Francis’s Favourite Fictions

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >

September roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?

free 2011 calendar september printable large 300x225 September roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?Thank you for being with us for the eighth month of our new blog. In case you missed them, here is a recap of our posts from September.

Last month, we concluded our Commercialization Ecosystem series and launched two new series, Technology Marketing 101, which features anecdotal stories about how a successful marketing program was developed, executed and measured, and A Startup’s Story, which will explore individual startups as they work to bring their technology to market. We welcome your feedback.

September 6: 30 considerations for getting tech to market: Part III by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

September 12: Where is our blog going next? by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

September 19: Meet Screenreach Interactive by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

September 26: Meet CommentAir technologies by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

September 28: Demo Daze: Five ways to turn a demo from dull to dazzling by Ronald Weissman

And on a related note…

In addition to our series, our associates and guest bloggers were also busy writing on a great range of topics, including social media, PR, marketing and, oh yes, zombies. Here are our other posts for September as ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:

September 27: Facebook’s new features: What B2B businesses need to know by Alexandra Reid

September 13: How B2B entrepreneurs can establish and access thought leadership using social media by Alexandra Reid

September 14: Small business philosophy 101: Making waves in a sea of competitors by John Craig

September 21: Push selling is over… it’s a buyer’s game, deal with it by Andrew Penny

September 20: The role of empowerment in social media success by Alexandra Reid

September 8: Social media breakfast Ottawa: Sam Ladner and the mobile work life by Alexandra Reid

September 30: Is public relations in the public interest? by Francis Moran

September 15: There is such a thing as bad publicity by Linda Forrest

September 22: Are trade shows the zombies of marketing? by Francis Moran

September 7: Make like a duck: Paddle hard, paddle often by Leo Valiquette

September 1: Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 3 by Francis Moran

September 29: High fidelity PR requires open communication between agency and client by Linda Forrest

September 9: If your company does something and you didn’t tell your marketplace about it, did it actually happen? by Linda Forrest

September 16: My PR agency can’t write by Francis Moran

September 23: Former PostRank CEO Carole Leaman inspires at this week’s Girl Geek Dinner in Waterloo, with tales from her experiences with technology startups by Linda Forrest

Image: Your free calendar

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?

August 2011 calendar 7 300x225 August roundup: What does it take to get technology to market? Thank you for being with us for the seventh month of our new blog. In case you missed any, here is a recap of our posts from August, beginning with, in chronological order, the latest installments in our series, The Commercialization Ecosystem.

August 2: Getting university IP to market: How Canada falls short by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

August 4: Is your invention novel enough to warrant a patent? by David French

August 10: Getting university IP to market: Who needs to step up? by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

August 15: Getting university IP to market: Levering youthful ambition by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

August 22: 30 considerations for getting tech to market: Part 1 by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

August 29: 30 considerations for getting tech to market: Part 2 by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

August 31: File early, file often to accommodate changes in U.S. patent law by David French

And on a related note…

In addition to our series, our associates and guest bloggers were also busy on a great swath of topics, including intellectual property, planning your 2012 fiscal budget, rebranding and automation as well as some favourites that have withstood the test of time. Here are our other posts for August as ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:

August 11: Your customers aren’t werewolves; stop looking for a marketing silver bullet by Francis Moran

August 30: How to write content for the social web by Alexandra Reid

August 17: Speak your audience’s language…or shut up by Ken Rosen

August 8: A vast untapped market is opening up by Andrew Penny

August 9: Rebranding using social media: Changing your company’s voice by Alexandra Reid

August 24: Social media predictions for 2012 by Alexandra Reid

August 16: Social media automation: It’s all about striking the balance by Alexandra Reid

August 3: Best practices for rebranding using social media: Changing a company image by Alexandra Reid

August 18: News value – the international language by Linda Forrest

August 25: On the hunt for the ‘unambiguous value statement’ by Leo Valiquette

August 19: The other 90% of the PR effort iceberg by Linda Forrest

August 5: Fiction: Public relations can’t be measured by Francis Moran

August 12: Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 2 by Francis Moran

