Archive for September, 2010

Is “reality advertising” really a good thing?

By Linda Forrest

I’m torn about Disney’s new “Let the Memories Begin” marketing initiative that utilizes real families’ photos and videos as a means to market their theme parks. Regular folk can upload their “memories” to be used royalty-free in any manner of marketing that Disney sees fit.

Full disclosure, I’m a Disney nut. By total coincidence, I may or may not be listening to the Walt Disney World soundtrack as I type this. My husband and I got married at Walt Disney World (no, Mickey didn’t perform the ceremony), and we travel to the Happiest Place on Earth as often as we can.

Like almost every other family that visits a Disney park, we come home with hundreds of vacation photos and videos of ourselves having a wonderful time, of our young son meeting his favourite characters, of the scenery and of events like the fireworks, parades and so on.

I definitely see the appeal from a consumer standpoint of having our pictures projected onto the castle, or to see our perfect wedding recognized as the ideal, to have our son’s beautiful smile as he met Mickey posted near and far for everyone to see. But from a professional standpoint, I fear the trend of “reality advertising” will not stand the marketing industry in good stead over the long term.

As a self-proclaimed casualty of the music industry, where copyright interests (read: revenue streams) in sound recordings fell by the wayside as illegal downloading became more pervasive, and as a watcher of all things media, where my television is filled with either unpaid or modestly rewarded people I could also likely see at the grocery store, I perceive this shift to a more “socialized” advertising approach setting a dangerous trend.

The fact that a large company with multi-billion dollar revenue has effectively found a way to circumvent spending money on creative content will, in my opinion, not bode well for the marketing companies that provide similar services to clients that most likely don’t have the same budgets as Disney.

This predicament reminds me of a fairly recent construct in the music business, that of the 360-degree contract that incorporates many of the revenue-generating activities of artists - artist management, recording, touring and merchandising – under one contract managed by one company. When the Madonnas and Robbie Williams’ of the world signed the first of these contracts, it scared the bejeezus out of me and I was convinced that the trickle down of this would negatively impact artists.

While I give full marks to the enterprising companies that came up with this approach, predominantly record companies that saw their revenues shrinking while artists continued to make money from live performances and t-shirt sales and discovered a way to get their hands into those pots, it’s the artists who suffer the financial repercussions. Who cares if Madonna’s giving up a percentage of her t-shirt sales when she’s got money to burn; it’s when the contract becomes the industry norm covering independent artists who rely on that t-shirt money to fill their gas tanks or their hungry bellies that the truly insidious nature of the agreement is realized. Williams himself later went on the record saying that his signing of this sort of agreement had been a bad idea that stifled him creatively. In fact, he compared his contractual obligations, ones that ran counter to his artistic integrity, to “slavery.” Harsh words indeed.

In the marketing and advertising realm, the internal teams at Disney or their multi-million dollar agency will not feel a pinch. But when mom-and-pop shops start to decide they can take these matters into their own hands rather than deal with professionals, our industry will suffer and we’ll have yet another obstruction to eliminate on our road to selling our services.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

You like us! You really like us! (Sort of…)

By Linda Forrest

Close to three years ago now (where does the time go?!?!?), we blogged about PR’s bad rap.

According to ADWEEK, results of a recent Gallup poll suggest that our stock has increased of late (at least in the eyes of those questioned.) An inherent flaw in the poll is that it lumps together advertising and PR, the differences between which warrant their own blog post, if not an entire blog altogether. But, despite that major criticism of the industry categorization, the numbers still indicate that our industry isn’t as hated as it has been in the past.

Yay?

One-third of respondents to the survey voiced a positive opinion of the advertising-PR industry. This over and above various industries whose reputations are dismal, according to the poll – oil and gas (thanks, BP!), banking (thank you, mortgage crisis!) and the airlines (where someone thinks this is a good idea.)

