Flack's Revenge

Efficiency and Rapid ROI the new Black in Tech

In an article that was generally pessimistic (Suppliers Say Spending Still Tight), the Wall Street Journal identified pockets of growth in tech today.

The fine print in the earnings season wrap was that IT buyers are still putting the squeeze on tech vendors, and that the spending is limited to areas with the most pressing needs, like security and data storage (we have a number of clients in these areas and were encouraged by the report overall).  According to the article:

Any available money seems to be flowing to tech products that address pressing needs, like gear to cope with the flood of data generated by most businesses... Another healthy sector is data security, as companies face an array of new threats to their computer systems.

But technology buyers remain selective, exploiting fierce price competition among vendors, and gravitating towards products that promise a speedy payoff..

Famous Publicity Stunts in Tech PR

Yesterday's post made me wax nostalgic and think of famous tech PR stunts, especially those which hijacked the big industry events, like CES and the former Comdex show.

Certainly, I have been involved in my share of PR stunts (could we think of another phrase for this? PR spectacle, maybe? "PR stunt" sounds so lurid and decadent).  At Fusion PR, our clients tend to be start ups, and generally are not the big brands with big budgets that have been behind some of the more extravagant and outrageous affairs.

I have been in the IT industry for quite some time, and tried to think back about some of the stunts orchestrated by Oracle and Sun, for example.  We have a number of ex-IBMers on our management team (myself included).  I asked them and they seemed to recall many of these types of things but not any one in particular.

So I did a Web search and same up with some interesting things:

From the Network World archives (via Google Books search) I found an article from 1999:

Who said penguins can't fly? A trio of skydivers literally dropped in on [Comdex] to promote Linux.  TurboLinux sponsored the jump into the parking lot at the Las Vegas Hilton as a way to highlight its TurboCluster product and introduce CEO Cliff Miller, who then flapped his wings about Linux, open source and the enterprise.

From the Java Lobby blog (and in the same approximate era):

It was funny in 1998 or 1999 when Microsoft paid people to dress up (or maybe that was just SF finery) and write anti java things on the sidewalks around Moscone during JavaOne. The writings were colorful chalk and had a wacky sense of whimsy to them.

I also found this cool post on Taylor Herring's blog: Publicity stunts Hall of Fame. It lists quite a few (mostly non tech) examples and has funny pictures to go along.

Ambush Marketing and Tech PR

The WSJ had a Business Insight supplement earlier this week. Published in collaboration with the MIT Sloan School, the section  included a number of very good articles.  A few covered tech-related topics (e.g. stories on IT platforms and process management).

Another article that I found informative and could relate to, was about ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is when companies that are not official event sponsors seek to associate their brands with the events. According to the article, it is a growing trend, and one that is resulting in a sort of war and arms race between event organizers and ambushers.

Event ambushing can take many forms.  Non sponsors can co-opt imagery and words in their advertising to make it seem like they are associated with the event.  The ambush could be an attempt to get a free ride and could also be an intentional attack on another brand.  According to the article:

In one of the best-known examples, American Express Co. rolled out television ads in 1992 with scenes of Barcelona, Spain, the host city of the Summer Olympics that year, and a message that said "You don't need a visa" to visit Spain. Visa Inc., an official sponsor of the Olympic Games, complained loudly. Amex has said that the commercials did not refer to the Olympics and were not an attempt to ambush Visa.

In an indirect ambush, non-sponsors can set up competing events in the same geographical area.

The article made me think of the laundry list of tactics we have used in tech PR to help clients benefit from events in which they were not official sponsors or exhibitors. (Please note we advise that the most direct and productive way to benefit from these events is to exhibit, sponsor, etc.and take care not to not break rules).

• Setting up media and analyst briefings at trade shows for client executives who are attending but not exhibiting
• Media and analyst breakfasts, dinners or hospitality suites close by
• Landing speaking engagements at these events

Bud Light Commercial - Too Light Too Heavy

Too Light / Too Heavy in PR

One of the things I actually like about Mondays is the NY Times Business section.  The paper makes up for the lack of hard business news from the weekend by running features, with a heavy emphasis on tech and media.  Today's paper has a couple of stories on the front page of the Business section that remind me of the funny Too Light / Too Heavy commercials from Bud Light.