August 1: Embargos, yes; exclusives, no by Francis Moran

August 26: A new season for marketing: Things to consider as you plan your fiscal 2012 budgets by Linda Forrest

August 23: Email and little white lies by Bob Bailly

Image: All calendar

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 3

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from February 2008. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 3By Francis Moran

As part of my continuing series of Francis’s favourite PR fictions, subtitled “Everything I know that’s wrong about PR I learned from technology company executives,” I have written a couple of posts on PR measurement addressing the common myth that straight lines can’t be drawn between a company’s PR efforts and any kind of real evaluative yardstick. I return to the topic today because I am getting some interesting comments on the subject. Clearly, it’s something that people are keen to explore.

Our approach here at inmedia is to measure outputs, outcomes and impact. In my first post, I described what we mean by outputs, which are little more than the critical path, or a list of how much PR stuff the client is buying. While most PR agencies and practitioners will set clear parameters for their outputs, too few are prepared to go any further than that.

We insist that every program go at least one step beyond this minimal evaluation to set, and measure performance against objectives for outcomes, or the amount, nature and content of the media and analyst coverage our efforts are expected to generate. In my more than 20 years as a communications practitioner, I have found distressingly few others who will commit to being held accountable for the actual results of their programs in clear, unambiguous terms that allow the client to make a rational ROI analysis about whether the promised level of media and analyst engagement is worth the cost of the program.

Fortunately, there is a growing and increasingly sophisticated audience of both practitioners and clients insisting on this. Many are deploying simple yardsticks that go well beyond what I call “thud value,” or the noise the clippings book makes when you drop it on the boardroom table in the hopes the client will be impressed by the sheer number of column inches. These yardsticks, which we commonly use, include determining which media outlets and analyst firms are the most influential — we designate them Tier 1 — and then telling the client exactly how well the program is expected to do in terms of percentage of Tier 1 targets engaged, types of stories, the nature of the messaging, numbers of analyst briefings, speaking engagements, and so on.

Many practitioners go well beyond this to provide granular analysis of the actual content of the media coverage. Although few of our B2B technology clients generate the volumes of media coverage that make such a statistical exercise either practical or meaningful, I am a huge advocate of media content analysis as both a strategic research and a program evaluation tool. I will write more about this topic in a future post on PR measurement because it deserves fuller treatment.

My second post described how even measuring outcomes often falls short of meaningful evaluation, especially in cases, admittedly rare but real nonetheless, where there is masses of coverage but no persistent impact on the client’s business objectives.

Which brings me to the final, most critical, hardest to implement and most elusive category of objectives we strive to track, impact. I will present case studies over my next several posts to illustrate how many of these have been used to help our clients calculate a reliable and meaningful ROI on their PR spend, but here is a range of common metrics that can be used to measure the impact a program has on everyday business objectives:

  • Web traffic, measured in hits to a company site, Google mentions, search engine rankings, and so on.
  • Demand creation, or what used to be known as lead generation. I like the newer term because it distinguishes between mere enquiries and actual demand for the product or service.
  • Sales cycle acceleration.
  • Customer interest in the media coverage.
  • Investment secured.
  • Increased sales, revenues and profit. (Now THAT is what we’re really talkin’ about!)

I’d be intrigued to hear from others as to what they think of these metrics, and also to hear about other yardsticks that are used. Subsequent posts will deal with how the data required to deploy these metrics can be gathered, as well as presenting, as mentioned, specific case study examples.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 2

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from February 2008. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Fiction: PR can’t be measured – Take 2By Francis Moran

About a month ago, as part of my continuing series of Francis’s favourite fictions, I tackled the too-widely held myth that public relations can’t be measured. I described how, at inmedia, we establish a critical path, or set of outputs, for every project and ongoing program that allows our clients to certify that we’re exerting the amount of effort we said we would. This, I said, was a good starting point for program measurement, but a woefully inadequate one.

