. The Transom .

Changes to The Transom

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:06:00 +0000

It's been far too long since my last post, both because I'm also now writing our agency blog (www.caccauldron.com) and for a personal issue that has now come to pass. I am committed to continue The Transom but am going to expand it to not just marketing issues, but greater business issues of the day.

As such, I had the opportunity to present a social media workshop to the Missouri Credit Union Association last week. It was both a rewarding and engaging experience and while I passed on a lot of useful information to the attendees, I also learned a lot about the workings of credit unions and how they differ from traditional banks. One of the key similarities to the credit union business and my business of public relations, is a complete lack of understanding by the vast majority of potential customers, or potential members in the case of credit unions. There is a clear financial advantage for most people to use credit unions, yet the overwhelming majority of people do not. There is a clear advantage to utilizing a more robust public relations approach to marketing, yet most companies fail to understand.

When it comes to public relations, most people have the Hollywood understanding of the business - media publicists or spin doctors. While there are a few of these rats running around calling themselves PR people, in truth they are publicists, and there is a big difference. And when it comes to credit unions, most people still think of them as exclusive, private organizations that only 5% of people can get in. In reality, more than 80% of consumers qualify for membership in a credit union.

I would bet that most people would do themselves a favor by exploring a little intellectual curiosity every now and then. Stop and ask yourself, is this the best way to do it or am I doing it this way because everyone else does? Is this the best place for my money or my budget, or am I spending it like this because it's what I am familiar with? Those companies and people that choose to do a sliver of homework on the subjects find great benefit in their new choices. I bet you can too.

Tips for Holiday Downtime

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:35:00 +0000

Many businesses shut down operations or have so few client obligations that the days can be pretty slow for those of us that find ourselves at work when everyone else is on vacation or closed for the holidays.

This year I’d like to offer a few tips on how to spend a few minutes a day getting more up to speed with the world of social media. When your co-workers or clients come back after the holiday, you can impress them with your now-working knowledge of the subject.

Tip #1 – Do a Google blog search (http://blogsearch.google.com) on your company, your competitors or your products. Read through some of what’s being said. Write down the name of the two blogs that have the most discussion about your search. Come back a day or two later and see how the conversation has progressed.

Tip #2 – Go to http://search.twitter.com. Search using the same criteria as Tip #1. You are now searching Twitter for what people are saying in real time. This should give you a glimpse of the conversations happening about your company, brand or competitor that you couldn’t have known about before.

Tip #3 – Visit Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Search for companies, brands, people, etc. Encyclopedia Britannica is 97% accurate. Wikipedia is 94%. If your company or major products aren’t listed, ask your PR department why. In 90% of Google searches, Wikipedia information shows up in the top five results.

Bitten by the two-headed snake

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:13:00 +0000

There is a saying in our agency about being 'bitten by the two-headed snake.' It's an entertaining story and an example of how our business sometimes works.

Several years ago we represented ConAgra. During one particularly bad summer in St. Louis, the largest local food bank announced that it was nearly out of food and as a result, hundreds of homeless people and those dependent on the food bank would be left to fend for themselves. We told ConAgra about the situation and they decided to deliver three 52' trailers full of food to the food bank. This represented hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food the company was donating - a very worthy media story.

We contacted all the local media and let them know when the drop would be made. We had a lead executive come in from Omaha for a speech. We directed camera crews where to go for the best shots of the food being delivered, and had the mayor lined up to talk about the food crisis in the city. It was beautiful. Until the day of the drop...

Our press conference was scheduled for 11:00am. We had confirmations from every TV station, every paper and radio station that they would attend to cover the event. At 9:00am that morning, the St. Louis Zoo announced that it had found a live two-headed snake and would be showing it off at, you guessed it, 11:00am. And because the media think that a freak of nature is a better story than a company literally saving the lives of hundreds of helpless people, we got shafted on our event. The local business journal was the only media to attend and cover the event. The Zoo was front page news for two days.

