Whatever Suits...

You can have my Blackberry but not my book

If I were stranded on a desert island for a year, I could do without a lot of things.  Sure, I’d miss ice cream, movies, my weekly tennis game and my Blackberry – a lot – but I’d get by.  But if, on the other hand, someone said I couldn’t read a single book for the whole year, I’d start making my own sailboat.

Which is why I was bummed to read that according to a new AP-Ipsos poll, one in every four Americans did not finish a single  book from cover to cover last year.  I could certainly understand if the reason so many people aren’t reading is because they’re working 12-hour days, taking care of families and falling into bed at night, only to start all over again the next day.  I’d still argue that one of the best ways to relax and escape is with a good book, but I’d get it.

Unfortunately, the reasons are less noble and more predictable.  Increasingly according to another, similar study, we’d rather spend our time watching TV, playing video games or online.   It’s probably the same quest for instant gratification that makes us prefer fast food to a well-cooked meal that takes time to prepare.  Like fast food, these other forms of entertainment good in the moment but ultimately less satisfying and probably not so good for you in the long run.

During the most stressful times in my life, books have helped me lose track of time, place and worries.   And as they did, I also learned a lot of history, philosophy and culture.  They also helped me to learn how to think and how to write.  But mostly, they just entertained me.

I don’t know how to encourage people to read more books, but I can sure recommend a few good ones, beginning with the business books to the right here.  If you want some suggestions for lighter reading, try "Everyman" by Phillip Roth, "1776" by David McCullough, and "Time and again" by Jack Finny (great, great book about time travel and the NYC of 1888).

Relationships

I was reminded this week about how important face-to-face contact is in this business.  With everything moving at what seems like warp speed, it's easy to shoot someone an email or fire off a text instead of picking up the phone or scheduling a meeting.  But sometimes, that just doesn't cut it.  Electronic conversation can so easily be misconstrued when there is no context in terms of tone, tenor or body language.

Years ago, there was an airline ad that featured the staff at some generic company complaining about lagging sales during an internal meeting.  Ideas were tossed about on how to improve the numbers.  "Issue a newsletter."  "Send direct mail."  "Put more money into ads."  Those of you who remember the commercial probably remember the solution.  The CEO began handing out plane tickets.  "Suzy, you're going to visit our client in Austin.  Bill, you're going to Cleveland" and so on until everyone had a ticket and an assignment.   

So what was it about this week that made me think about this topic?  I bonded with a colleague whose expertise and vision I greatly admire.  I worked through an important internal staffing issue with my partner.  And I rolled up my sleeves to assist a client going through a reorganization.  All face-to-face and all with astonishing results. Perhaps it's time for us to step away from the Blackberrys/Treos/BlackJacks and focus our attention on building true relationships with those who matter most to our success in this field.   

Now Who Needs a Bandaid (R)?

Who would have guessed that Johnson & Johnson -- long revered in PR circles for its handling of the Tylenol product tampering crisis -- would have the nerve to go after the American Red Cross for the use of, of all things, the red cross symbol?  What a PR blunder!  Or is it?  Despite how it looks I question whether this really is, as many would like to believe, an example of a big old Goliath going after a much smaller David.

In an AP story appearing last week, it would seem the American Red Cross would have you think so.  Mark Everson, the organization's president, used some pretty inflammatory language in describing the suit brought by J&J as "obscene" and accusing the company of acting like a bully. Ouch! 

Of course, the folks at Johnson & Johnson point out that they have tried to mediate the conflict with the American Red Cross for months now to no avail.  They also note that they have had the right to use the red cross "trademark on commercial products within (its) longstanding product categories for over 100 years."  Which is true.  J&J began using the trademark in 1887.  The American Red Cross didn't formally receive its charter until three years later.  Finally, and this is an important point, Johnson & Johnson isn't asking that the Red Cross completely give up using the trademark.  In a statement, the company noted that, "After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross (sic) trademark ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes."  Seems fair.  Seems reasonable.  Okay, score a few points for the corporation.

So who is the winner here?  Truth is neither organization looks great but if I had to pick a side, I probably would go with Johnson & Johnson.  J&J certainly has a right to use its 120-year-old trademark and heck, they tried to keep the issue out of the courts.   I suppose we'll all have to wait and see how this one plays out.

Not walking the walk

I'm always fascinated to attend industry seminars and see my peers grappling with business development and branding issues. They know exactly how to counsel clients on the best and brightest ways to break out from the pack. Yet, when it comes to agency marketing, most firms simply don't walk the walk.

A new survey* undertaken by marketing consultant Robb High substantiates this alarming trend: namely, 76 percent of 132 marketing communications firms surveyed have no regular outbound communications directed to marketing decision-makers. And, more than two-thirds of the 118 client decision-makers surveyed couldn't name more than five agency brands. And, that spells trouble with a capital 'T'.

So, while a select few agencies focus on fine-tuning their positioning, creative campaigns and strategic partnerships, the average one isn't even attempting to communicate in the first place. When I ask agency owners and senior executives why they don't consistently and clearly communicate their 'value-adds,' they typically say they're focused on billable client work. Or, they'll say they've tried it once or twice but, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, ended up assigning the most junior person who invariably fails.

Over the past 12 years, we've always treated our firm as a critically important client. We've allocated the necessary time and manpower and assigned our very best people to promoting Peppercom. And, it's paid off. Big time.

While I'd like to think that most agencies will wake up and pay attention to High's stats, the likelihood is that the majority will remain in denial and just keep their noses to the grindstone. And, that would be a fine strategy if client-agency loyalty really did still exist.

