Conversation Agent

The Break up: PR and Media on News Embargoes

A news embargo is a request by a source that the information or news provided by that source not be published until a certain date or certain conditions have been met.

If the embargo is broken by reporting before then, the source retaliates by restricting access to further information to that journalist and publication, putting them at a disadvantage compared to other outlets.

Brian Solis has a very detailed post about the recent announcement by TechCrunch that it will no longer honor embargoes. In it, he states:

The problems are two-fold:

a) Unethical or opportunistic bloggers or reporters looking for an edge will break a story ahead of the agreed-upon embargo, even if only by one minute, in order to appear as if they got the scoop.

b) PR, continuing to use a broadcast methodology to pitch and place news, freely and foolishly wield embargoes as if they're simply "scheduled" times for a press release to cross a wire.

We talked about the importance of trust one short week ago. I would rather forgo links and the popularity contest to be deserving of your trust. That is my position.

Media on the Right

It would actually be nice if media got in touch with its feminine side.

Since I started publishing here, I have had the opportunity to honor a couple of news embargoes. I knew I could not possibly be the only site that would publish the news and respected the reasons why. In each case, I was given the opportunity to ask additional questions ahead of time, which allowed me to publish from a different point of view or angle. My consideration in formulating the questions is whether the information would be useful to my readers.

So here's a big tip to all those who send me press releases by email - your pitches are by and large not targeted to my audience. Sorry, but saying that what you've got would benefit my readers and then not backing up that statement with facts really does make you look unprofessional. And please do not tell me you're a long time reader of my blog or I will be tempted to test you and unmask you publicly.

If you want me to agree to holding a briefing with someone (maybe a CEO) without having background information in advance, you are dreaming. This is pure passion here at this blog. Nobody pays me to write and I invest that extra time I don't really have to provide value (readers will be judge of that).

Got it?

To go back to the announcement by Arrington at TechCrunch, he is saying that "The PR firm gets upset but they don’t stop working with the offending publication or writer." Well, that takes the wind out of the accountability sails, doesn't it? Then he continues by saying that "We will honor embargoes from trusted companies and PR firms who give us the news exclusively."

I think exclusivity is not the point anymore. I think the point is reaching specific readers and listeners in specific ways. There is a time for every purpose in new media, including balancing immediacy with relevance, and a respectable PR strategist would know that.

PR on the Left

As in what's left to say that is news these days? For good public relations professionals plenty. To me it's an issue of quality over quantity. In case you are wondering, this will be the theme for the week at Conversation Agent.

In my day job part of my work is public relations and part of that is media relations. I am part of the source. My philosophy on embargoes is handle with care - make sure that they are truly valuable to the readers/listeners/customers of the journalist or reporter with whom we have built a relationship.

However, Steve Rubel wrote about it this summer, many who report the news like to uncover their stories unaided these days. That is the same expression we use in brand studies. Unaided awareness is your best form of recognition in the marketplace. It's pull in its purest form. Relationships matter again. This is not a trend, we're just remembering what we've always known.

The press release or announcement is the tip of the iceberg. It is merely the calling card to begin a conversation. Something new, hopefully. Something interesting - a story that has not been told.

Doug Firebough wrote about the 7 psychological A's of social media in a recent post - acknowledgment, attention,  being approved of, being appreciated, being acclaimed, feeling assured and being a part of. There are many lessons in there for PR professionals. I suspect that many of the pros are that way because they handle the conversation in such manner.

What is left for PR professionals is their willingness and passion to lead. There is not shortage of opportunities to do so with new media.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it

We really don't have to pick a side.

Louis Gray says that the best solution for embargo angst is to write something else. I couldn't agree more. As well, Ruth Seeley points us to Todd Sieling's slow blog manifesto. In her comment to Brian's post, she writes "personally, as a consumer, the allegiances I feel are to those outlets that can consistently be trusted to answer all the questions I have and provide background and perspective."

We can all look and feel smarter when we take the time to be thoughtful.

On the long tail of Chris Anderson's known piece on blocking PR people, Gina Trapani has put together a wiki of PR companies that spam bloggers. I think the important part, the one that the term embargo does not cover but implies, is one of personal ethics and standards. It is from that place that, with respect and professionalism, we can begin to have a true conversation about the future of PR and media.

They are two sides of the same coin.

Is There Life After Marketing?

It's that time of the year when companies are generally in one of two speeds: (1) use it or lose it, the budget; (2) slow down, the year is done. With the economy slowing everything down, in fact some things to almost a grinding halt, we are left with number 1. And if you are a marketing (or a communications) professional you know what or rather who is number 1 - it's not you.

