Flack's Revenge

Innovation is Alive and Well in PR (Bulldog Reporter Series)

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article today about research that showed an innovation gap, i.e. the companies that are seen to be the most innovative do not always spend the most on R & D.

Some say that the PR field can be set in its ways, and not on the cutting edge of innovation.  In response to recent articles about agencies vs. startups, I contributed a two part series in Bulldog Reporter.

The first one (The Tyranny of the Billable Hour) ran on Cotober 13.  Please see the second installment (PR Agency Reinvention), which ran today. 

It argues that agencies can and do innovate without becoming software startups or making the agency model obsolete.

 

Influence is More than Just a Number

My last post was about online influence.  I suggested looking beyond the most obvious metrics when trying to take the pulse of someone's influence, in other words, size, or reach, for example, may not matter as much as other factors.

Now, I go one step further and advise against taking any single number, formula or metric too seriously.  There is no subsitute for being close to an industry - or, better, hearing from actual customers - about the content sources and people that influence buying decisions.  Let me explain by way of an example.

We were working with a client in the area of business intelligence, and had discussed briefing a boutique analyst - one who seemed to have all the right influencer "bells and whistles" (names have been concealed for reasons that will soon become obvuous).

The analyst is prolific on social media, and well-known in the industry.  Over years of working in the data management and BI spaces, our team had become somewhat familiar with this person - we had seen his name around, and were impressed with his prevalence in online discussions about the space.

However, in comparing notes with the client, we collectively decided not to pursue a relationship with said analyst.  While he may look great on paper, this person is also known for having opinions that are "coin operated," shall we say, and for being somewhat of a loose cannon.  In other words, regardless of his influence on BI purchasing (which was unclear, in any event), we decided not to, due to the potential stigma and risks from too close an association.

This gets to the importance of taking into account reputation, as Britt Michaelian so eloquently pointed out in her recent post Social Media Influence vs Online Reputation.

So,while it may be tempting, be wary of efforts to boil influence down to a number. Whether it's 1000 Twitter followers or one million, Klout or some other score; there is no foolproof system for indentifying the best influencers for a space. Ultimately, there's no substitute for knowing the players and hearing directly from customers about how they make buying decisions.

 

 

Moneyball Secrets Applied to Tech PR and Influencer Relations

Michael Lewis is a great read, I have enjoyed his work since reading Liar's Poker way back when.  I somehow have managed not to read the book Moneyball or see the movie yet; having said that I am familiar with the story,.  it relates how Billy Beane turned Oakland As into winning baseball team through a novel look at player stats that helped him find undervalued players and compete with much richer teams.

I saw an article in Media Post that brought the lessons of Moneyball closer to the worlds of media and marekting. Gary Kreissman writes:

Moneyball’s gurus boiled baseball down to Runs Created -- that is, if you score more runs than the other team, you win.  And when you win more games, you gain “market share,” rising in the standings.  It’s just as simple in marketing -- essentially substituting Sales Created for Runs Created.  Use the right tools to analyze your spending and you’ll find the combination that will result in more business and more market share for less.

A Moneyball approach overweights the factors you care about, and may ignore factors your industry generally seeks...What about media relationships?  Using these metrics helps identify media that might not be considered otherwise, just like Beane’s Oakland As traded for players nobody else seemed to want. 

While the article seemed to focus on paid media, in other words advertising, it made me think about how some of the same lessons can be applied to the worlds of PR and social media.

E.g, when it comes to influence, many seem to think that reach (e.g. the total number of Twitter followers one has) is one of the most important metrics to consider.  Before squandering lots of capital - in the form of hours spent cutlivating relationships, or via paid relationships and promotions with those who have uber following - consider that research points in another direction.

As I wrote in May (quoting from a relevant study that explored online influence by measuring the adoption of hashtags):

Our results... suggest that users with the highest follower count are not the most influential in terms of information diffusion. Rather, users with the number of followers of around 1,000 tend to be most effective in diffusion and adoption of hashtags.

The same study revealed that independent bloggers exert outsized influence in the world of tech.

Should Agencies Become More Like Startups? I Chime in via Bulldog Reporter

There has been a debate raging in the ad and PR agency worlds recently, sparked by articles that in Fast Company (How Ad Agencies Can Act More Like Tech Startups) and Media Post (Why Agencies Should NOT Act More Like Startups).

I wanted to chime in on the discussion and share my thoughts, based on my perspective as head of a PR and social media agency.  Please see my article in Bulldog Reporter, and stay tuned for the second part, which should run next week.