I went on to describe what we call outcomes, a set of clear and unambiguous objectives we set that tell our clients what they should expect by way of actual coverage by our target media and analysts, with more granular objectives established for specific program elements such as news releases, product launches, contributed articles, speaking programs, trade show support and so on. Applying such an approach turns the whole PR value proposition on its ear; instead of a cost centre that should be managed down to its minimum, a client can now view the PR function as an investment centre, and can answer the question, “Are these results, or outcomes, a sufficient return on the investment my PR agency or department is asking me to make?”

In my earlier post, I promised to go even further than this, to approach the holy grail of ROI measurement. What does it matter, I asked, if we achieve the outcomes we projected but the media and analyst coverage hasn’t advanced our clients’ business objectives? Or, maybe even worse since decisions then can’t be made about whether or not to continue the program, what if we can’t tell whether our clients’ business objectives are being advanced by our PR efforts?

In my practice, it is simply unacceptable that we not be able to measure the impact our PR program has on specific business objectives such as demand creation, web traffic, sales-cycle acceleration, human resources recruitment and retention, share price and, yes, even sales, revenues and profits. Let me share with you a really good case study.

We used to have a client whose managed service allowed large enterprises to inventory all their IT assets; not just desktops, laptops and servers but all peripherals, operating systems and applications, including versions and licenses. As a managed service, our client had a massive database that, in aggregate, yielded highly reliable insight into certain IT-related issues within corporate America. The company’s budget with us was very small, so our program consisted of identifying the occasional high-profile IT issue, commissioning a report that demonstrated how pervasive that issue was, and generating media coverage around it.

Big buzz, but no bang for the buck

One of our first efforts was in the wake of the Recording Industry Association of America’s announcement that it would sue not just individuals but also companies whose employees were using peer-to-peer applications to download copyrighted material. Our client’s data suggested that the use of such applications within corporate America was quite widespread, and our news release announced our client was making available a free subset of its managed service that would tell IT managers how pervasive P2P applications were within their environments.

The story went global and the market’s response was nearly overwhelming as our client had to babysit its servers to manage the demand for its little report. Huge impact on our client’s business, right?

Not so much.

While initially overjoyed, our client soon realized that very few of those who downloaded the free application were signing up as paying customers. Here was a textbook example of our level of effort, or outputs, being exactly right; the coverage results, or outcomes, being unbelievably massive; but the ultimate return for the client, or impact on its real business objectives, being negligible.

Now let me tell you about the same client, different story, fundamentally different result.

A big impression where it counted

When Microsoft announced it was withdrawing support for its Windows 95 operating system, we went to work again. Our client’s database told us that Win95 was still installed on a hefty percentage of computers and that migrating to Windows XP, which is what Microsoft wanted its customers to do, might not be straightforward since there were a lot of applications deployed in the environment, many of them home-grown, that would function only on a Win95 OS. Again, our client made available a free download that would tell IT managers something about the pervasiveness of Win95 and its dependencies in their environments, the point being that they could then subscribe to the full service that would help them map a migration path to XP.

Well, as Victor Kiam used to say, Microsoft loved the product so much it bought the company! But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Once again, the media coverage of our client’s announcement was truly global. Once again, the demand for its free application was considerable, although less than half what was seen for the P2P app. And once again, very few of the freebies converted to revenue. But one did, and that one was the world’s largest software company, which bought thousands of licenses and gave them away to large Win95 customers specifically so they could use it to map their migration strategy to XP. And, as already mentioned, a year or so later, Microsoft, which previously had been unaware of our client, bought the entire company in a tidy exit for our client’s founders and investors.

Sadly, we lost a client, but we gained a persuasive case study illustrating that outcomes, while a potent indicator of the ROI of a PR program, can be misleading; that only by measuring the impact can the real ROI be authoritatively calculated.

Since not every case produces the kind of clear and dramatic impact discussed here, I’ll come back to this subject in future posts and show many other ways, some quite prosaic but no less legitimate, in which the impact of PR activities can be effectively measured.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fiction: Public relations can’t be measured

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from January 2008. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Fiction: Public relations can’t be measuredBy Francis Moran

Francis’s favourite fictions is a continuing series of posts on common myths surrounding the practice of public relations. When I give this as a presentation, I subtitle it, “Everything I know that’s wrong about PR I learned from technology company executives.” Today’s fiction comes courtesy of a chief financial officer at such a venture who nixed her marketing vice president’s intention to hire us, saying, “I can’t measure marketing so I won’t fund it.”