Social media and your networks can help

This is an opportunity to regroup and take stock. I promise this one is a very good investment. The title is a little imprecise - everything anyone does when in business is marketing. Heavens, courting someone is marketing.

Marketing gets a bad rap, people think it's about the little brochures and sell sheets, then there is a larger conversation around demand creation, which culminates with the most expansive view of all - your business is marketing.

Yesterday at Web Strategy by Jeremiah we were talking about the difficulty companies are having with influencial and popular people in their midst - what we call personal brands. We've talked about it before, personal brand equity is for rent, only.

Opportunities for companies in this environment

Jeremiah outlined some perceived risks: (1) the personal brand is a cost to the company; (2)  the now popular employee is likely to get poached; (3) employee exits leaving a chasm to fill. I see them more as opportunities.

Opportunity 1: employees who have good karma and reputation in the marketplace are in fact making the company look smart for hiring them. They have connections, networks and processes to share and a pulse of what is going on outside. We all know you need more of those in your ranks.

Opportunity 2: the truth about competitors poaching someone is a bit more complex. I've worked in extremely specialized industries - insurance/financial services and chemical manufacturing - and I know that even in those industries, people need to be highly motivated to switch - and it's not about the pay. But it becomes about the pay if you handcuff doers to their desk or micro manage them. So don't.

Opportunity 3: I've heard this from more than one manager so I'll consider it a mini focus group - they think anyone can do your job, you are replaceable. Of course, everyone probably knows it's not true, but it's true enough in the way they deal with you. This is bad karma for your interactions. Intention shows and comes true. The reality is that we are creatures of habit, people move (almost) only when they have to. 

We are portable, wherever we go there we are. Why wrap your head before it's broken? I say when we stay flexible and adapt - on both sides - we win.

Dear company:

• Think bigger - the whole business is marketing. Today's content-intensive micro interactions can benefit from a good scrub of all those practices that detract from what customers want and need. Your whole employee base is a community with voices, why do you insist in trying to control them? Why not educate and help them (those who want to, of course) shine? This is the face of the company. It sounds a lot like groundswell, doesn't it?

• Embrace your stars and if you have too few of them, shame on you. Where is your succession planning? Where are your mentors? There are people out there in social media taking one on the chin for you, when was the last time you thanked them?

• Let your customers be heard. This is the point Jeremiah makes that fascinates me the most. We've been talking about customer evangelists for several years and then we added the concept of citizen marketers - thank you Ben and Jackie.

All of these points are related to one simple concept - let it go. It's easier to carry the torch if there's a team helping out, and it's ok if they interpret how they carry it along the way. We all have many friends and they often are very different, allowing you to cast a very wide net, wider than the best of lists. This is organic, word of mouth and viral all rolled into one. I thought I'd throw in a few choice keywords to get your attention.

Dear colleague:

Is there life after marketing? Instead of worrying about your personal brand as an end in and of itself, build your skills, remain curious and engaged, help your community and colleagues grow and learn, be responsive to those in need, and stay hungry. Leading brands lead. I know it's not that simple, have faith in yourself and you will find it's true. I believe in you.

Here are a few choice quotes from colleagues' comments to Jeremiah's post:

Adam Singer: Smart people are not necessarily motivated by ‘more money’ - perhaps by more freedom. You would probably have lost that person regardless if you try and tell them what they can and can’t do.

Matt Dickman: I’ve built a personal brand from zero through blogging and used it to move into a better position with better opportunities. I think trying to lock somebody down will either frustrate them to leave or cause them to go rogue. Why not empower them, set clear guidelines to protect yourself, but use them as the marketing asset they are.

Beth Kanter: Most nonprofits react by keeping the marketing faceless and “institutional voice” which can be stodgy, formal, boring, and cold. If they move past that, they typically have the recipient of their services be the brand or face - or the person’s stories … stories of the impact of the nonprofit services on one person or one puppy are more powerful and can inspire donations. So, why change that?

Robert Swanwick: The glass is definitely half-full. More information and more liquidity creates a much more efficient market. Embrace it. If you don’t want someone to leave then find out if what motivates them is also good for your company. If it is, do it.

Geoff Livingston: A person does not have a brand, they have a reputation. Intelligent management avoids the Scoble personality dominating a social media situation. At the same time companies should allow people to be brilliant.

BL Ochman: Scoble did more good for Microsoft than any of their advertising or marketing before or since. And he built his personal brand in the process. I think that was a win/win.

