Josh Bernoff of Forrester blogged about some new data released by Forrester this week that provides more hard data about the shift in marketing taking place right now.  The data comes from its new forecast of spending in interactive marketing.  Here is a strong point Josh makes before summarizing  the data:

Forrester measured five sub-categories of interactive marketing in its survey -- mobile marketing, social media, e-mail marketing, display advertising and search marketing.  The conclusion is interactive marketing spend will grow from 12% to 21% of all ad spend in five years. 

Not surprisingly, search marketing has the highest percentage of spending of all interactive marketing components, followed by display ads.  Social media, however, has the highest compound annual growth rate in spending of 34% -- from $716 million this year to over $3 billion in five years.

This is consistent with what we've seen and heard in our work with clients.  To be sure, most of them have taken a walk-before-run approach because they've wanted to see a return on the investment.  This has led to measured advances in what they have done (and what we've helped them do).  But, I've noticed a shift where the need to move faster down the path has become more urgent, in many cases fueled by signals from senior executives and from customers.  In terms of the latter, I have heard clients say that customers now want to engage with companies via social networks. 

I feel like a tipping point is here.  How about you?

I've been watching with fascination the uproar surrounding Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth's attempt to raise money for her struggling newspaper by hosting a salon series at her home that featured the newspaper's journalists - including its host, editor Marcus Brauchli and government officials.  The price of admission for this series was a steep $25,000 per salon or $250,000 for the series and the target audience was lobbyists and corporate executives. 

Most interestingly, the coverage of the mistake by the Post's young publisher has taken on a life of its own.  The actual details of what the salon was intended to do seem to be lost now.  What is causing major umbrage is the implication that the Post reporters were for sale and the rich and privileged were buying their way into coverage or at least influence over key reporters.  I can't tell either the intended size of this well-heeled audience -- that is, whether the salon was a large table gathering or several hundred guests.

As a former journalist and a long-time PR consultant who often has represented the less well-funded competitor in a tough market, I cringe at the suggestion that any journalist or publication is for sale to the highest bidder or largest advertiser.  But as a business person who understands the need to run a profitable business, I understand what Weymouth was trying to accomplish. 

When I was a journalist in the tech market, I often would be introduced to advertisers at luncheons at major conferences.  Many of the publications still do these occasional road shows of editors that involve brief one-on-ones with the advertisers.  I was never expected to write about those advertisers unless they had a good story to tell.  I was just asked to meet them, which I thought was annoying, but reasonable.  We journalist captives used to joke about these shrimp and smoked salmon events -- at least the food was good and occasionally we'd uncover a good story or a great contact for a future story.  No ethical lines were crossed.

At major executive conferences that are sometimes run by publications, invitation-only attendees pay high fees (not $25,000 high, of course) to have access to presentations by news-making companies and executives as well as to rub shoulders with key journalists and bloggers.  Again, no one is forced to write anything.  The journalists attending often band together for protection from the mobs.  But they also have free access to information, sources and people who could be useful to them.  Again, the ethical line is not crossed.

I think a number of mistakes were made with this situation, but I honestly don't believe it was an attempt to sell the editorial staff.  The biggest mistakes (in my opinion) were the high price tag, which made this salon uber-selective; the location at Weymouth's home, which made this seem very insider; calling it a salon, which suggests an invitation-only free event and not a pay-as-you-go meeting; and Weymouth's own visibility as a descendant of Katharine Graham.  Let's take these one at a time.

Price tag:  Let's assume the Post was letting a fairly large group of high-paying people in for what was essentially a high level executive conference with the intention of a discussion with the political newsmakers moderated by staff journalists.  The journalists may have been fair game for lobbyists or corporate guests to accost with ideas for stories about them or their companies.  But no one was going to make them write.  So aside from the price tag, what's the big difference between this and an executive conference that some of the Washington Post's competitors might hold? They charge attendees a hefty fee and also accept sponsorships.

Location:  If this same conference -- okay, salon -- had been priced differently and held at an upscale Washington hotel -- would there have been the same reaction?  I don't think so.

Salon:  Some of the coverage noted that Weymouth might have been trying to replicate her grandmother's famous dinner parties, which people were thrilled to be included in.  Certainly salons have been held by many pundits and important people over the years and being asked to participate has been considered an honor and a privilege.  What was being planned here sounds more like a high-level conference or seminar series - with a stiff price tag - and not an intimate gathering of important people whose very presence is usually considered their payment.