Ever since that day, when something happens that you can't control no matter how good or compelling a clients' story may be, we say that we were 'bitten by the two-headed snake.'

Say what?

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:02:00 +0000

For a tour that is, in reality, struggling to compete for sponsors and ad revenue, the LPGA's latest announcement is quite a shock. As of next season, all players will be required to pass an oral English exam. Apparently, too many foreign players were winning events and sponsors didn't like handing out trophies by way of an interpreter.

It seems an odd move to me, given the fact that so many foreign players have done very well on tour. Both the PGA and LPGA tout how 'international' they are, thus the most dominant tours because 'this is where the best from around the world come to play.' If the players fail the test, they get suspended.

The last time I checked, hitting a golf ball from here to there in the fewest number of strokes doesn't require an English proficiency. What is going to be the rule for players who are deaf and have to use sign language? Will they get automatic suspensions?

This just reeks of an American tour being threatened by 'foreigners.' If the LPGA didn't want interpreters helping the golfers with interviews, maybe the American players should take some swing lessons from the Koreans and get in the winners circle more often.

NFL reputation keeps getting better and better

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:13:00 +0000

Just when I thought the reputation of the NFL couldn't get any worse, I read about its latest venture. The NFL has actually hired 'experts' to spot and stop players from flashing gang signs during televised games. This of course leads one to believe that a) many NFL players are active gang members, b) the gang activity is so rampant that 'experts' need to be hired to spot it, and c) did I mention many NFL players must be active gang members?

For a league that spends millions of dollars in advertising trying to convince the public that it's players are socially responsible, active in the community, and good people, it sure seems like a waste of money. I guess they got the 'active in the community' part right, they just didn't expect gang activity to constitute "the community."

And they didn't explain who these 'experts' are but I'm dying to know who promotes their services in such a way that is searchable for something like this. Can you imagine the interview process? An NFL executive sits across the table from the candidate quizzing him by flashing gang signs. "What's this mean?" "Who am I dissing now?"

Ridiculous.

The Greatest Marketing Challenge of the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:55:00 +0000

Because of the recent InBev acquisition of Anheuser-Busch, we get to sit back and watch probably the greatest marketing challenge of the 21st century. On one hand, we have an iconic American brand that stands for America as much as it stands for beer. It has been family owned and operated since before the Civil War. It positioned itself against its competitors as truly American when they were bought by foreign interests. It is currently running advertisements all over creation claiming to be "The Great American Lager." It is, as its recent acquiring CEO Carlos Brito panned it, "America in a bottle."

Now on the other hand we have Mr. Brito's company, InBev, an international beer behemoth that is known for keeping brands but destroying acquired companies through extreme cost cutting and cultural gutting. Through whatever reasons, AB let itself be put in the position to be acquired, and InBev was as prepared as any company to do it. Striking quickly and openly, InBev got its trophy.

So the great marketing challenge of course is how to convince the American public that now being owned by a foreign company is a good thing and Budweiser is still the King of Beers, American, family-oriented, etc. Of course, the stockholders don't care. They just made a pile of cash. But is that worth an iconic American brand?

All eyes for the next 12-18 months will be on Anheuser-Busch InBev's marketing department and agencies as they try to achieve the nearly impossible.

InBev vs. Anheuser-Busch: Which Buffett Are You?

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:54:00 +0000

As with most great debates, the InBev / Anheuser-Busch potential buyout ranks up there with most presidential political discussions, at least here in St. Louis. I just learned that two influential heavy hitters are on opposite sides of the debate. On the side of InBev, throwing his weight behind the merger is icon investor Warren Buffett. On the side of Anheuser-Busch is icon crooner, Jimmy Buffett, which begs the question... which Buffett are you?