Christen Dybenko: Tools like Get Satisfaction make it easy for a “lone ranger” in a big company to step up and start listening regardless of whether or not the company is on board.

Alex, aka SocialButterfly: Someone in this thread brought up, “what if a company provides a brand that people WANT to use as their personal brand?” I think Dentsu does a great job of this, and it is re-enforced by their entrepreneurial type of business model. However, the whole branding of the company is interesting. Employees can choose their own “color,” almost like a personality, so that the company becomes them and they become the company, yet Dentsu itself still maintains the umbrella brand.

Fayza: My boss recognizes the risks you mention above. Sure, some succumb to them. He has hired smart people, and intelligent people are always looking to grow and develop themselves professionally. He even acknowledges that sooner or later, this grouping of intelligent people will probably fly out of his nest. So he invests in us as people, and tries to make us the best we can be, as individuals.

As a result, and speaking from my own observations, we are incredibly loyal to our boss and this company - and each other. He doesn’t try to stifle us; he wants us to reach our maximum potentials at his company and beyond. We know he cares about our personal growth - how many employees can say that about their bosses? We are lucky that he takes the time to invest in us as much as he does the company. We know we are his most valuable resources.

__________

What do you think? Are you regrouping and preparing for the next phase in your career? Is your company actively involved in helping you grow and learn? Are you involved in social media on behalf of your company? Do you weigh the risks of joining a company that has a bad brand in the marketplace? Is your personal involvement in social media allowing you to shift your focus from one career to another?

[many thanks to Matt Clark at Image Designs for my new Twitter splash page]

Technorati's 2008 State of the Blogsphere

The report came out last week, so it might be old news for publications that are used to being on top of technology trends, like ReadWriteWeb and The Inquisitr. [We discussed it briefly on Friday with Sarah Wurrey and Doug Haslam in the CustomScoop podcast.] 

Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb stated, "Technorati says blogging is mainstream, we think the numbers indicate otherwise." I'm tempted to air my dissatisfaction with how Technorati is not updating my blog posts on their site despite the frequent pings. Could this be a cause to the reporting of a slow down in posts?

Duncan Riley's analysis at The Inquisitr is more expansive, "Technorati numbers highlight the changing nature of blogging." Indeed there are many communities with blogs that may not be cataloged by Technorati. What can we say of questions and answers on LinkedIn? Many of those are as substantial and useful as some of the better blog posts. Riley is onto something.

The new development with portable comments through Disqus and FriendFeed was flagged a little while ago by Louis Gray. Aren't comments also potentially blog posts? Many of the ones I receive here would qualify.

What do the Numbers Mean?

As a participant to the survey, I was curious to take a look at the facts and figures and to discuss what they may mean to you - publishers, brand managers, journalists and news media, communicators and customers.

It's interesting to note that of the 24 bloggers quoted by the report, only 4 are women (about 16-17%) - 3 of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting virtually, to date. Yet, one third of bloggers represented in the study are female (34%). Was that to keep in line with the findings that men tend to be expert while women tend to be more conversational? Note that the numbers reflect the survey.

This reminds me of what I learned about TV reporting - apparently, to add credibility your inflection needs to go down, and not up (as it does in questions). TV anchors are taught to make their inflection go down at the end of each statement to drive it home. 

From my own conversations at professional association events, blogging is still seen as a lot more work than having a newsletter. It is a lot more work because it's not a one time deal you push through to an email list, or a static Web site. The biggest concern is also coming up with enough content to publish.

Blogs are dynamic environments where the expectation of interaction is directly proportional to the willingness of the writer to participate herself. Comments in other social media, online relationships and exchanges are all par for the course. While great content will keep people interested, you first need to get them there. It's not exactly a build-it-and-they will-come medium. If you have no time for all of that, I suggest a newsletter may be better for you.

But it's not an either/or. No one medium has entirely replaced the ones that preceded it. What you use to interact with other professionals, businesses or customers depends on where they are and what they are looking for, not the other way around.

So far, corporate adoption is the lowest of the three figures. That's because many organizations still do not recognize blogs and other forms of social media as useful. Some companies have gone as far as putting in place policies that exclude participation in social media by employees during work hours. Corporate firewalls take care of the rest.

No wonder employees feel skittish about mentioning their company or work in their own blogs. 

Yet, according to another report, the 2008 Business Social Media Study* from Boston consulting firm Cone, almost 60% of Americans interact with companies on a social media study, and one in four interact more than once a week. 93% of Americans believe that companies should have a social media presence and 85% believe that in addition to being present, companies should interact with customers via social media. 56% of customers feel both a stronger connection with and better served by companies when they can interact with them in a social media environment.