 

Making Sure Your Next Big Idea is not a Big ** FAIL**

I read an interesting article in Forbes: The Peril of Big Ideas.

People in all aspects of marketing, advertising and PR tend to swoon over the very idea of the Big Idea.  Although in theory these concepts are by definition Big and Good, it is important that your Big Idea first "do no harm."

The Forbes article explains how to avoid associated risks.  Here's an excerpt, please visit the link to read more.

It’s essential for top managers to embrace brands and to understand the Big Ideas they convey in an intuitive way. There’s a fine line of difference between caring for a brand as an inspired custodian and being an overly zealous proprietor. The trick is maintaining dedicated engagement without letting yourself be carried away with your personal ingenuity. Every brand has its own DNA . . . but don’t fantasize yourself into believing it’s your DNA!

I HATE Retweet Bait (Infographic, and 10 Reasons Why)

It used to be called link bait: the blog topics that use formulaic approaches to draw traffic, comments and links.  

These days, such content might more aptly be called retweet bait.

For example, my Twitter stream is filled up with references to 10 simple things, 5 facts, 20 reasons, etc.

And I am all over simplifying complex topics through illustrations; however, some seem to feel that just wrapping the infographic label around your info is enough to get it read and passed along.

I am sure that it is not just me, but others that now tune out topics like these, instead of performing the desired action (the final straw was when I saw a tweet today featuring this headline: 5 Reasons to Use an Infogrpahic as a Press Release).

Please note that what I am objecting to is implementation, not intention. While it is great idea to launch topics that are infectious and sticky, it is much harder to do this in a way that is not too blatant - and it is constantly evolving art, as people quickly jump on the latest methods for punching up headlines and launching viral content. (I liken this to the stock market; over time almost all gambits to exploit inefficiencies and gain advantage fall apart as others discover these and jump on board).

The sad thing is, I am sure some very good content is being ignored for these reasons.

Folks, I don't want to seem too negative here and don't mean to insult others' efforts at launching content that will be read and enjoyed. I know I and many of my friends, colleagues and clients have been guilty of posts and tweets like these.

But maybe it is time for some fresh thinking and a new play book, just saying.

Stay tuned, infographic, 10 tips and video at 11 :)

Elements of Effective Content Curation

Tom Riddle of CIThread wrote a series of posts for the Social Fluency blog on the topic of content curation.

He discussed opportunities and challenges of harvesting content and expertise for the purposes of social media engagement.  Content curation can help here, and Tom details some of the requirements for a good system in his latest post, Lead Social Conversations with Content Curation:

When evaluating content curation solutions, be sure to look for collaborative ones that:

• Allow the marketer to create multiple precisely-targeted content streams, by identifying timely topics that can keep your experts ”on message,” while offering enough variety.  Allow the marketer to specify which topical content streams go to which subject matter experts
• Facilitate collaboration so that the marketer or expert can recommend content to each other and annotate it with notes on suggested approach
• Gives the subject matter expert the option to either directly publish the article or route it to the marketer for finishing touches.

Fancy Ketchup ("Squirt in Mouth and Just Add Fries!")

Does anyone like those ketchup packets that they hand out at delis and fast food places?

Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday about this, and a new one that Heinz will be coming out with to improve on the ketchup packet design (excerpt below):

Some people rip off the corner of the packet with their teeth. Others, while driving, squirt the ketchup directly into their mouth, then add fries... After observing these and other "compensating behaviors," H. J. Heinz Co. says it spent three years developing a better ketchup packet.

Heinz says the new "Dip and Squeeze" packets will begin replacing the traditional rectangular ketchup packets later this year...

Squirt ketchup in mouth, add fries... now that is a neat trick, will need to try this. 

It all kind of reminds me of a comedy routine that Jim Gaffigan, one of my favorite comics, did on the subject.  Gaffigan is great, he has a very dry delivery and can make topics ranging from Hot Pockets, to ketchup to bowling and escalators outrageously funny.  Here is the text of Jim's riff on ketchup packets:

I do wish I was there when they decided on the size of those ketchup packets; I am not saying I need a gallon but maybe enough for more than one fry!

I always end up opening 20, I look like a heroin addict. "I'm gonna party once I get set up here!"

Does anyone ever use just one ketchup packet? "Do you have 1/2 of a quarter of an ounce of Ketchup? It's just so darn rich.  I need a resealable packet.  One that I can store in my purse!"

They always give you three packets... and when you go back up and ask for more, the guy handing them out always treats you like you're taking from his personal stash: "Hmmm, looks like my kids aren't having ketchup tonight!  Enjoy, ketchup glutton!"