One commenter, Sven, clearly doesn’t have a good opinion of us, however: “The fact these dark witches try and spin the banking, airline, pharmaceutical and oil companies is worse than being a politician.”

This raises an interesting point: aren’t we PR practitioners in part responsible for how the public perceives these industries? Is their bad reputation our failing? Or is their bad behaviour or shoddy customer service their own business and PR has little to nothing to do with it?

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Comparing apples to persimmons only creates a recipe for disaster

By Linda Forrest

The headline “Gawker Media Now Bigger Than All Newspapers Online–Except One” caught my interest for a number of reasons. In addition to being interested in all things media, I’m a fan of Gawker Media; in my professional life for media gossip and Valley news delivered with a healthy dose of sarcasm and in my personal life for hilarious movie news and intelligent commentary on women’s issues and interests. And while I applaud its growing audience and great success for its individual websites, I feel that comparing the conglomerate that houses each of these properties with specific newspaper websites is a ridiculous exercise.

I was glad to see one of the commenters on the original story point out this very fact.

MikeBarthel wrote on the Awl: “It confused me that “Gawker Media” is bundled together but other newspaper conglomorates are not. Shouldn’t “USA Today” actually be the traffic of all the Gannett papers, if we’re comparing it to all the Gawker sites? Similarly NYT/Boston Globe, WSJ/NewsCorp, etc. Am I missing something?”

You’re not alone, Mike. Nick Denton himself, publisher of Gawker Media, recognizes that the newspapers are but one slice of his competition. In a letter to his staff, he called out additional sources of online news such as Huffington Post, Yahoo and AOL.

You’ll note the reasons that I listed for visiting Gawker Media entities were pretty soft and fluffy. Hard news or astute political opinions were not among them. If I want to read what I would consider to be real news, I’d most certainly visit one of the other sites against which Gawker Media was compared. “Online news” casts a very wide net and it’s important to define key terms if you want to be clear about your position in the marketplace and what readers can expect from your online properties.

Twitter’s traffic undeniably trounces that of all other ornithological sites on the web, if not combined, but just because they’re using the same language doesn’t mean they’re talking about the same thing. It’s an important distinction, and one that we as PR practitioners have to be extremely careful about. It’s for this very reason that we learn our clients’ whole story so that we have a holistic understanding of the company, its business, its technology and its market. A term that means one thing to one person can mean something quite different to someone else; we need to be able to draw that distinction and then pursue the opportunities that make the most sense for our clients knowing full well that we’re speaking the same language as the media outlet we’re pursuing.

If the media wants apples, don’t give them persimmons. They’re just likely to throw them at you for not knowing your apples from your persimmons. I would have assumed that the likes of Nick Denton would have been conscious of the distinction.

Technorati Tags: , ,

When bad pitch meets sketchy software

By Francis Moran

Thankfully, we don’t get many pitches to this blog from fellow PR types trying to get us to cover their stuff; it’s obvious to all but the most dense that this is a corporate blog that really isn’t a conduit for media relations or blogger relations activities.

But such is the sad state of the PR business that it does happen. And it happened this morning.

Donatien Ratke from a French company called MailerLite — I’m deliberately not linking to the site — sent me not one but SIX emails this morning suggesting this blog write about his company’s “Next-generation email marketing tool.” That he even pitched this blog is a PR failure. Worse, though, is that I assume Donatien used his own new, next-generation email marketing tool, resulting in six identical emails, a clear failure of the software itself. Further, since I have absolutely no relationship with this company, have never given it permission to solicit me and the email has no opt-out mechanism, the whole thing qualifies as the worst sort of spam. That a so-called “next-generation email marketing tool” would even allow such grievous breaches of anti-spam regulations is a further catastrophic failure.

So, Donatien: Welcome to the harsh new world of blogger relations. You got your write-up, but it’s probably not what you were seeking. I hope the users of your new tool don’t make such a total hash of things.

Technorati Tags: ,