by Ryan Faist
Big Idea Company, LLC
I heard a story this morning on NPR that made me stop what I was doing and write this post. It was yet another commentary about the future of the publishing industry, something that I pay close attention to because I’m a writer. But even if you don’t earn your living with words, this affects you. It may even change the way you read books, magazines and newspapers forever.
By Lou Pierce
President, Big Idea Company, LLC
Olympic Ads or Ad Olympics?
To the chagrin of media analysts and viewers alike, NBC is attempting to reduce the financial loss it is taking on the 2010 Vancouver Olympics by inserting as many as 20 minutes of commercials into a single hour of broadcasting. The New York Times reports that this is not the case for every hour of NBC’s coverage, but it’s happening enough that people are finding it to be very annoying.
On Friday night, for example, the network ran 20 minutes worth of ads during the 9pm hour – 20 minutes!
How a dozen charming people, including one local mayor, made a memorable media statement for a very good cause
By Lou Pierce,
President, Big Idea Company, LLC
Recently, the manager of the South Bend Silver Hawks minor league baseball team approached the South Bend Chocolate Company about inventing a new kind of candy. Her idea was to tie the candy into an annual event that benefits Logan Center, the 60 year-old regional organization devoted to people with disabilities. But, what would the candy be?
From the series What Not To Do
by Lou Pierce
So, there he is: Mr. CEO — the big desk, the secretary, everyone answering to him; sure, it’s a lot of responsibility, a lot of work, but sometimes it can go to person’s head. I’m the President of a company myself, and I know – just ask my colleagues at Big Idea Company. But, when you’re working with the press, you simply cannot afford to let what I call the “Big Desk Syndrome” foul things up.
by Jill Klinedinst
Like most businesses, you’re probably wondering how you can get the most from your employees. Maybe you want to increase productivity, decrease absenteeism or simply make the work environment a little more comfortable. There’s an easy way to do all of these things – a simple four letter word: DOGS.
A Lesson from Tiger Woods from the series What Not To Do
by Lou Pierce
I couldn’t help but cringe. There it was. On the very weekend that Accenture announced it was parting ways with Tiger Woods, was this print ad in the Harvard Business Review.
The ad shows Tiger hovering over his golf ball which is precariously perched on the edge of a rocky cliff. The message is clear: We all get into trouble from time-to-time. But, “it’s what you do next that counts.”
Ironic? You bet. Here’s this phenomenal athlete who has an uncanny knack for getting out of trouble on the golf course, but is seemingly helpless to do so in the trickier world of public relations. But, is Tiger really helpless? Or, is the situation just hopeless?
I’m not chiming in here to beat a dead horse. It’s obvious that Tiger Woods’ ongoing saga is bad for golf and bad for him. But, if there’s anything good to come of this, it’s a lesson in public relations.
Tiger Woods is arguably the best professional golfer in history. But, like all of us, he is human and therefore prone to embarrassment when things go wrong. There’s no doubt that he will eventually return to the golf course and earn more championships and titles before retiring. But, in the meantime he’s done everything he can to make the mess he’s currently in, as messy as possible.
Forget the small cadre of idiots who say that Tiger as a brand will be back someday, bigger and better than before. Those people are either in denial or maneuvering for a job on Tiger’s new brand-building team. Yes, he will resume his rightful place as the world’s greatest golfer – there’s utterly no doubt about that. But, the Tiger brand? Well, that will never be the same.
Why does this matter to me and to you? Well, it matters if you are in the public relations business. And you’re in the public relations business if you represent a large organization, a small business or an individual performer or political candidate. It matters because there are important lessons to be learned from this saga and the way it has evolved.
Here’s the first lesson: As a carefully-crafted public brand, Tiger Woods never had the option of keeping the sordid details of this public incident to himself. His deal with the public, is to be public. And He’s profited greatly from this arrangement. But now that people are curious about what’s happened and demand to know more, he has withdrawn without comment. This, in turn, has forced the media to fill the void with sometimes questionable information from other sources. It’s tawdry, and getting more tawdry.
Can Tiger Woods erase all of his public relations problems simply by making a statement, a fairly detailed statement that includes contrition and remorse? No. He can’t. Not in this case. Evidence that his public image is contrived and wholly at odds with who he really is has become overwhelming.
But he can minimize the damage. He should choose his place and time, admit to his failings just once and in fair detail, and then enter into a clinic or program of some kind to demonstrate his commitment to changing – though I don’t know if there is such a thing for philandering. If he doesn’t do something like this soon, things will continue to spiral out of control.