Sarah Steelman: gun provider for minors

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:43:00 +0000

Sarah Steelman, who is running for Governor in Missouri, just bought her 13-year-old son a rifle. In fact, she brought the media along for the shopping spree just so she could make a point about her belief in the second amendment. After a brief speech on why hand cannons are a good idea for any American, she let her young boy pick out a stick of death. I wondered about this curious action that some would call a monumental lack of judgement or parenting, so I went online to www.sarahsteelman.com to check out her beliefs. Turns out her website lists only three at this point, gun control not being one of them. So I called her office. I wanted to ask if she had bought her 13-year-old son a cell phone yet. I'm guessing not, which makes it only more ridiculous that any child would own a gun before a phone, but that's just a guess. No one at her office answered. Probably out teaching her son how to kill things. If you want to call her office and ask, the number is 573-635-5385.

The curious part about her beliefs is that she is (obviously) pro gun, but also very much pro-life. This position has always perplexed me as a voter. Is she saying that we shouldn't kill unborn kids, instead waiting until they are older so they can be shot?

In terms on managing a reputation, whether on a campaign trail or not, hawking your 13-year-old son for purposes of publicity ranks right up there with selling your grandmother for prostitution. And in terms of her priorities, check out what's working on her site. There is nothing under News/Events. And apparently she only cares about three issues. But if you want to send her money or be a volunteer, both of those sections are working perfectly. She might think she knows how to manage Missouri, but until she figures out how to manage her reputation, she isn't getting my vote.

Papa John's customer service gets an A+

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:00 +0000

After ordering two pizzas online for my staff last week from Papa John's, I was told that delivery would be within 30-45 min. Ok, not too bad. I ordered at 11:45 and expected delivery sometime around 12:30. Well 12:30 comes and goes, and then 1:15 comes and goes. I made a call around 12:45 and was told it was already on its way. Finally, at 1:25 the pizza shows up.

But that's when the bad news ended. I went online to the PJ's customer feedback section and filled out my complaint form. Thinking this would get me nowhere, since that had been my historical truth with any other company, I explained the situation in detail, more for my venting purposes than expectations of anything on PJ's side. I hit the Submit button and went back to my cold (but still tasty) pizza.

About two hours later, I received an automated email saying my complaint was received and sorry for the inconvenience. I assumed this was the end of the line. I was wrong.

The next day I received a call from Papa John's corporate office saying how sorry they were that I had a bad experience. I was told my complaint was sent to the local store of purchase and that I could expect a call in the next few days. Yesterday I received a call from the store manager saying that she was out of town last week, but just got back and say my complaint. She apologized for my experience and immediately offered two free pizzas for my trouble. I didn't even have to pay twenty-three cents. Free!

So let this be a lesson to other customer facing organizations. Whether you sell pizza or widgets, there are two key lessons here that Papa John's aced. First, have a place for customer feedback. Nothing is more annoying than wanting to complain and not being able to. Second, actually follow up with upset customers. I didn't ask for or expect free pizza, but PJ offered it because they want my business and knew I was upset.

Will I order from Papa John's again? You bet.

"Adverleading" and the NBA Finals

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:26:00 +0000

In watching game 2 of the NBA Finals last night, I recognized another example of the difference between today's advertising and PR. This example isn't limited to the NBA, but most professional sporting events. Many major American professional team sports (NBA, NFL, etc) have professional cheerleaders. One could argue that their purpose would be to lead the crowd in cheering for their team. One could further argue that it's their responsibility to get the crowd pumped up. However, professional sports cheerleading and advertising share similar traits.

First, no one goes to an NBA game to watch the cheerleaders. We're there for the game. The game and the players are the PR. The cheerleaders and stadium announcer are advertising. Sure, the cheerleaders are fun to look at and provide 'entertainment' when there is a break in the action, but they don't really serve their original purpose. Take last night for example. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics goes in hard and slam dunks over Kobe Bryant, drawing a foul. It was a critical point in the game. As he walks toward the free throw line, he waves his hands in the air, signaling to the crowd to get louder. And the crowd responds. Why? Because their player is a) talking directly to them, b) genuinely wants support, and c) is the reason the fans are there in the first place. So why aren't the cheerleaders effective? Because no one pays attention to them. We know they want us to cheer. They are paid to, theoretically, get us to cheer. It's overt sales.