Tomorrow we'll discuss how corporate bloggers are faced with a unique challenge. They must simultaneously speak the voice (and the message) of the organization while also "fitting in" with a community of real people. The Minnesota Interactive Marketing Association (MIMA) has also a Twitter account so stay tuned (updates at #, and feel free to add your comments to my post with the presentation here.

It is more likely that professionals who have experienced blogging and social media directly, as well as the corporate environment, be able to navigate the delicate balance. One thing that both companies and the online environment have in common is that they are highly political. Each can also be highly rewarding in distinct ways.

How we Measure Success

Personal satisfaction is still the highest metric, which goes a little way to explaining why companies and brands have been slower at adopting social media, especially in B2B (reports on spending aside).

The number of comments to me is still highly dependent on the popularity of the topic and the blogger style. Regular lists add to the popularity of the blogger, for example. It would help track metrics correctly if Technorati itself accounted for links properly. I do agree that any form of feedback is energizing, even that of the contrarian kind, which is the most feared by companies.

There is one very important metric that blogs do not capture - nor do Web sites - that someone has gone ahead tried something new and made something great happen as a result of learning what a blogger shared. Readers here, for example may not leave a comment, yet I hear from them off line that they took action, were inspired, created as a result of this content. In this case, the community is engaged at a very personal level - not apparent sometimes to a casual observer.

If companies are a little slow in entering the blogosphere, brands are less so. According to the Technorati report:

More than eight in ten bloggers post product or brand reviews, and almost nine in ten blog about brands that they love (or hate). Interestingly, men and women are equally likely to blog about products or services. Marketers are catching on that the blogosphere is an important place to be — one in three bloggers has been approached to be a brand advocate. Of those, more than six in ten were offered payments of some kind.

On more than one occasion I felt that you do not necessarily need trade media or media alone to launch a new product or an enhancement. You could do that with your own blog. That would also be a way to reach potential customers and bloggers, with your own voice.

Measurement is very different when we talk about corporate marketing. We're still finding the right metrics. The companies that have most to benefit from blogs and social media are those in dire need for a patch in reputation - whether that be for terrible customer service and corporate attitude or products that need help. If the company does this well, you'll find conversation there.

I have an inkling that once the honeymoon is over, once the internal story is that we've communicated and fixed the problem, some might be tempted to retrench behind the old ways. This is a situation where when the cat is out of the bag, you're not putting it back so easily.

Overall, while the report is interesting, I am feeling a bit like asking the "so what?" What do you think? Were there any surprises in it? Does the report highlight future trends for you? To me, Charlene said it best.

“Blogging isn't defined by a technology or the way words are laid out on a page. Rather, it's a mindset, and as such, will be around for a long, long time, evolving and improving.” [Charlene Li, Thought Leader, Altimeter Group]

I leave you with the most telling chart on why female bloggers are seen as more conversational - 83% have personal blogs vs. 76% of men; 66% tend to write about personal things, with 36% being family updates.

Being more connective is a definite advantage, one that might be appreciated yet in years to come. And not a moment too soon.

* Online survey conducted September 11-12, 2008, by Opinion Research Corporation, among 1,092 adults comprising 525 men and 567 women 18 years of age and older.

Are You Too Accessible?

I just got the paperback in the mail from Debbie Aroff at Random House and I'm already a big fan. The Age of Speed by Vince Poscente is filled with twists and turns and is a fast read. It's about learning to thrive in a more-faster-now culture. Think about this, we want things faster, but we don't necessarily want to do things faster. According to Poscente, speed is the new change.

Many of you already know that. To remain competitive, we must change by design. What things stay, what things go? What interruptions add value, what are just a distraction? It's not so much about keeping up with everything that is out there, but selecting what you anticipate - as in being truly immersed, passionate and interested. That is the only way speed can work to your advantage.

I've seen great use of technology like BlackBerries to speed up while not detracting from the conversation. I spent a few hours between morning greetings, lunch and dinner with Chris Brogan at Marketing Profs B2B Forum in Boston back in June. Now I have a better idea of how he does it. He's in the room with you, in the chair next to yours, totally present to what you are saying - listening and participating, remembering what else you talked about.

Then during a break in the conversation - the waiter brings the salad, you talk to other people, the speaker is getting ready to start - he quickly checks one or two messages. He's so fast and discreet, you might not even notice. For a few moments he is totally with the message, then he's back with you - totally back. I suspect that Chris invests his time and is very selective about what he does, when. Can you do that, too? Can you choose when you are accessible and then to be fully there?