Here is the second lesson: The Tiger Woods brand was built upon a contrived set of characteristics that were completely inconsistent with who he really is. We all know that now. So, what can his handlers do? Can they ask for forgiveness? Yes. But, the shear scope of his inconsistent behavior is breathtaking. Is every woman who has “confessed” a relationship with Tiger Woods being honest? We’ll never know. And, until Tiger talks, we’ll never be in a position to form an objective opinion. Confirm it all. Deny it all. But talk, Tiger. Talk.
Finally, here is the third and most important lesson of all. It’s not about Tiger. It’s about our profession as public relations executives: like any profession, great public relations people have choices to make. In the legal field, for example, there are plenty of attorneys who, for ethical reasons, will not defend someone whom they know to be guilty. This is not to say that they would deny anyone a fair trial. It’s just to say that they would not feel good about themselves if they defended someone whom they know to be guilty. In our field, we too have choices to make. When we find ourselves lying, rather than ‘spinning;’ when we support and enable ongoing and egregious behavior because we make good money by doing it, something is wrong.
Tiger Woods will be back. The new Tiger Woods will be awesome – the world’s greatest golfer. He will bring with him television ratings, fans and lots of momentous new achievements. But, it will be a new Tiger Woods. The endorsements will be limited to his field of expertise. They will not include financial institutions or other types of businesses that require consumer confidence and transparency. He will live rich and live well – as he deserves. His handlers will even develop and exploit a new image of Tiger – one that is consistent with reality. And, that will be both ethical and fine. After all, ‘it’s what you do next that counts.’
By Jill Klinedinst
If you’re lucky enough to work with a professional media buyer – someone who subscribes to, pays for and actually understands the ratings and demographic data in your market – then you don’t need the following advice. But, if you’re not fortunate enough to work with an agency that offers this service, BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL! It’s easy to get burned. The following advice will help you avoid those too-good-to-be-true media packages that I call “fire sales.”
Too many times I’ve seen clients get sucked into bad media purchases because they were fire sales. You know the salesperson drill: “We only have three more media packages left, and today is the last day! With this amazing deal, you’ll get all these spots at this great low price! Should I sign you up?”
Not so fast. Usually these types of sales are urgent appeals, generally meant to sell inventory that is unsellable. Sure, you’ll get three prime time spots, but you’ll also get twenty-three that run throughout the night… or worse yet, what’s called a Run of Schedule (ROS) spot (which they might as well call a WTH spot, because it means the station can run them Whenever the Heck they want). But what portion of your target audience is watching a ‘Rockin’ to the Oldies’ infomercial at 2am? That’s when the majority of your spots will air with a ROS agreement. The only legitimate reason to pay for a spot that will air overnight is if you’re selling mattresses to people who wish they were sleeping. If you’re not appealing to insomniacs, stay away from ROS media plans. They’re worth nothing to you.
When it comes to purchasing media time, don’t be fooled by the numbers. Remember, most of these fire sale packages are designed to sell you the air time that nobody else wants. Sure, 250 guaranteed spots during the second quarter of the year sounds great, but if only a percentage of your audience will see them, what good are they to you?
So how do you get the most bang for your buck with your media budget? Just put your money where your audience is. The best thing you can do to determine the value of a media package is to assess what shows are WORTH paying for, and then compare that total with the price of the package. Here’s what I mean: let’s say a media package offers a ‘reduced rate’ for primetime or access (the hour before primetime shows). To assess its true value to you, add up the individual costs of air time for each show that provides good ratings in your target demo. Do NOT add the costs of the shows in the prepared media package that are of no value to you. For example, if you don’t want to air during daytime court shows, don’t add the cost of those spots. Then compare that total with the actual price of the fire sale. Chances are, you’ll find that your money is better spent creating your own plan.
These last minute sales are called ‘fire sales’ for a reason. You guessed it – you might as well burn your money. So use caution the next time one crosses your desk. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Jill Klinedinst is a professional media planner at Big Idea Company, where all media ratings and demographic data in the northern Indiana/southwest Michigan region are used on a daily basis to build effective media plans for large and small clients throughout the region.
by Ryan Faist
I started a war in my last post, but this time I come in peace. Yes, I am taking a break from the battlefield to examine a little rivalry in the marketing world. Actually, it’s one of the longest running marketing feuds in U.S. history, affecting more than 200 million Americans every day.