Advertising has the same dilemma today. It used to work. It used to be persuasive. Today it's mostly just eye candy. The world has changed. "Adverleading" has not.

How much does service cost?

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:05:00 +0000

A little while ago I went car shopping with a friend. He was looking at a Honda and a Ford. Long story short, we never made it to the Ford dealership because he bought the Honda. But what struck me about the Honda dealership was their service... or lack of service.

Once we parked and walked into the showroom, no one greeted us, the receptionist at the desk made eye contact but didn't say hello or get up. Several salespeople were in their offices, yet no one came out. We snooped around and sat in the Honda S2000 (my friend's eventual purchase). After determining that he wanted to take a test drive, I walked up to the receptionist desk and asked if any salespeople worked here. She turned to the first office on her left and asked loudly, "Dave, are you busy?"

"Are you busy?" Did she really just ask if someone was too busy to sell a car? The service bar was set and never went north of mediocre from there on out. But the car won the day in my friend's eyes, not the 'service.'

I drive a Lexus. Until the Honda visit, I didn't fully appreciate the service that goes with that purchase. I'm always greeted promptly, offered a beverage or if I'm waiting, an office in which to make calls or plug in my laptop. There are complimentary soft drinks, coffee, tea and bagels. When I'm speaking with anyone from the service tech to the salesperson, I'm always treated promptly and with respect.

I know that Honda isn't Lexus. But does it cost that much more to have your salespeople show interest, to make the customer feel, oh I don't know, appreciated? Honda failed that test miserably. And that's partly why brands like Honda, Ford, or Nissan will be stuck in lower priced markets. It would cost next to nothing to improve customer service and would allow them to charge a premium.

InBev puts Anheuser-Busch reputation to task

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:55:00 +0000

Being located in St. Louis, I hear more than the normal amount of chatter regarding the InBev merger with Anheuser-Busch. Some would call it a takeover, but that's just semantics. In my opinion, this deal puts AB's marketing reputation to the test. Should it go through, will Budweiser still be the great American beer? Or will it be the once great American beer that now takes orders from Europe? This also brings up a few questions, most noticeably, does the average beer drinker really care? In the short term my vote is no. The taste of the beer will remain unchanged. The additional distribution channels will make it more available. That's all good. Where AB beer drinkers will start to see change is in the price, and the marketing. Remember how much flak Miller got when it was bought by SAB? AB can no longer play the American marketing game. It won't be credible, and it might even turn some people off.

August Busch IV has openly said he isn't real keen on the idea of a deal with InBev. But the financials make a lot of sense so far and AB shareholders would make a good lump of cash. But the brand would be forever changed. Thus the balancing act that AB must perform: maintain the heritage of the brand, or live by the numbers. As a Cardinals fan, I don't think I could get used to the team playing in InBev Stadium...

(note to all in the know... I'm aware AB no longer owns Busch Stadium. Cut me some creative license slack)

I work in the Kleenex industry

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:01:00 +0000

I was reminded today of how it feels to be Kleenex. You know, the brand name that everyone uses to describe facial tissue. There are other brands in this category of course. Google is quickly becoming one. When telling someone to perform a web search, how many times do we say "just Google it?"

When reading a story about Papa John's selling 23 cent pizzas in Cleveland, I scanned down through the comments. Most of them were benign, saying how great or horrible the pizza was. But a good 25% of them pointed out what great 'free advertising' or 'advertising gimmick' this was for Papa John's. Many cited how the lost revenue from the pizzas would be made up by the free advertising.

Someone show me the advertising that Papa John's is getting from this.

I see a crap-load of publicity, but not a single ad. And that's when I started to feel like my industry was like the branded snot rags. People make use of what we do every day. They count on us, depend on us, expect us to be there. And then they call what we do, 'advertising.' (sigh)

Oh well, back to Googling...