Weymouth's visibility:  If Weymouth had not just completed a publicity tour of her own with articles I read during my own recent vacation in magazines like Vogue, would this have raised people's ire as much?  I must admit that when I saw Weymouth on stage with Arianna Huffington at the All Things Digital conference in May -- where they seemed to have quite a love-fest going for two competitors for ad dollars and publicity -- I wondered whether this example of nepotism was the right move for this newspaper.  Hearing her at the conference and reading more about her since then, which may or may not have been a strategy of the Post, I got a good sense of her capabilities and assumed that this is a family committed to this newspaper who felt she had what it took to take it forward.  But I have to think that she's probably taking more lumps on this gaffe than someone who wasn't related to Katharine Graham would be taking.

In a journalism environment where BusinessWeek is for sale and publications are dropping like flies, I applaud the efforts of companies and publishers to try to keep them alive with new revenue opportunities.  I certainly don't want the journalists' ethics to be compromised in the process.  I guess I question whether this was the intention of this salon series in the first place.  The current blur of coverage, where the real truth gets covered quickly by opinions, attacks and assumptions makes it hard to make a clear assessment.  The quick cancellation of the event seems to show that it was not as well thought out as it should have been, but was more an approach to keep the paper afloat during a difficult time. 

So here's hoping Weymouth doesn't shy away from trying other more prudent approaches to raise revenue during this difficult time for newspapers and magazines.

On his Journalistics blog, Jeremy Porter has a nice summary and analysis of a recent survey conducted by the American Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) and Institute for Public Relations (IPR), through which 520 PR professionals were surveyed on PR measurement. I agree with Jeremy's surprise that the number of people who responded that they are currently measuring their PR programs was only 77%. In our case, 100% of our clients demand that we measure our programs.

Jeremy summarizes the part of the survey on how clients want programs to be measured this way:

• Client demand for measurement of online communications increased from 29% in 2008 to 41% in 2009
• Client demand for broadcast media evaluation is up from 15% of assignments in 2008 to 25% in 2009
• 77% of clients commission single country measurement programs or projects
• 69% of survey respondents say procurement specialists are becoming more involved in the purchase of measurement and evaluation services

Beyond this, our own experience of late is that clients want more measurements of the outcomes of a PR program -- clicks to a web site from coverage, product downloads and leads -- as much as the outputs -- clips, briefings, blog posts and tweets. I don't believe it is realistic to expect new measurement standards, as there are too many competing interests at work, as well as the fact that every client has their own expectations and priorities with regards to how they measure marketing and PR, so it's up to us to work with them and deliver the metrics they need.

It does mean, however, that there are some new fundamental approaches we must take to measurement, which as I mentioned above, we are already doing.

These new approaches blend the traditional, output-based metrics with important new, business-oriented metrics that quantify the outcomes:

• Traditional marketing and sales metrics like lead generation and customer satisfaction/retention;
• Traditional interactive marketing metrics like web traffic and share of search;
• New metrics like sentiment, viral value (e.g. how coverage creates word-of-mouth on Twitter, blogs, etc.), and engagement

This is necessary because social media is blurring the lines between PR and interactive marketing, customer service and sales. More importantly, it’s necessary because ROI is paramount and these blended measurements help demonstrate that to marketers and CEO’s.

What is important to you as far as PR measurement is concerned?

Today in Italy, our world leaders are meeting at the G-8 Summit to try to solve the world's major problems, with global warming being one of Obama's core initiatives.

I can't imagine how those conversations must be going -- would love to be a fly on the wall -- yet I doubt their posh quarters have flies buzzing about. The developing nations are trying to rise out of poverty and create industries and economies similar to the world powers, yet now they are being asked to slow down expansion and pay extra costs for environmental standards by the same countries that created the environmental problem in the first place. Obama has his work cut out for him.

I think we all know the results, if any, from these types of meetings take years to come to fruition, so there's no use waiting around for initiatives to take effect. I remember last year when I attended a clean tech meeting here in Austin, they conferenced in one of Germany's clean tech leaders who was largely responsible for helping Germany create a prosperous clean tech economy (based on solar of all things, which is impressive given Germany's cloudy, rainy climate). The one comment I remember him making was that Germany didn't wait for the government to implement renewable energy into its culture -- the private sector rose to the occasion without government support.

The memory is comforting being that the Texas legislature just closed last month until 2011, and every single renewable energy bill proposed (69 in total) was wiped off the table. Sad, but true.

I just saw a video I was interviewed for -- created by the Austin Capital Area Workforce Board --  that interviewed local leaders in Austin about what was being done to drive clean tech economic development and green policies in Austin. It was encouraging to see all of the local enthusiasm and dedication to the effort. It just reiterates the truth in the mantra "Think Global, Act Local." We can't wait for the superpowers to play nice, we need to be working on technologies and solving problems on a smaller scale first.