On the "Too Light" side of the balance sheet is an article about Apple's soon-to-be formally announced tablet (see David Carr's Media Equation story: Conjuring Up the Latest Buzz, Without a Word.) It is hard to say that Apple's marketing campaigns are too anything, except successful.  They are "light" because they get all this buzz with nary a traditional PR peep.  As Carr reports:

This Wednesday, Steven P. Jobs will step to the stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco and unveil a shiny new machine that may or may not change the world.

In the magician’s world, that’s called “the reveal.”

And the most magical part? Even as the media and technology worlds have anticipated this announcement for months, Apple has said not word one about The Device. Reporting on the announcement has become crowdsourced, with thousands of tech and media journalists scrambling for the latest wisp and building on the reporting of others.

On the Too Heavy side of the balance sheet is the growing trend for big companies, brands and celebrities to take their fights public, even if it involves applying some tough love to their own customers and corporate sponsors.  In Corporate Antagonism Goes Public, Stephanie Clifford cites examples of cable companies and the Conan/Leno/NBC dispute.  She writes:

What’s happening, according to some observers, is a shift in how business negotiations are conducted — from closed and discreet to open and political.

“There’s a code of the past that we keep things in the boardroom and don’t go public,” said Bobby Calder, chairman of the marketing department at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “What you’re seeing is, I think, a realization that you can go outside and gain some negotiating power.”

The campaigns play to populist sentiment, asking the public to do the right thing, an approach that also draws from politics. They create a public spectacle, a narrative that distills dull subjects like contract negotiations into a good-guy, bad-guy conflict — a Harvard Business School case study turns into a shootout with Liberty Valance.

If Vendors Tweaked Product Lineups like Networks Shuffled Late night TV

As a PR guy, I find It nothing short of incredible how the Leno-O'Brien drama has played out on the public stage.NBC confirmed its plans to change the lineup early on.  Since then, there's been an outcry from O'Brien fans.  Leno and O'Brien have used their pulpits to spin and comment.  Others have piled on, providing running, blow-by-blow commentary as the situation has progressed.

The comedians' writers are no doubt working overtime to make all this seem funny, yet there is tons of money at stake to say nothing of reputations and brands - providing a serious backdrop to all the posturing and levity.

In essence, the comedians are becoming their own PR pitch men, spinning the events in their favor or at least revealing how little control they actually have over the outcome.  One wonders how their negotiators and PR handlers are dealing with this, and if they have a say in the shtick scripting.

If you are in tech PR, as I am, you also might let your imagine run wild as you consider how different the scenario is from the ones we are more familiar with, and be tempted to ask: what would happen if vendors tweaked product lineups like networks shuffle late night TV?

Here are the top 5 things that would happen (Top 10 would seem to be more appropriate, but I could only think of 5):

1. Vendors would announce that they are re branding and changing key components of their flagship product, letting loyal customers know that they will in essence be sunsetting the market leader 5 years in advance
2. Industry pundits would proclaim this to be a bold move that reshapes the playing field
3. When the channel sees what actually happens they will revolt and cause the vendor to reconsider its plans
4. The vendor will try to put the ketchup back in the bottle
5. Product managers, PR people and other execs for the vendor and competitors will tell jokes, talk trash about each other, insult the company and call its executives idiots

Death of the Issues pitch, Revenge of the press release

My colleague Bennie tweeted a story from Ragan's yesterday - Don't Trash Press Releases Yet - which reminded me of a post I have been considering.  Since I have been scooped, I might as well go out with my post now, by adding another chapter in my PR Death Watch series.

For all the talk of the death of the press release, it is actually the press release and hard new story that is enduring, and edging out other types of content - and making tactics like soft news story and features pitching increasingly irrelevant in the process.

I refer to my own experience as evidence. Also, I spoke with representatives from the major press release distribution services, and they said that in general they have not seen a letup in the volume of press releases in recent years..