What to do when objectives don't gel with preference

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:09:00 +0000

Have you ever wanted a pair of shoes that looked really great, but when you tried them on they hurt like crazy? You then have to make the form vs. function decision. Look great in pain or be comfortable in lesser appealing shoes. Sometimes the same happens in the PR business.

We worked with a cell phone company that was headed by an older guy who loved seeing stories about the company in the newspaper. Loved it. Thought it was the most important coverage. And we scored some really outstanding local and national print coverage for him during our relationship with the organization. But we also got a lot of great local and national broadcast and online placements. In fact, probably three times more than print. And we got ultimately got fired because of it.

The problem was the company, under the direction of its fierce tempered CEO, was entirely focused on newspaper coverage, because that's what the CEO read. Pay no attention to the fact that the very people buying the phones and service plans could barely read, much less sat down to read the paper. The company's consumers listened to the radio, watched TV and went online. In a traditional demographic study, 10% of the target audience group read a paper on a 'semi-regular' basis. Yet that's where we were instructed to target our efforts, with the objective of increasing sales.

When brought up, countless times, that this was not in the best interest of the company objectives, we were told to just bring in the print because that's what was important, statistics be damned. And because we constantly fought for a little thing I like to call 'reality' we ended up losing the business and the relationship.

When it comes to marketing 'shoes' you can only last in the painful eye-catchers for so long. And you'll know when that time comes. It's when you have to walk the talk. The rest is just show and tell.

thanks to Jon Sloane for the idea

The tide might finally be turning with B2B social media

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:58:00 +0000

I had the opportunity today to speak to members of the IABC St. Louis chapter (International Assoc of Business Communicators). The topic was how to use social media to advance business goals. I'm always amazed at the number of people in our business who don't know about, follow, or participate in social media and use the many tools available. But today was different. It seemed that most of the attendees were past the "what's a blog" stage and wanted to know how to take these tools and use them.

I had some great side conversations about what companies are doing, struggles they are coming up against, and ideas about how to use social media as an alternative. The one overwhelming feeling in the room was that businesses shouldn't get into social media just for the sake of it. It seems the tide as finally turned from every company jumping in without a strategy or understanding to pulling back and saying, "what's the real business reason we're doing this?" And that's a good thing.

The Marketer's Gardener

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:22:00 +0000

Listening to the radio today, I heard a woman talk about gardening and the joy it brought her. She described the feeling of her fingers digging into the soil, the smell of the crisp air, the sense of peace she received, and how she felt closer to God and to life. Now I must confess, I don't feel this way about gardening. I find it annoying, difficult, frustrating, and incredibly boring. I'd rather smash a hammer into my skull than do planting, pull weeds, pluck vegetables, flowers or anything else that resides in dirt.

However, the feeling she gets from gardening, I get from other activities, like golf. I enjoy the sense of nature, the sounds of birds chirping in the early morning or late afternoon, the time to get lost in thought, and all the other aspects of the game that make it one of my most favorite activities. And I understand that to some people, they would rather hammer their skull than play a silly game like golf.

And thus I'd like to introduce a rule of marketing that is often overlooked, ignored, or simply not believed. You can't please the marketer's gardener. I've tried gardening. I honestly tried to enjoy it. But it sucks. You couldn't pay me to do it.

All the best marketing in the world isn't going to get me to like gardening. If I'm the traditional marketer, and I get feedback that Client X doesn't like gardening, I might try to change my message, or my delivery method, or some other waste of time and money that will end up with the same result. I don't like gardening.

And yet marketers try so hard, in fact many consider it a challenge, to try and convert a non-believer. New ads are created, more focus groups formed, new research, blah blah blah. Anything will be attempted to make me a believer. But you know what? Gardening sucks.

There are a lot of customers out there. Many semi-non-believers that will benefit from creative marketing with a new angle of attack. Some will convert. But save your time and money on the marketer's gardener. All you'll get is worms.