Everybody has their favorite mobile app - you might like to 'pop' bubble wrap on your iPhone, or Tweet from your Blackberry. Me? I appreciate the simplicity of the WSJ Mobile Reader. I have easy-to-read, quickly-downloadable headlines and stories at my fingertips from not only the Journal but the other feeds I've set it up to pull in for me. 

I tell you this only because I thought it was playing tricks on me last night. I took a few moments to scroll through my stories and I see this headline, "The Duck Call Stylings of Cisco's John Chambers." Being the head of LP&P's telecom practice, John Chambers and Cisco are always of interest. But I clicked on this headline much faster that I typically would because I thought there was some joke being played on the company or some hacker having fun with the BoomTown blog.

Nope. If you haven't already heard about this, or seen the video, check it out. Frankly, as I read the first couple of paragraphs of the post, I still thought someone was kidding around. But then I got to the punchline - how Cisco turned a happenstance event into a PR opportunity, and a pretty creative one at that.

You can read the brief BoomTown post which explains the idea. What I'm more focused on, beyond the creative use of social media to promote a product, is the involvement from the top - from Chambers. One of the basic ingredients in a successful communications program is a commitment from the highest levels of the organization to support the effort and to participate as appropriate. As much as PR has morphed in the 23 years LP&P has been around, this tenet has not changed.

This video features a CEO who is well-known for his commitment to PR, but I have to admit, this takes it to a whole new level. PR people everywhere have pointed to people like Chambers, Steve Jobs, and more recently, Carol Bartz as good examples of executives who are engaged in strategic communication. Well today, fellow communications professionals, we now have a precedent for suggesting our client CEOs go well beyond "participating" in the PR program to make a spectacle of their hidden talents and hobbies for the good of the organization.

What's your take on this? Great idea? Over the top? I'm not sure I've decided yet.

The Business Marketing Association held its annual conference last month in Chicago and it had an interesting title, UNlearn.  The professional group for B2B marketers offered an agenda that helped the attendees understand how marketing is changing because of the impact of the social web.  There are some good recaps on the BMA site, but the video embedded here from the conference sums up what it tackled.  This was a live re-enactment of the famous McGraw-Hill "Man in the Chair" ad from 1958 that made one the most compelling cases of the value of print advertising for B2B companies, then adapted it for today's world.

It is a good, entertaining depiction of what it is B2B marketers need to unlearn and re-learn in this new era.

After a great vacation, I always try to think about what new things I learned. For example, Italian women in Rome can eat pasta three times a day and still look amazing. 

More importantly, though, I learned the origins of our own profession -- marketing and public relations. The great walking tours we took using througheternity.com (which I highly recommend) taught us that beyond the road systems, aqueducts for irrigation, sewage systems and some of the most amazing artwork and architecture I've ever seen, the Romans were early proponents of branding and PR. The Roman Coliseum, the Circus Maximus and all of the various theaters were designed to promote the latest rulers -- their might, their conquests and their ability to keep their people happy with regular entertainment -- grisly entertainment, but at the time better than the World Wrestling Federation and Nascar rolled into one. 

There was definitely more of a cult of personality type of branding of current rulers back then. But it certainly set the stage for promoting the leaders of the time and their accomplishments. And they certainly knew how to make that branding endure the test of time.

I don't know about you, but I'm always a sucker for lists of do's and don'ts.  A recent email to me from a magazine I subscribe to included the "top 25 beauty mistakes" and, of course, I clicked on it.  I learned a few things, so it was worth the investment of time.  It inspired me to ask our PR experts to help me assemble a list of the biggest PR mistakes they have seen recently that we all can learn from:

• Telling a business press reporter after an interview that if he writes about your company it will raise interest in it, which would be a good thing.  Get ready for a major eye roll from the reporter on that one -- unless he is a stockholder.

• Capitalizing on a tragedy, especially with the words "if they had used XX product/service, this wouldn't have happened."  This is one time you have to pass up a newsworthy angle.

• Speaking for quotation to the media on behalf of a partner or a customer.  It's always better to direct them to the customer or partner for their own quotes rather than risk souring your relationship by saying something they would not want to see in print.

• Being unwilling to comment on industry trends or issues during an interview.  Reporters are happy to hear about your company, if you are relevant in your market, but they'd also like to hear broader perspectives.  It makes you more valuable as a source too.

• Answering the reporter's end-of-interview question, "Do you have anything to add?" with a smile and a quick "No."  You just missed a great opportunity to briefly summarize the key points you hope the reporter got from your interview.