Too bad; the company she used to work for is now out of business, taking a genuinely valuable technology advance and more than $30-million in investors’ money with it. Maybe now, she at least has a yardstick with which to measure the cost of not marketing.

It is an enduring myth, though, that marketing in general, and maybe public relations in particular, evades measurement, that there’s no way to calculate the return on investment for such an inexact science. As with many of my other favourite fictions, it is a myth perpetuated in large part because it serves many in the PR industry itself to do so. Theirs is a black box science, they tell gullible clients, dependant on things like “relationships,” and intended to “build buzz” and a bunch of other ambiguous terms deliberately employed expressly because they do evade objective definition.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

I can’t imagine that any client today will sign on to a program that doesn’t at least define a scope of work in clear and unambiguous terms. In other words, a critical path of activities that at least tells the client how much PR stuff they’re buying, how many news releases, analyst briefings, story pitches, trade shows supported, that sort of thing. We call that measuring outputs, and it’s as far as many agencies are prepared to go. We think it’s a good, but woefully inadequate, starting point.

Any agency worth its retainer should be willing to describe the results its efforts will produce in similarly unambiguous terms. If you invest in our exerting this much effort, dear client, you will see this much media and analyst coverage over the term of the program. We call this measuring outcomes, and we define it very clearly in terms of specific objectives for the program. We tell you which media outlets and analyst firms we’re targeting. This is not unusual. What is unusual is that we will then tell you exactly in what percentage of them we expect to generate coverage over the term of the program, what type of coverage that will be, and what sorts of stories, key messages and so on that coverage will contain. We break down our objectives by category of activity, setting success objectives for individual news releases, product launches, analyst tours, trade show briefings, speaking programs, and so on.

We like this approach because we’re not asking our clients to buy a bunch of PR stuff from us. Rather, we’re asking them to invest in a given level of effort, the outcome of which we have clearly defined. Now they only need to ask themselves whether those results are a good return on the investment we’re asking them to make. At the end of the program, our clients don’t need us to tell them whether we have achieved the objectives or not. They can tell, without a trace of uncertainty or ambiguity, for themselves.

If your agency or internal PR department won’t commit to setting those kinds of objectives, it’s time to find a new one.

But, as they say on the late-night infomercials, don’t call yet, there’s more.

Even if we achieve the outcomes we projected, is it worth anything if that media and analyst coverage hasn’t advanced our clients’ business objectives? Here’s where the wheat really gets separated from the chaff. I’ll write more about this in a future post.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fiction: It’s all about relationships

This the next in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from November 2007. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Fiction: It’s all about relationshipsBy Francis Moran

We heard this one again last week.

Generating effective coverage of a client’s story is not all about the relationship I have with reporters; it’s all about the value of the story I have to tell.

This has long been the top-ranked of Francis’s Favourite Fictions, and for two good reasons. First, it’s incredibly widely held, believed in by clients and actively promoted by agencies. Second, it is so demonstrably untrue that after 30 years practice as both a journalist and PR guy, I remain utterly gobsmacked that it retains such unassailable currency.

Having worked the trenches of daily, weekly and monthly journalism, for both print and broadcast outlets, on both a local and national level and for both general news media and trade publications, some of my strongest and truest professional and personal relationships are with journalists. And I couldn’t lean on the best of those relationships to get a client of mine even a column inch of coverage that the client’s story didn’t merit. More to the point, I wouldn’t risk my own credibility by even trying.

But if my client’s story deserves to be in the New York Times, or on the BBC, or in EE Times, or on National Public Radio, or on the Richard and Judy Show, or in the most narrowly focused of trade media outlets, it matters not a whit whether I have any kind of existing relationship with the reporter, editor or producer who needs to be successfully pitched in order to get that coverage. It matters only that I have a deserving story to pitch and the ability to pitch it well.

And if the story doesn’t deserve to be there, all the relationships in the world ain’t gonna make it happen.