Kobe Bryant makes image blunder - le'ts focus on the real problem

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:31:00 +0000

We already knew that Kobe Bryant's judgment wasn't the greatest after his Colorado-mistress reputation and relationship disaster. In the face of that situation, and the need to rebuild his brand as a reputable and trustworthy sports figure, you'd think he would go out of his way to not put himself in a position to look foolish. However, numerous jokes and one-liners about the kind of players that populate today's NBA aside, Kobe has done it again with this video released on YouTube.

In it we see Kobe hawking his latest sneaker (doesn't EVERYONE have their own shoe these days??). He straps on his boot and mutters "don't try this at home" under his breath. He then walks a few steps away, signals to someone and leaps over an Aston Martin as it tries to run him over. After much celebrating and chest bumping with his boy, he looks in the camera, says "that's how we do it" and then again, "don't try this at home," as he walks off camera.

Amazingly, the online debate right now is whether or not the video is real and whether or not he actually pulled off the stunt. To me, the discussion should focus around a professional athlete seemingly putting himself in the face of death and giving a lot of good kids a really bad idea about recreating the stunt. How long will it be until we read about some young boy killed after getting run down by a car attempting to do the same stunt? It's just stupid on the part of Kobe to use his reputation for this. Sure it's impressive. Sure it's a cool trick. But he's a finely tuned professional athlete that jumps for a living. The high school kid that has half Kobe's vertical leap and probably twice his brains is gonna get flattened.

Bad move, Kobe. By showcasing your ups, you highlight your judgment, or lack thereof.

Branding: Shifting gears

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:13:00 +0000

Marketing is sometimes a reflection of life in general. You try to build relationships with people, get them to trust you, show them you're worthy of their time and attention, and then if successful, try to maintain that brand loyalty. But sometimes you lose their trust and you market to them in ways that they don't like. It is during these times that your brand equity is put to the test. If you were good to them before, if you did your best to provide a good product, perhaps they will continue to listen to your message and not write you off completely.

Too many times marketers will try to oversell in the wake of a big snafu. Sometimes it's best to just ride it out and let the customer remember the good 'ol days. Things weren't always bad. All brands change in the face of profits, generations, or culture. Sometimes you lose certain demographics in that change. Sometimes they follow the brand.

Many brands have thrived when they take a new marketing direction. Some fall flat on their face because they failed to plan or were naive to the market. Before taking a brand in a new direction, make sure you know what you're getting into. Loyal customers are loyal to the brand they know, and you'll need to make them loyal again to the reinvented one.

Brand equity - a business insurance policy

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:33:00 +0000

Potential clients and people outside the industry ask me all the time, is there really anything to what I say about the value of brand equity or is it just marketing speak? Consider this recent news that involves Tiger Woods, arguably the hottest brand on the planet.

Tiger is part of a national promotion from Buick that has the prize of a 9-hole round of golf at Torrey Pines with Woods as your caddie. That's right, the greatest golfer the world has ever seen, the man who commands more than $100 million a year in endorsement deals, one of the only people on the planet who is recognized by nearly everyone in any nation, will huff your bag around for 9 holes. Some would ask, why in the world would he lower himself to this position of servitude? Why would he devalue his brand by going from star athlete to Sherpa Woods?

Because the equity in his brand turns this potential negative into a positive that adds more equity to the brand. Now consider a lower equity player pulling the same stunt. Let's pick on Jay Williamson, an exceptionally nice man, fellow St. Louisan, and nearly moderately average professional golfer. If you're saying, who's Jay Williamson, you're not alone, but check out pgatour.com. He's a real guy.

So let's say Jay pulls this stunt and Buick makes the same promotion, offering to have Williamson on your bag. First of all, the promotion would read, "PGA TOUR veteran Jay Williamson" or "PGA Tour professional Jay Williamson" will carry your bag... etc etc. There would be that disclaimer of having to tell people a) who is he, and b) why they should care. In Woods' case, everyone already knows that a) he's a PGA Tour player, and b) they would give their left arm to meet him.