As G.I. Joe taught me in the eighties, knowing is half the battle. So, before I jumped into the battle ring with two heavyweight companies that together generate more than $60 billion in annual revenue, I decided to conduct a little investigation of my own. I presented five people each with two unmarked cups filled with a different but similar beverage. Then, after recording which one they thought tasted better, I asked, “Do you consider yourself a Coke person or a Pepsi person?”
Coke and Pepsi have been battling each other for market dominance longer than any other two companies in the country. Pepsi tries to position Coke as boring and unhip; and Coke tries to position themselves as the original, authentic cola that can’t be replaced. They’ve been battling this way for decades now, with Coke enjoying a slightly larger share of the cola-drinking population.
But I don’t care who sells more or which one tastes better. What I want to know is: why are people are so loyal to their cola? In the cola world there are Coke people and there are Pepsi people. Everyone knows this. But it’s not like that with potato chips, candy, hot dogs, etc. What is it about this carbonated beverage that divides an entire nation of people?
Logic would submit that people choose Coke or Pepsi based on which one they think tastes better. I wish it was so. You may recall that Pepsi conducted a taste test much like my own back in the seventies. They called it the Pepsi Challenge. Surprisingly, most people who said they liked Coke actually preferred the taste of Pepsi. So Pepsi posted their results in a series of popular commercials that increased sales for a few years. But then, for unexplained reasons, things went back to normal and Coke jumped ahead again. Much to their dismay, the Pepsi Challenge suggested that even people who preferred the taste of Pepsi eventually resumed their loyalty to Coke… it was as though they couldn’t help it.
The fatal flaw in the Pepsi Challenge was that it never tested the “loyalty” of its subjects. It is my hypothesis that loyalty has nothing to do with taste. And after reviewing the results of my own study, this is what I learned: of the five people who participated in my blind taste test, two claimed loyalty to Coke and blindly preferred the taste of Coke, two claimed loyalty to Pepsi and blindly preferred the taste of Pepsi, and the fifth person was indifferent. Needless to say, I was puzzled. According to my results, loyalty does have something to do with taste.
But I just don’t believe this. If people were loyal to the cola they thought tasted better, why would the Pepsi Challenge prove otherwise? This is the question nobody has thought to ask… the question that certain people don’t want you to ask.
I have since developed a new theory about the Coke vs. Pepsi rivalry, and it has nothing to do with taste, nothing to with the cola your parents drank, and nothing to do with your DNA.
It’s the government. It has to be. There’s no other explanation. Big Brother decided your cola for you before you were old enough to say your first words, I just know it. How, you ask? Why, you say? All good questions. But remember, this is the government we’re talking about; they can do anything. So just picture this: you’re young and in love. You get married. You start a family. Everything is perfect. And then one day the doorbell rings and two federal agents in black suits are standing on your doorstep with a little brown briefcase. Enough said.
Think about that the next time you pick up a glass of your favorite cola. But act normal. Don’t let them know you’re onto them. Just take a sip, smile big and raise your glass to the federal government. They’ll be watching.
by Ryan Faist
I haven’t wanted to do this… but you’ve pushed me too far. I’m talking to a certain group of writers who have somehow advanced their troops to the frontline of American media. Well, I’m here to tell you that this is as far as you go.
For you innocent civilians reading this, I will explain. My enemy is any writer who inflates their prose with sensationalism. That means hype. Sensationalism is when a writer takes a banal experience, like walking down the street or brushing your teeth, and turns it into some kind of melodramatic or extraordinary experience. It’s what my father would refer to as B.S.
To make sure you understand why I’m about to pick a fight, I’m going to get a little technical. First off, you have to realize why my enemies want to sensationalize their writing. It has to do with creating conflict, or tension. You see, in any piece of prose there are two types of conflict: macro-tension and micro-tension. Macro-tension is the major conflict in the article or story. In a murder mystery, it’s the “whodunit?” Micro-tension is a series of minor conflicts that help advance the story, but aren’t necessarily related to the major conflict. For example, in a murder mystery, micro-tension may be when the protagonist runs out of gas on the highway or when the phone rings and nobody’s there. We want to know what happens, so we keep watching… or reading. That’s micro-tension.
Sensationalism, on the other hand, is a lazy technique that bad writers use to keep you reading when there is no organic tension. For example, instead of running out of gas on the highway, a writer using sensationalism might describe how the highway brought back painful memories of riding to the pumpkin patch with his mother when the hero was a child. It’s creating tension where there is none, and it’s the lowest form of writing.