For further validation, one can also take a look at the Techmeme leaderboard, which tracks the sources generating the greatest amount of buzz in tech.  For the most part, these are news organizations and news-driven blogs, not sites that focus on extensive analysis or opinion.

There are several forces at work here.  The first is the enduring power of institutions.  One need look no further than the Jay Leno saga as an example.  What seemed like a bold experiment failed because late night talk occurs at late, night no exceptions.  There's a whole system at work that reinforces this truism - viewing habits, diminishing draw of network programming in general, what else is on at these hours, etc.

Similarly, the creation, distribution and coverage of news is an ingrained institution. There is an ecosystem that reinforces this, and thus drives demand for press releases.  Put simply, press releases are an accepted way of packaging newsworthy info (or info that aspires to this level of noteworthiness).  Inhabitants of the ecosystem include marketing departments, PR firms, press release distribution services, Websites, SEC, consumers and investors.

Another factor is something I call Info Darwinism (also refer to ideas behind the science of memetics).  The clamor of the Web, and the burgeoning growth of various channels of info forces us to be selective and focus on Info with an Edge, i.e. hard info;  the info that jumps to the top of the Web heap, rises above the din and grabs our attention.  This could be hard news, it could be rumor, gossip, easily digestible but fun and attention grabbing snippets, info that relates to YOU and your concerns.

It is all about survival of the "fittest" info. The crowd applies their wisdom and filter, deciding what info is hot and what is not.  They consume the info and share it, elevating its rank and bringing it to wider recognition in the process.

NY Times Covers Stories Related to Public Image/PR

I took a flight from NY to Northern California today for client and new business meetings.  After doing some some work, I read the NY Times and noted no less than three stories in the Business section related to PR/public image.

A Public Company Defends Staying Silent About a Legal Snarl

This article explores the case of Fidelity National, a company (the largest title insurer in the U.S.) that chose to remain silent about a series of lawsuits related to a mortgage fraud scheme.  The article explored the nuances related to a company's obligation to disclose material info to investors, and posed the following provocative question:

The question gets especially fuzzy when, as here, disclosures made for the benefit of shareholders could come back to damage the company in court, which could hurt those same shareholders

In a Clash over Cable, Consumers Lose

This article covers another installment in the very public battle that has been brewing between cable operators and programmers.  Here, the focus is on the food fight between Scripps Networks (owners of the Food Network and HGTV) and Cablevision. 

Coat Maker Transforms Obama Photo into Ad

President goes to China.  President is photographed in front of Great Wall wearing a certain brand of a coat.  Coat manufacturer smells a PR opportunity, obtains photo rights from AP (but does not get White House permission) and seeks to buy up ads.  NY Times covers the story.

Bud Light Lime "In the Can" Commercial (Edgy Content Alert)

Attention Disorder - So Just What Were those Pilots Doing/Watching?

It defies reason, that those pilots over shot their mark at Minneapolis because they were engrossed in analyzing and discussing new routes on their laptops (CNN story). Yet in the time since, I have not heard anything to contradict their accounts.

Assuming there's some truth to their stories, it seems to me that we have a lot to learn from the episode.  After all, we are in an attention economy.  It is a marketer's dream to be able to engage a consumer and capture and hold attention for so long, despite reality trying to invade to the extent that it did.

Just what exactly was the nature of the conversation, given that they were so engrossed that they tuned everything else out?  OK, we know they said they were discussing new flight procedures (or routes or whatever) and reviewing these on a laptop PC, but c'mon, 90 minutes of chat about this? 

It is a maddening question that just won't let let go of me.  It has unfortunately sapped my attention and I must now complete this post for catharsis.  What could be so absorbing, dammit?!!!

I'd love to hear what others have to say.  Meanwhile, here are my top guesses at what really held those pilots attentions for so long:

• The New World of Warcraft
• Barely Legal #26
• Ripped pre-release Avatar DVD
• Chargers game
• Viral Bud Light video (above, thanks Peter!)