Additionally, reactions to Williamson on the promotion would likely be greeted with thoughts of, "Gee, he must be hard off to lower himself to this stunt," or "someone is desperate for publicity." Not so in Woods' case. His brand is so money that he could offer to mow your yard and people would pay thousands to see it.

So does brand equity work as well for law firms, or manufacturing companies, or retail stores as well as it does for Tiger Woods? You bet it does. Work on building your brand equity today to save, and make, time and money tomorrow.

The difference between what companies say and what they want

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:42:00 +0000

This probably falls under the 'repeating the obvious' category, but I feel it's worth bringing up. We have recently been involved with several new business pitches, from very large opportunities to fairly modest. In almost every instance, what we are told the client-to-be is looking for is in fact not at all what they really want. This can cause many problems, most obviously hiring a firm that will do what they were told, but not what is needed. It also wastes an incredible amount of time on both the agency and client side. When the client is putting together an RFP, it's usually written in marketing-speak. That is, the client wants this or that from a marketing perspective. They want to see examples of good creative, they want an understanding of our understanding of strategy, they want to see past media results, etc etc.

What I see very few, if any, clients doing is really checking references. Sure, they all ask for three references, but I've yet to run across more than one company that has actually called any of our references. Not that past performance is a huge indicator of future results, but working relationships and the personal nature of our business would suggest a need for a few questions to people that worked with us previously.

Additionally, very few clients focus on business results. Sure, they want to see them, but it isn't usually a part of the discovery process. They are more excited about what kind of success we've had with which media outlet. What they should be concerned about is whether or not we made an impact on our clients' business. The rest is just dressing. Either we helped a company grow or we didn't. Sometimes helping a company grow can mean keeping it from shrinking, but that's another topic altogether.

So this is a call to all potential clients out there asking you to please look at what's really important instead of what's easy to glitz on a PowerPoint presentation. Everyone has fancy show and tell. Not every firm has measurable results. If you're just getting stacks of clips or anecdotal responses to program effectiveness, you're wasting a lot of time and money.

Breaking news that really isn't

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:32:00 +0000

It isn't often that I pick on Edelman. I mean, its a huge company that wins a lot of business and generally does good work. But as with many large businesses, such pressures can lead to questionable decisions and morally wrong actions. Edelman has suffered its fair share of each.

Edelman just released some news informing the world that it has merged three of its digital lines of business into one new unit, Edelman Digital. That's not real exciting news. What's interesting is this new LOB's revolutionary new mission to provide 'authentic communication.' Lets pause for thought....

So Edelman, the world's largest independent PR firm, has just realized the key to the game is actual honest to God authentic communication and not just a bunch of bullshit spin. Let's pause for thought...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm happy to see one of my competitors finally understands what we've been preaching for more than five decades. No doubt Edelman will have enormous clout and resources with the new digital division and be able to wow and impress clients with its digital wizardry. But what a cool thing to actually use it for authentic communication! Why didn't we think of that? Oh wait... we did.

Social media hides hidden talent

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:18:00 +0000

I had the privilege to speak at an American Marketing Association student conference last week on the topic of social media and its impact on business. Seeing as I would be presenting to 135 current college students, I anticipated some interesting questions about various social media applications and tools, perhaps several that I wasn't familiar with. To my surprise, the majority of students were not only not currently taking advantage of social media, but were largely unaware of it. As an example, I asked for a show of hands of who had never heard of Second Life. At least 90% of the hands went up. How many had their own blog? About two. How many read blogs actively? About two. How many watch videos on YouTube? Nearly everyone. How many post videos on YouTube? About four. How many utilize RSS feeds? Hardly anyone.

And then the kicker... how many actively use Facebook/MySpace? Everyone. Initially I was shocked and thought that these are the very people who are best equipped to use and understand this technology. I mean, our business uses nearly all of it and we're hardly cutting edge. I told them before I left that I felt they were, as an age group, at a disadvantage. Because of their age, when they enter the workforce there is a certain level of expectation that they understand this stuff or are familiar with it. Most older people think it's nothing but stuff for the 18-30 crowd.