My mentor used to say that paper is like blood, you have to keep it flowing. He had devised a very simple system to deal with memos and emails - deal with the quick answers immediately, including redirecting what needs to be, then align the rest to the projects and context of the day. It's about making choices that align with your authentic purpose. He then had time to walk the halls, talk with colleagues, learn about what was going on - he was accessible of his own choice.

Provide fewer, immediate, faster results and you'll be golden in your career. How do you do that? You focus on your destination. Ask Google about speed, it's as much part of their success as their algorithm. You can also learn to use the velocity of others to your favor - just like in martial arts. A body (and mind) in motion is more flexible and faster on tasks than one that slows down. Yet every movement is choreographed

Today at the Fast Company expert blog we explore if more-faster-now is the answer in relationship to customer conversations. Faster does not mean busier. Accessibility can be designed for speed.

I've recently cut down on some activities that were distractions to focus on others that although afford interruptions on occasion are more aligned with my purpose and destination. Maybe the question is not if you are too accessible, maybe it's about choosing when. Are you selective on who and when has access to you? Is there a difference between work and home?

Read the book and learn if you're a balloon, a zeppelin, a bottle rocket, or a jet.

Personal Brand Equity for Rent

Chris Brogan, one of my favorite conversationalists in social media, and a genuine, tech-savvy professional, recently talked about a topic that has been on my mind - personal brand equity. It was a conversation with Kat French that made me think of this concept of personal brand equity for rent. Why for rent? Because it's not for sale. Sorry, it used to be that way, not anymore.

New generation, new habits

All the articles and posts you read about talent being in demand are quite true. Many got the numbers wrong. I was reading a paper on Millennials by Porter Novelli (this is my company's PR agency), which looks at the generation of workers born in the 1980s.

They are 75 million strong in the U.S. alone, and they’re already having a profound effect on business culture. They value work-life balance, use digital devices natively (and intensively) and have little interest in privacy. Their numbers suggest there will be enough of them to replace Baby Boomers as they retire (or semi-retire).

What the report does not say explicitly, if I recall correctly, is that with their favorite brands of choice, they also come with personal brands. These are individuals used to communicating across platforms, multitasking vigorously, and thinking about what you're going to do for hem. 

The here and now

With many companies shifting into social media gear, there will be more of this kind of person on board - people and brand-savvy, tech-smart, and fiercely independent. These are the individuals who make up their on learning programs - they attend SXSW, become a member of the Social Media Club and the Blog Council, even program their own Facebook app and create/participate in a community on Ning or a Wiki about their personal passion. Chances are they are closely related to what they work on - work is personal.

As organizations continue to scramble to keep what happens inside, inside, these individuals are making all sorts of things happen outside. The outcome or side effect of their ideas, creativity and energy builds up their social capital and reinforces their personal brand.

A Catch-22

It's a catch-22. Organizations want and need these individuals to borrow from their brand equity, yet they may find it difficult to understand that once inside, these are not just "employees," they are talent, just like in a sports franchise. You capitalize on that kind of talent. You let it loose so that it can do what it does best. Most importantly, you listen to what they have to share and teach the rest of the team.

Are companies ready for this scenario? I'm talking about this happening at every level of the organization, horizontally, not in the supposedly rarefied air of the top echelons. It's not about titles, it's about skill, ability to make connections, and being deep domain fanatics. Have you ever met someone who *is* what they do? It's very different from just doing it as a day job.

Employee, partner, representative

For rent, for a while, for a need. Chris gives us the example of Charlene Li leaving Forrester. I'm thinking that somehow the company is losing a big part of our attention for it. I have not had the honor of meeting Charlene personally, but look at the comments to that post. She's made a mark in our hearts and has left an impression in our minds. Her personal brand equity at Forrester was very strong.

We've been talking about Brand You for more than 10 years. We've heard about the Free Agent concept 7 years ago. We've gone through the many years of downsizing, rightsizing, consolidating, and selling businesses. Is it any wonder that individuals got the message and took their own brand personally? Career is a much broader concept than job.

Have ideas, will share

It used to be that you could have the tools and resources to do great work only inside companies. Today, that is not true anymore. Technology is less expensive and more accessible. I'm thinking that research can be done through networks, social circles, and perhaps with the help of new media in the near future.

