site for “Public Relations” may sound like a good idea at first if you want to be sure people looking to work at or hire a public relations firm in the city can find you. Chances are you will change your mind when you Google that term for yourself and see the ocean of results amongst which you will be swimming.

Given the imprecision of the “Public Relations” search term, it is going to be rather hard to get your site to rank well – and if you don’t rank well for that term, you won’t get any traffic at all from your effort. On top of that, even if you do rank well and get a lot of traffic, most of that traffic won’t be particularly useful to you anyway because the searcher stumbled onto your site by searching too broadly and most probably isn’t really looking for what you have to offer. That’s not to suggest that you shouldn’t bother optimizing for the broad “Public Relations” term. After all, it could still bring in some useful traffic. Just don’t waste too much time on it.

For example, consider how you will narrow down search results if you optimize for “New York Public Relations Firm“. Now that you have honed in tighter, a much higher percentage of searchers coming to your site will be the right ones, people actually looking for your services. This idea could be carried further with terms like “New York Public Relations Firm Website Design” or “New York Public Relations Firm Blogging” as examples. And with less competition for the term, you have a better chance of obtaining a high search rank.

The goal is to try to find the right combination of select terms that the people you target would likely search under, but that not every site out there would already be optimized for.

Tools

There are a ton of tools out there for the purposes of search engine optimization and a lot that can help you decide on quality terms, but I am only going to mention a few basic ones.

The omnipotent Google has a great free Keyword Tool to help determine good terms built into their adwords program. It allows you to see how many searches are done for a term in a month and how many people are buying ads for that term, so you can weigh the two together and ideally find good terms where the ratio is in favor of the number of searches. This is not the end-all determinate by any means, but a good first step. Google also has their Google Trends site that shows you search trends for terms over a period of time which can be very educational in this process as well.

The Overture (now “a Yahoo! company”) Keyword Selector Tool is a simple, classic, and easy-to-use tool for gauging the popularity of a term. Once you determine popular terms, you can then search for them to get a sense of the competition, how other sites are optimizing for your choice terms, and then determine whether you have a shot at a strong ranking if you use that term yourself.

Both of these tools are a great start. An added feature – which admittedly can be overwhelming at first – is that they both suggest other related terms to the one you are using. A third all-in-one tool that is not free is Wordtracker. I have mixed feelings about this site. It does help you quickly come up with information from one source; however, the interface is boggey and not very friendly and they use unintuitive terminology which can be extremely confusing. They also like to split up terms based on capitalization, which I find complicates things even more.

Rome wasn’t built in a day and your website won’t end up on the front page of Google tomorrow either. An important first step to creating the traffic you’re looking for is to put some thought into the menu of terms that will bring people to your site. Spending the time to do your homework at the beginning to figure out these terms can pay out huge in the long run. Good luck!

Share This Post

Few things in public relations are harder than getting reporters and their outlets to admit they have screwed up. And I don’t just mean when it comes to reporting on issues that are admittedly open to interpretation, such as whether the CEO really was “fired” (their choice) or “stepped down to pursue other interests” (the client’s preference). Wrangling a printed correction or clarification or even a verbal “oops” over the phone for any mistake at times seems more challenging than selling Soldier of Fortune subscriptions to Quakers.

So kudos to BusinessWeek for chowing down on a heaping plate of humble pie in its July 23rd issue by publishing a story about Volkswagen’s “last-ditch drive” to save its U.S. operations. It was just over a year ago that the same magazine published a rather different article – a cover story no less – that was much more effusive about Volkswagen’s prospects, thanks in large part to its retaining Miami-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, a “hot” ad team it hired to lead the big push to “rekindle” the Volkswagen brand.

To be fair, the earlier cover story wasn’t a total puff piece. The magazine did include commentary from ad industry execs who accurately foresaw the marriage of Volkswagen and Crispin Porter + Bogusky as an ominous one. Peter M. DeLorenzo, publisher of Autoextremist.com, was quoted saying that Kerri Martin (Volkswagen’s “director of brand innovation”) and Crispin Porter + Bogusky “would destroy the brand in the U.S. once and for all” if they weren’t stopped. BusinessWeek also noted that Advertising Age pulled no punches in its of review Crispin Porter + Bogusky’s first ad, writing that it was “so horrendously awful that it smoothes the way for Volkswagen’s quick and complete withdrawal from the American market.”

As it turned out, BusinessWeek should have given the detractors a tad more ink because they were right on the money. Volkswagen’s sales last year slid to 235,000 compared to 338,000 in 2002. Hindsight, what a wonderful thing.

Very much to its credit, BusinessWeek makes clear in its latest Volkswagen story that the exuberant vibe that ran through its May 2006 cover story was a bit premature and that its reporting could have benefited from a lengthier “to be sure” paragraph of cautionary insights. And it reminded readers of its earlier cover story. I wonder how many publications would have chosen to simply ignore Volkswagen’s current plight had they earlier published a similarly ill-judged cover story about the company’s turnaround efforts. I admire and respect BusinessWeek’s integrity, which is why I’ve long been a long and devoted reader.

Reading the two BusinessWeek stories side by side, there is a clear lesson to be learned from Volkswagen’s mistakes – and no, I don’t only mean the questionable decision to use a thick-accented, bleached blonde, dominatrix-type named Helga and an equally over-the-top German Engineer named Wolfgang to sell economically priced compacts.

It’s about overemphasizing image and style over “delivering the goods.” It’s about thinking that clever gimmicks, big marketing budgets, and slick ads are enough to make the silk purse from the sow’s ear and, if need be, make the sow’s ear as well. It’s about the dangers of putting all the public relations, advertising and marketing eggs in any one basket, and entrusting it to someone (or some functional group) who doesn’t know nearly enough about the multiple disciplines to keep a steady grip. Typically, it’s the Almighty Grand Poobah Brand Manager who gets that gig.

At Volkswagen, it was the “hot” advertising agency that seemed to be entrusted with the brand basket. It was Crispin Porter + Bogusky that talked Volkswagen into recasting the redesigned VW Golf as the VW Rabbit, a brand that hadn’t been used in 20 years (possibly, just possibly, because it was a problem-plagued car that frequently broke down or caught fire). Crispin Porter + Bogusky, by the way, is the same organization that believes good advertising “is anything that makes our clients famous” and responded to criticisms of its strategy by saying “I like that they are talking about the work. If they aren’t talking, then your brand is dead.” (There’s just so much wrong with those statements, but I’ll leave it for another day.)

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Crispin Porter + Bogusky is totally to blame for Volkswagen’s continued failure to launch. After all, Volkswagen was not exactly at the top of its competitive game when the agency was hired and the products they were asked to support are as lackluster as ever (there’s just so much lipstick you can put on a pig). And someone back in Volkswagen Marketing had to be signing off on those proposed storyboards, right? I guess that would have been Kerri Martin, the person who brought the ad guys in. She was shown the door six months after BusinessWeek’s cover story.

If Volkswagen truly wants to make a go of its U.S. operations, it needs to start with making better cars, ones that aren’t ranked by J.D. Power & Associates in the bottom 20% of automakers for reliability, quality, and service.

In the interim, save the ad dollars and stick those leftover “Drivers Wanted” signs in the front window of U.S. corporate headquarters. Hey, it worked for the Chinese restaurant down the street.

Share This Post