Sometimes printed on the ketchup packet it will say "Not for resale" I didn't even know that was an issue... I've been to a lot of flea markets, no ketchup packets!  You know, if you're in a position where you have to sell ketchup packets, I don't think that's going to hold you back.

If you're lucky, you'll get a ketchup packet that's labeled "Fancy Ketchup"  Ketchup, you're being modest, you're way more than fancy, you're elegant!

Arrington Spins Out ("We're super excited about our relationship with him going forward")

I was on vacation last week and intentionally shut off work, tweeting and blogging to relax for a bit. 

I did watch the headlines and tracked the story about CrunchFund (wow, sounds yummy), the new VC arm of AOL/TechCrunch, and the resulting controversy over TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington's role at the news site (which culminated in him leaving, rather, being forced to leave this week).

There are so many interesting facets to this story. Tons of great articles and posts have been written, and I won't rehash them here. I will say that I think this points to the growing up of blogging, the issue would not have raised eyebrows several years ago, because blogs were generally not bound by expectations of editorial independence.

In some of the articles I read, people in the tech field did not want to be quoted on record about this because of the power of TechCrunch and Arrington. I do not have anything personal against the guy, and admire what he built; however he was outspoken about PR (among many other things) and often panned PR agencies and their clients by extension (see my post about his rails against press embargoes).

So I found some of his statements defending the move and his intention to try to juggle both roles (VC and editorial) to be ironic, as they sounded like just so much spinning - the following excerpt is from one of the first NY Times articles about the controversy: 

“I don’t claim to be a journalist,” Mr. Arrington said, though he breaks news and writes prolifically. “I hold myself to higher standards of transparency and disclosure....Friendships and marriage are far more potent than financial conflicts,” he said. “I firmly believe that the reason we are a popular site is because we have built reader trust, and the only way to build reader trust is not to trick them."

Then the news broke earlier last week that Arrington would in fact be leaving TechCrunch. In what must have been the final insult, he was dispatched with faint praise by a PR spokeswoman (according to an article in this week's NY Times, see below): 

AOL, which will still invest a large part of the CrunchFund’s $20 million, dismissed any question of a dispute between Mr. Arrington and the company. “We love Mike and it was the right, amicable decision that we came to together,” said Maureen Sullivan, a spokeswoman. “We’re super excited about our relationship with him going forward.”

Really? That is pretty rich. I have a hard time envisioning an "amicable decision." Indeed Michael taunted a bit (from the same article):

But there were signs that the parting of the ways was less than amiable. In a Twitter post Monday, Mr. Arrington taunted Arianna Huffington, who runs the AOL Huffington Post Media Group that includes TechCrunch, writing: “ok @ariannahuff. Let’s go ahead and talk about how this really played out.”

At the conference, Mr. Arrington wore a T-shirt that read “unpaid blogger,” an allusion to an earlier statement by Ms. Huffington that Mr. Arrington must step down as an editor but could remain an unpaid blogger.

Arrington vs. Arianna: Tale of the Tape

Bloomberg, Bartz, Arrington Departs: Axe-giving Gone Wild

Two recent high profile departures were in the news - less for the circumstances leading up to them, and more so about how the message was carried (a third one, too, but I will get to this).

The first involved the resignation of New York Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Mayor Bloomberg signed off on a press release that did not reveal the real reason Goldsmith was leaving (which had something to do with an arrest for a domestic disturbance).

Some said that Bloomberg made a mistake; it is in the public's interest and our right to know, according to this line of thinking. In defending his decision, Bloomberg made no apologies and said, essentially, that making the real reason public was up to Goldsmith and his family if they so desired.

The second involved CEO Carol Bartz and her departure from Yahoo. She sent an email to the entire company immediately after getting the call from the chairman.

While some of the coverage that I read focused on the fact that she was fired over the phone, much of it called attention to (and questioned) her decision to send a frank email. Some said that they thought it was an example of refreshing honesty; others thought it amounted to career suicide and was a pretty dumb move.

An article in Fortune covered the Yahoo episode in an article The New Rules of Firing (and Being Fired).Here is an excerpt:

The situation highlights the changing rules of engagement in corporate America. Increasingly, employees from the entry level to the corner office are worrying about shaping their professional brand and how a sudden departure will affect their image, work relationships, and career prospects.

Where a previous generation of workers might have gone along with the thin subterfuge of a mutual parting of ways, today's sophisticated professionals would do well to carefully plan the messages they send in the wake of being fired, say career experts.

There was one more recent unceremonious departure that many people, especially those in tech have been buzzing about. My next post will focus on Michael Arrington's dismissal from TechCrunch.