I’m not just talking about fiction. Every piece of prose has to have some kind of conflict. I don’t care if you’re writing an article about a new treatment for wrinkles or a press release about an old man who sings the alphabet in Spanish pig-Latin. If you want people to read it, you’ll find the natural trouble – notice I said find and natural.
Too many writers have developed the awful habit of inventing the trouble. That’s sensationalism. Instead of discovering the tragic root of the old man’s peculiar singing habit, the lazy writer might try to invent tension by comparing him with a famous tenor like Mario Lanza, and then alluding to his tragedy of never becoming famous himself. Unless the old man is actually as good as Lanza, and had even a remote chance of becoming a successful tenor (which is doubtful), then the entire comparison was sensationalism: phony tension, a sorry attempt to make the writing interesting. It happens. You’d be surprised at the lengths my enemies will go in order to sensationalize their writing because they’re unable to find the true tension in the story. It’s becoming more and more common every day.
Here’s the point to remember: micro-tension is good, sensationalism is bad. My enemies don’t know the difference. They don’t know that readers can always tell when you’re faking it. If they could just learn to distinguish micro-tension from sensationalism, their writing would instantly comes across as more genuine, and therefore more appealing.
But they never will. They’ll keep writing their B.S. until someone stops them. So allow me.
Those of you guilty of this literary travesty know who you are. But your fun and games are over. Consider this post both a declaration of war and a first offense. So round up your army and meet me at the frontline. We shall see whose pen is mightiest.
by Ryan Faist
Credit: The Pack
I was waiting at a stoplight, staring at a six-foot tall dog with a newspaper jammed in its mouth. It was an advertisement on the back of the truck ahead of me. When I stared longer, I realized that it was an ad for a landscaping company. The dog had nothing to do with the message; it only served to grab my attention, which it did. But after seeing it, I wasn’t compelled to treat my lawn. Instead, I was asking myself why Americans’ attention spans have shrunk to the point where some advertisers will stray so far from their message to grab a person’s attention.
It’s not just advertisements. It’s all forms of popular media. If you look closely, you’ll notice that the average scene-length of movies and television shows has shortened significantly over the years. Even the style of most blockbuster novels today is much more fast-paced – tension on every page. I’m not saying any of this is bad, but I am saying that we Americans have become an inpatient culture. And the media knows it.
Some people will argue that technology is to blame. The internet, social media, iPods, blackberries, yada yada yada, have all collectively spoiled us with immediate access to information. That makes sense, but something else is bothering me.
Let us suppose that America suffers from attention deficit disorder for whatever reason. Fine. Advertisers and marketers have to adjust as the playing field changes, just as any businessperson must. I understand this. But the giant dog staring at me from the back of a commercial truck was something much more frightening. At first, I thought it was an ad for the local newspaper, or maybe a dog-catching service. That would have been okay with me, even though I like dogs. But when I realized it was an ad for a landscaping company, I became enraged. In a strange way, I felt like the people who created it were contributing to the degradation of a once patient culture… just so they could make a few bucks. No, I’m not crazy.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the power of a good advertisement. But I can’t help but wonder about how the current state of advertising is dealing with the shortened attention spans of American consumers. Even worse, I wonder if some advertisers are somehow helping to shrink attention spans even more with ads that ignore the rules once practiced by the advertisers of previous generations. Maybe people will get used to advertisements that use arbitrary and shocking images to catch their attention, just as they’ll get used to short scenes and fast-paced novels. Where will it end? How about the Statue of Liberty dressed in fish net to sell macaroni and cheese? Why not a three-eyed gargoyle floating over the moon to promote toothpaste?
I’ll tell you why. It’s stupid. Creating advertisements is a craft, and just like any other craft, there are techniques, guidelines and aesthetics to every good ad. It’s within these boundaries that you find your creativity. Once you become a rebel ad-maker with no respect for anything done in the past and a willingness to do anything in the future, including arbitrarily exploiting people’s short attention spans, you risk more than just failing your clients with bad ads. You may unknowingly participate in the degradation of our culture by contributing to the shrinking of the average American attention span until it reaches the point where 1) we as a people have no patience for anything other than instant gratification, and 2) ad-makers become more and more willing to stray even further from good ad-making principles in the lazy effort to grab your attention. Both are grim forecasts for a brave new world.
Subscribe to Big Ideas for Marketing Success