When you're passionate about creating, meaning depends on it, and so does your ability to grow and learn. Just to give you an example, I know a young girl who practiced learning to play the guitar for one year, every day, before going to her parents to ask for paid lessons. Do-it-yourself led to a band, that lead to Europe MTV. Determination and commitment are very much part of this desire to forge something from nothing.

If organizations are not ready to listen and enable, there are plenty of outlets outside their walls. In communities, networks and open source projects.

What say you?

My final thought to you is this - will companies that do not have strong brand equities become commodities, undesirable to work for/with/at? What's your take? Do you have a strong personal brand? Is your personal brand equity for rent? Would a strong personal brand be a problem inside an organization that looks at employees as cogs in the wheel and not talent? Well, this may be kind of obvious.

And here's an interesting thought - would companies start selling to you directly? Not your company, not your title, you as a brand. In recent weeks, I had not one, but two vendors who pitched me at work with some mentions of my blog in their pitch. A weak attempt, admittedly (participation and relationship *before* sale would have worked better to pique my interest), but one nonetheless.

100 Thing Challenge

Dave Bruno, a 37-year old Californian entrepreneur, is launching into a challenge - he calls it the 100 things challenge. He's working on cutting down what he owns to 100 items total. The fascinating conversation in the comments to his post centers mostly around how he counts the items - per pair, per collection, per category?

When I moved here from Italy, I brought only two suitcases containing clothes and books. Several years ago I finally disposed of the rest of my books I had stored in my family's garage. They were important enough to keep as my biggest love is that of learning, yet they were easy to give away after not holding them for years.

My philosophy has since been that of trading items - whenever I buy something, I give (which I prefer) or throw away something else. One spare closet has to remain empty and so it does. Yes, I park the car inside the garage without contending with piles of unused or older items. Periodically, I bring in books to work knowing that the intention is for them to not come back home again. Instead, I share them with colleagues.

I can see an economic slowdown if more of us adopt an even stricter challenge - that of not buying new stuff for one year. Imagine what wonders that would do for credit card payments and simplicity! What would be the implications of such a trend catching on for marketers?

Juliet Schor penned an interesting essay on consumerism that highlights some inverse relationship between consumerism and community. We know that we are not rational, deliberate and in control every time we buy, either.

One need only to think about brand preference to know that we make emotional connections to goods or betters. You buy Pepsi because it represents the future, Reebok shoes because the company stands for strong women. You develop a brand preference, and believe that your brand is superior in quality.

The Economist has an interesting article about the endowment effect, humankind's inner chimpanzee refusing to let go. When we own something, we associate more value with it. Hence the hesitation to letting it go. Schor states that consumption is social. The Economist adds:

Other “irrational” phenomena include:

• confirmation bias - searching for or interpreting information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions;
• the bandwagon effect - doing things because others do them; and
• framing problems - when the conclusion reached depends on the way the data are presented.

I present this information because it should affect the way we think about marketing. As Schor puts it, there are fruitful and essential linkages between production, consumption, and the environment that we should be making.

I would go further. I think there are fundamental decisions we need to make about the noise and clutter we make with our marketing communications.

Here's why:

• Too many materials confuse your brand. What does your brand stand for? There is a reason why we call them materials - they occupy space. During my career, I've done two full audits of marketing inventories: brochures, sell sheets, technical bulletins, etc. All occupying space in warehouses, many going into different directions on content.

The temptation is to think that more is more. In many instances less is more - try a short and to the point eBook instead of a long white paper; use digital versions wherever possible, do not overproduce. Most importantly, do not inflict competing materials on employees and customers.

• Too many materials confuse your employees and customers. Resist the temptation to think that your value depends on the volumes of things you produce. Instead, look at value as the ability to extract the essential elements of your brand promise and deliver those with consistency - that includes consistency of experience.

Your customers and employees care about being in a conversation with each other where you are now a participant, not the center. How does that consideration change the way you can think about materials? Your brand is a commodity if all you're doing is talk about yourself anyway.

My challenge to me and to you: what are the 100 unnecessary things that we can eliminate from our current marketing communications? They either do not work - a case of more is not more - or are inefficient. What are the activities and dynamics we could introduce to replace the ones that are not working anymore? Remember to trade one or two for one wherever possible.

We can start small. Feel free to make suggestions here in the comments. I will call this the 100 Marketing Conversations series in future posts - we will be discussing social media, social networks, events, communities and collaborative alternatives to the practices that we discontinue.

People are Seduced by Stories

[TED talk video. Running time 17:49]
I was reading an interesting article in The Economist Market.view section about what keeps growth investors going, despite the market disappointments. We buy stories. People are seduced by stories.