*From Robb High rhigh@robbhighconsult.com Tuesday August 7th 2007
Results of a survey among 132 Markeing/Communications  firms and 118 client marketing decision-makers:
76% of MarCom firms have no regular outbound communications directed to client marketing decision-makers (regular = more than 3/year).
68% of client decision-makers cannot name more than 5 agency brands (aside from their current agency or agencies.) 59% of those who know 5+ brands rate their depth of familiarity as "agency brand name only."  68% of MarCom firms with outbound communications send to a list of fewer than 100 companies, even though only one in 16 clients conducts a review in any given year. 79% of MarCom firms with an outbound communications program use only land mail. 97% of decision-makers select email as their "preferred" form of business communication.

Barry Bonds Ties Hank Aaron's Record -- Big Whoop

So Barry Bonds tied Hank Aaron's long-standing home-run record over the weekend.  Big deal. Whereas Aaron was someone to truly be admired, Bonds isn't so much.  His reputation is awful.  He despises the media, rues the fans and is, well, a jerk.  Of course, baseball has never been the sport of Boy Scouts but it still has a rich history involving many amazing men (and women, for that matter).  What does it say about our culture when we idolize those who win at all costs and treat others badly on the way to the top?  Nothing good I must admit.  In what I can only presume is an effort to reach out to the masses and somewhat counter his negative rep, Bonds has decided (finally) to donate a few items to the Baseball Hall of Fame when he eclipses Aaron's record.  Is it enough?  Hardly but perhaps with his small gesture, Bonds will indeed come out smelling like a Rose ... then again, that's another story.

Where does security end and image & reputation begin?

I detest business travel. There simply is no upside to it. In addition to the hassles, delays and indifferent service, there's also the reality of substantially increased security.

With the latter, there's a very fine line that exists between safety and sheer stupidity. Two recent cases in point illustrate the conundrum:

The first was recounted in a recent Joe Sharkey/New York Times column. It detailed a horrific story concerning a young mom and child traveling on a Continental Express flight. According to Sharkey, the traveler's baby kept gurgling, 'Bye-bye plane' over and over as it taxied to the runway. This admonition upset the flight attendant so much that she insisted the mother '.....shut the kid up' and feed it '.....Benadryl to knock it out.' The mother refused, so the flight attendant told the captain she'd been threatened by the mom. Bye-bye mom. She and the kid were tossed off the plane.

Now, fast forward to a recent Cody family event. My younger brother, John, was traveling with his wife and three young children (one of whom is still in diapers). As they walked through security, the entire group was pulled aside and patted down. And, get this, the TSA agent insisted the baby's diaper be removed for inspection!

There's smart security and then there's sheer stupidity. In my book, the Continental flight attendant and the TSA agent both qualify for my sheer stupidity award of the week.

One would hope someone who understands image and reputation at Continental and TSA would pay closer attention to these increasingly absurd actions and plan an intervention. Otherwise, one day soon, we'll be seeing ultimate fighting matches in airports and planes and not on pay-per-view.

There's nothing 'natural' about this line extension

As I padded along on the Boom Gym treadmill yesterday, I happened to spy an American Museum of Natural History bus shelter poster that read: 'Mythical creatures: come see dragons, unicorns and other mysteries. Now through January 6th.'

So, I thought: why would a museum of 'natural' history host an exhibit of ersatz fantasy creatures from the pages of fiction? Why would the home of T-Rex, the blue whale and other natural history wonders suddenly play up the 'dark side'? And then it came to me: Sales, baby, sales.

It's more than a little sad to see a great museum stoop to 'Barnumesque' attractions to make a few, extra dollars. And, in this case, I think the potential long-term image and reputation fallout will outweigh any short-term increase in Benjamins.

The museum has always been a staple on every tri-state grade school's class trip experience. But, I wonder how many serious teachers will truck their kids all the way into the Big Apple just to have the kids see an exhibit that has less to do with learning and more to do with Lord of the Rings?

You can't control the waves...

...but you can learn how to surf.

This quote, often attributed to Kahil Gibran, is one of our favorites.  Particularly in the agency business, we can't "control" when clients get bought or sold... key contacts leave... budgets get arbitrarily changed... or the phone rings and we get a new client, the easy way.

The key is to maintain a constant focus on excellence for your clients, your agency, and for each member of your team.  In the last week, we've had it all.  Again.

This too will pass.  The ups.  The downs.  And everything in-between.

So, stay the course, and wax those surfboards.  It's our chosen profession.  And we love it.

Pay for Play?

About a week ago, we were pitching a story to the media.  It was a great one about a beautiful piece of property outside of Bend, Ore.  Halfway into the pitch process, the AE comes into my office and tells me that one of the publications she's contacted told her they would run the story if she would buy an ad. I told her sometimes that happens with smaller publications but that we would not, under any circumstances, buy an ad in order to get editorial coverage.  So the next time it occurred, she knew to politely decline the offer.  The thing is just yesterday I came across this interesting story about a very old company -- not one that truly caters to public relations, marketing or advertising -- that was making its first foray into paid placement.  The article, which appeared in one of our industry publications, then went on to relate the gist of the campaign and why the company thought now the best time to buy space.  Imagine my surprise when I saw, a few pages later, a full-page ad for the very same company.  Hmmmm.  Did they buy the ad because they knew the editorial coverage was coming or did they buy the ad so the editorial coverage would come?  I'd like to think it was the former but it really makes you wonder ...