After some more thought, it occurred to me that perhaps these students don't know what they know well. As an example, hardly any hands went up for active users of blogs, podcasts, and RSS. But when you consider that Facebook is largely a grouping of all of these functions, these students are very adept users at technology they don't know the name for. In Facebook, you have a blog option, or even can use the Wall function, get updates on all your friends automatically anytime they change their profile, status, add pics, etc, and can easily post and share photos and video. This is in itself using blog, podcast and RSS technology, just under a brand-friendly name.

Maybe it would help these kids to understand they know more than they give themselves credit for.

The new dumbest thing I've heard

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:25:00 +0000

A bill was introduced in Mississippi that would make it illegal for restaurants to serve people who are deemed obese. This has got to be the most ridiculous idea ever. First of all, I'm not sure how it can be constitutional to keep paying customers from being served because of their weight. If we're going to keep fat people from eating, why don't we keep smokers from smoking, or alcoholics from drinking?

Maybe we should pass a law that says ugly people can't attend parties, dumb people can't repopulate the world, and old people can't drive. Well, that last one might not be such a bad idea...

This is just too dumb to keep talking about. The author of the bill, Rep. W.T. Mayhall Jr., clearly doesn't have enough to do down there in the South if this is the kind of project he's working on.

Time for me to go get my Big Mac.

Using the tools at hand

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:35:00 +0000

Guest post by Stephanie Flynn, director at Cushman/Amberg

How do you reach an audience today? Is it through YouTube? Facebook? MySpace? Or simply your website?

With the continued public interest in YouTube and online mediums (ex: the CNN YouTube debates), I am curious…How do you reach an audience?

From a playground manufacturer and a nozzle distributor, to a cooking school and a ritzy hotel, our company has not only utilized blogging, MySpace, and Facebook, but we have also worked in YouTube, putting the site to work, and our clients are having a blast with it!

Yesterday, we had a “new media” opportunity with a local television station, KSDK-TV (NBC 5). They arranged a live-chat session online with local financial experts to discuss the threat of a recession and what that means locally. One of our clients, a bank, was able to be a part of this chat, additionally conducting a taped interview of which the video clips were posted on the website and used on the 10 p.m. news. Talk about great cross promotion!

As our industry moves forward online, we as public relations consultants have a duty to learn how to use these tools and implement them strategically in our communications planning. Not only do we have a duty, we have an opportunity to formulate various ways to use tools in the industry for future PR consultants.

As an agency, we have been utilizing these tools when it makes the most sense, and see the future only getting more 'online happy.'

Will you use the online world for your practice?

Possibly the worst TV ad ever

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Amberg) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:24:00 +0000

I've seen it so many times now that I have to say something. It's possibly the worst, but definitely the most annoying, TV ad I've seen in a long, long time. It's for Yellow Book. It starts out with three idiots sitting in a room saying, "How are are we going to improve sales this quarter?" One of them suggests asking the 'Ad Guru' who happens to be washed out actor David Carradine, apparently still trying to grasp the last shred of Kung Fu-ness that he can. It derails into dialogue that goes like this:

David C. - The first path, Yellow Book.
Hack Actor 1 - Of course, Yellow Book! What about the internet?
David C. - The second path. Yellow Book .com.
Hack Actor 1 - What about those search engines?
David C. - The third path. Trust Yellow Book to put your ads on powerful search engines across the internet.

It then shows the three idiots dancing to a graph showing sales are off the charts over the next quarter.

So many things are wrong with this ad. First of all, "trust yellow book" is about the worst expression I would use in an ad. It's already begging for credibility and now you're asking me to trust that something will get done. Nuh-uh.

Finally, 'powerful search engines across the internet?' Are we all stupid or something? Can't they come up with something better than that?