Tell me a great story and I will be totally captivated, to the point of believing that the story can be true. Substitute growth stocks with the day to day activities that are part of what makes a life - and what you have is stories. Stories are made of language, and language makes the world we live in. Nigerian writer Chris Abani says that “what we know about how to be who we are" comes from stories. 

What are the stories we tell ourselves about us?

Now let's go back and take a look at the story of growth, compare it to that of value. What do you see? The story of value is not as sexy as that of growth, yet when represented side to side, it is clearly the winner. Yet, growth investors keep going.

Is the story of growth the same one we tell ourselves about our business?

Is the Tiffany Network Pawning the Family Jewels?

Once upon a time CBS was called the Tiffany network. A complimentary label representing the quality of its reporting and reputation. And when it comes to news brands, it's difficult to trump the network which lays claim to Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite. CBS' fearless reporting brought to an end the political reign of terror of Joe McCarthy and was largely responsible for turning the tide of public opinion on the Vietnam war.

In today's edition of the New York Times it's reported that CBS is in talks to outsource the bulk of its reporting to CNN, a Time Warner Company. While CNN has carved out a respected news reputation of its own, it's difficult to see this move by CBS as anything less than a capitulation of a half century old legacy.

Commentators will be quick to point out the lack of rating success enjoyed by CBS evening news anchor Katie Couric as the reason for CBS' move should the NYT report prove true. But the possibility of CBS' abandonment of its news division as a core product points out a deeper problem: traditional media is no longer the sole gatekeeper for what we used to call hard news.

Beginning with the rise of cable television and continuing through today's hottest online news outlets such as the Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, news has increasingly become customized, personal and immediate. Traditional newscasts, whether in the form of the big three networks nightly news blocks or on the front page of your local newspaper, no longer meet the expectations of modern consumers. The CBS Nightly News and its counterparts on NBC and ABC have become empty cathedrals. The gilded landmarks of an earlier age.

In this age of conversation news, like everything else, has become a dialogue and can no longer be confined to thirty- and sixty-minute blocks neatly packaged and transmitted into the living room of the no-longer nuclear family. News is now a continuous cycle and the logistics of forcing the presentation of traditional media to it are financially prohibitive.

So what's next?

The close of the traditional media era happens to coincide with the rise of a new one: that of the professional online journalist. As we discussed a couple of days ago with Tish Grier, many reporters have taken to blogging as a writing style and do it fairly well, as Mark Glaser of MediaShift writes here.

Others have evolved to a journalistic style over time, like The Huffington Post, which is gaining a lot of respect from readers. Gawker is a diamond in the rough - a lot of potential shining through. Nick Denton, the CEO of Gawker Media, another major blogging chain, has also indicated that his properties will begin a transition to originating rather than simply commenting on breaking news.

While CBS may be hawking its Tiffany and selling its family jewels for scrap, just as in the case with real jewelry, new creations will be forged from the old. And from the first age of golden media will come a second in some new creative and dazzling form.

[image courtesy of Tiffany's, create your own stack here]

Digital Marketing Ecosystem

AdAge recently polled a few of the bloggers on the Power150 to ask about the future of digital marketing. The answers ranged from Web video to micro blogging to social networks.

I agree with most of my colleagues cited in the article with one caveat - content works best within context. As our lives look and feel very busy, now more than ever, randomness and chance will favor the prepared marketer.

Context matters in viral marketing, and it matters in concert with content. Your customers are time starved, it's your job to join the conversations they are already having and to help them connect the dots with you. Not for you, it's not about you - it never was. Integration does not mean that your tactics are matching each other, it means they are matching your customers' world view and needs - where and when they fit her lifestyle.

Some homework for marketers who wish to drive the changes occurring in digital marketing towards an ecosystem - not merely to understand and exploit them:

• Participate with short and to the point content that manages to be relevant and contextual to the existing conversations - micro-platforms like Twitter and Tumblr are following in the footsteps of convenience created by IM. Peter Imbres of Point Oh! explains that: "It's less a question of how they [marketers] can directly apply this technology than how they need to understand collective conversations."
   
• Develop permission-based portable conversations - stop talking about your customers as targets, and start getting to know them. I've been reading that mobile advertising may be on the rise, especially as the mobile Web gets better. Marketers beware, as you collect more information about people, make sure you are reaching out to them on their terms. Back in October I wrote a post outlining 5 easy ways to add value.
   