• Telling a reporter "don't write what I just told you."  Only a red flag in front of a bull is a more visible symbol to "charge" and get that scoop.

• Keeping your PR team in the dark on corporate events.  This sometimes happens to internal and agency people when a senior team's style is close-to-the-vest.  It really blunts the effectiveness of the entire PR team to not have all the nuances of what is happening and why to shape their programs.

• Starting a call with a journalist with the statement, "I think you are very wrong."  An interview is a conversation and this, ladies and gentlemen, is a conversation killer.

• Suggesting a headline for the article you want them to write and asking when it will run.  This type of behavior makes for good stories at internal editorial meetings at publications, but it doesn't work.

• Promising a customer by name to a journalist before clearing it with them.  If you aren't sure the customer will clear it, tell them you'll check into it and get back to them with a name.

• Agreeing to author a blog if you don't have the time to post.  No one will take you seriously as a blogger if your content isn't fresh.  Assign someone else or wait until you're really ready to provide regular postings.

• Sending a reply on Twitter (which goes to everyone who follows you) instead of a direct message (which goes just to the person you want to engage with).  Always think before you "tweet."

• Insisting that PR take the toughest question out of the FAQ preparation document for a major announcement.  Removing the question will not guarantee no one asks it and you will be much less prepared when it is asked.

• Being so anxious to "tweet" that you reveal some news or comments from a partner, customer or company leader before a planned announcement.  This is what social media policy guidelines are written to prevent.

• Not respecting a journalist's deadline.  If you offer the best customer contact, but it is right on top of or after the reporter's deadline, you not only won't be included in the article, but you also will hurt your chances of her calling you for the next story she is writing.

• Assuming too much knowledge on behalf of reporters.  These days, with publications being smaller, reporters are asked to cover a wide range of "beats" and they aren't always experts in all of them.  It always helps to provide context and spell out acronyms or at least do temperature reads to give them a chance to ask for a backdrop on a technology or market segment, if they need it.

 It's worth noting that John Teresko, senior technology editor of IndustryWeek magazine retired this week after 50 years.  Consider that number.  FIFTY YEARS!  The big 5-0!  John started covering technology and the manufacturing industry when TV was black and white with just three channels, America was the manufacturing center of the world, commercial airlines flew planes and not jets, America's Big 3 ruled the automobile market and rock n' roll was just taking hold.

It's mind boggling when you consider the scope of changes and advancements in technology that John has covered, but what's even more amazing is that he spent his entire career doing it with IndustryWeek and its predecessor Steel magazine.  This kind of longevity and career continuity is rare and it's unlikely we'll see the likes of it again.

I first met John back in 1991.  It was on a media tour with a client.  Some of you may remember those.  We flew out to Cleveland to meet with him face to face to brief him on the company and explain how our new product would help manufacturers become more nimble in response to customer demand and engineering changes.  The meeting took place over lunch at a very nice restaurant overlooking the downtown and Lake Erie.  How often does that happen with an editor or reporter today?  Indeed, how things have changed. 

The changes wraught through the Web, online publishing and social media has created a new dynamic, which is still being played out, that fosters continual change at an ever accelerating pace.  And while change is good and necessary for growth, there is something to be said for longevity, experience and perspective.  And with John's retirement we've lost some of that, which is irreplaceable.  But I'm sure that John would be the first to tell you that to remain competitive, whether we're talking about a company or an individual, you must embrace that change.  After all, John has been on front lines watching and reporting on it for 50 years.  I'm sure he can tell you that its not only the strong who survive, but those who are willing to embrace what's new.

That sounds exactly like something my mother would have told me while I was growing up. She might have used the term "neighbors" instead of "friends." She was very big on privacy and believed the less information you shared, the better off you were.  Apparently Mom should be a social media consultant these days.  Mike Musgrove of the Washington Post pointed to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about an Arizona man whose house was robbed after he had left Facebook and Twitter updates about his extensive family vacation.

"We had mentioned that we were going out of town for an extended period and even Twittered about the trip as we drove for three days," he told an Arizona television station. While he was gone, video-editing equipment was stolen from his home. Although he is not sure his tweeting tipped off the burglars, he says he will be more careful in the future about what he shares online."

No one can specifically link the burglary to his specific updates about vacating his home to his more than 2,000 Twitter followers and large number of Facebook friends.  It is a good reminder to be careful about broadcasting personal information that could be misused in forums as truly public as Facebook and Twitter.  It also sounds like a heck of an idea for a future television crime show episode.