• Offer compelling content on a consistent basis - it's the hardest thing to do especially in industries and companies that have gotten used to charging a premium for it. Ideas should be free, it's the execution that makes all the difference anyway. Joe Pulizzi of Junta42 says it best: "the content marketing movement is the philosophy of marketing services not by traditional methods, but by delivering valuable, relevant and compelling content to customers and prospects on a consistent basis."
   
• Facilitate the growth of online streaming video - increasingly, your customers are either streaming or watching video content online. Given the recent dispute of Comcast Corp. and BitTorrent Inc. over congested nodes because of alleged bandwidth hogging, there is opportunity here. Time Warner Cable is planning to experiment with consumption-based or metered pricing for broadband in Beaumont, Texas. How about helping sponsor some of that broadband? Paul Chaney of Conversational Marketing cites consumer-driven use of video: "ooVoo, seesmic, Revver, Jumpcut ... the list goes on and on. Oh, and FastCompany.TV that Scoble just inaugurated. Add to that the fact that people are scurrying to their computers to watch television programs on sites like Hulu, Netflix or DailyMotion."

The conversation around keywords and language deserves its own post. Bret Swanson and George Gilder of the Discovery Institute, a nonpartisan public-policy think tank based in Seattle, project the Internet will grow by 50 times in 2015. These are the early days. Although we already saw a big move in marketing spending online in recent years, the answer for marketers cannot be delivering the same push message through different media.

Digital marketing has enormous potential not merely to help you demonstrate ROI. It has the opportunity to become a true ecosystem. Will you let customers stay in the driver seat long enough to learn from them not just about them?

The Role of the Search Engine in New Media

What role do search engines play in new media?

One of the parts of Nick Carr's book, The Big Switch, that I read with close interest refers to the unbundling of media. In the chapter, Carr mentions that at least one major newspaper, The Times of London, admits that it has already begun training its reporters to craft their stories in ways that lead to higher placements in search engines.

As long as algorithms determine the distribution of profits, they seem to also determine what gets published. Or do they? Enter a key word or phrase into your favorite search engine and results pop up in order of -- importance, relevance, popularity, age? How do stories get ranked on search engines? Rank depends on:

• the age of your URL
• the number of inbound links to the site
• the number of links to the article (and the authority of the linking sites), and
• the "hotness" of the articles keywords

TechCrunch reported recently on a study by the University of Southern California's Center for the Digital Future. The finding uncovered that a growing number of people believe that search results are unreliable and inaccurate. In fact (emphasis mine):

51% of people trust information provided by search engines, down from 62% in 2006. Google, as the most popular search engine in the United States, isn’t trusted by nearly half (49%) of the people who use it, an interesting result.

After seven years of studying online behavior and attitudes, the Digital Future Report “found that the Internet is perceived by users to be a more important source of information for them — this over all other principal media, including television, radio, newspapers, and books.”

An outstanding result, however the trust levels for all media aren’t particularly high, with only 46 percent of Internet users saying that most or all of the information online is generally reliable.

Could that have something to do with everyone following very closely search engine optimization (SEO) advice? Could it be about the unbundling of content in new media? Getting feeds to just one writer, or one type of content provides you great flexibility and freedom to make portable only what you wish to read. However, that may come at a cost -- that of context. Stay with me here as we explore one possibility.

Clearly stories always stood on their own, you bought the paper and leafed through it focusing on those headlines that caught your fancy. And yet, there is something about layout and placement that can bundle groups of stories or highlight content in a way that provides context to it.

As I'm writing this I am reminded of the very low tech reason why Melanie Griffith decided to put forth the idea for a supposedly lucrative merger in Working Girl. Remember that scene when the tycoon from Trask Industries, one of the firm's clients, asks Tess/Melanie's boss where she got the idea to suggest his company invest in radio instead of television? The boss could not explain. It turns out, the idea came from an apparently unrelated story in the newspaper -- the tycoon's daughter's wedding announcement. On the reverse of that story Melanie/Tess read information that lead her to think how the investment in radio would allow the company to gain more of a foothold on the market.

Those things never happen in real life, right?

I came across a post by Laurent Haug where he talks about things he is thinking about. One of them is how:

Google rank will become a political argument. Instead of saying “this is why I am right” political leaders will say “type ‘Iraq war’ in Google and look at how my speech comes up first”. Google will be perceived as the ultimate organizer of relevance, and as nobody can control it it will provide the needed crowdibility (that’s a new word I just made up) politicians have lost. If you are on top of Google you are right, and you are right because the population put you there.

That's an interesting take. Is it plausible? If everyone is following advice on SEO, including the media, the search results might be just more than a little muddled. What do you think?