Here at inmedia, we demolish this fiction practically every time we take on a new client since we invariably are required to add new media outlets, new contacts — indeed, entire new industry sectors — to our outreach efforts. And even where we have an established record of success with any individual journalist or outlet, we don’t lever the relationship; we lever our ability to engage that journalist on the only issue of any interest to her or him: the story.

So why does this fiction persist? I blame the PR industry. Truth is, you sell what you’ve got. And if you don’t have the necessary grasp of how newsrooms operate to effectively pitch into them, if you don’t have the deep understanding of your client’s story that allows you to get past the initial objections reporters throw in your way, if you don’t have the strategic understanding of why you’re trying to generate coverage for your client in the outlet you’re targeting, then the only thing you can rely on is your so-called relationships. So you tell the prospect that relationships with the target media are a prerequisite to getting coverage and you hope the prospect is an unsophisticated buyer who will fall for that.

And since newsrooms are the ultimate game of musical chairs, where today’s technology reporter is tomorrow’s entertainment editor, you’d also better hope that the music never stops and leaves your trusted relationship stranded.

Here’s what a PR agency should be selling: The ability to investigate and understand the client’s strategic business objectives and how, or even if, they will be served by generating media coverage. From there, determining exactly what that the story is — and at inmedia, where our mantra is, “Your whole story gets told,” we understand that the story is usually much more than today’s announcement — and where it needs to be told to achieve that strategic progress. Then, fearlessly pitching that story to the right media targets, knowing as you do so exactly why each target should be interested in covering it. If you have the ability to put all this together, then your very first words to a target reporter establishes a level of trust, confidence and professionalism that trumps relationship every time.

Does this mean that here at inmedia we have no valued relationships with journalists? Of course not. After nine years focusing exclusively on B2B technology ventures, we have forged extraordinarily effective working relationships with scores of reporters and editors across a broad swath of the international trade and business media. Where we have them, we capitalize on them to sharpen our pitch and get to the point just that much more efficiently. And where we don’t have them, our fundamental skills rapidly establish us as trusted brokers of real value.

Bottom line: The only thing that has any currency in a newsroom, the only thing any journalist cares about, is the news value of the story. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t understand the news business.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Fiction: Bloggers are different from other journalists

This the first in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from September 2007. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Fiction: Bloggers are different from other journalistsBy Francis Moran

When I started this little tech PR agency, the world of online media outlets was still very much in its infancy. And an early fiction we had to deal with was a widely held belief that online media were some kind of a different beast from their print or broadcast brethren, and that only a PR agency that specialized in online media could reach these brave new e-journalists.

Our conviction was that these outlets might well be new but that there was nothing at all novel about a time-tested best-practices approach to pitching them, one based on pegging the natural news value of a client’s story and then pitching it only to those who would see that value. And we were right; from Day 1, our clients enjoyed the same widespread coverage online as they did in other media formats.

Our conviction that online journalists responded to same imperatives as their offline brethren actually cost us a client or two early on because our proposals didn’t specifically stipulate we were addressing them. We’d write that we’d target “all appropriate media outlets,” and assumed our clients were as canny as we were. We quickly learned to expand it to read, “all appropriate media outlets, including online outlets,” and to include key online titles in our list of examples.

Time passed and the requirement to single out these new media types passed with it as everyone learned that the same fundamental principles applied to pitching online media outlets and journalists, and that our phrase, “all appropriate media outlets” included online titles as a matter of course.

Then came blogs.

And the latest entry in a growing collection of what I call, “Francis’s favourite fictions.” Or, “Everything I know that’s wrong about public relations I learned from technology company executives.”

Here’s the latest one, tossed at me a few months back by a seasoned technology marketer who really should have known better. “Bloggers are different,” she insisted. “And only a PR agency that specialises in Web 2.0 social media can pitch them properly.”

Well, that was red-meat bait, and I rose to it. “Give me an example,” I challenged her. And she gave me two names, both of them critically influential bloggers in her company’s WiFi space with whom we couldn’t possibly develop a relationship, she said, because we weren’t a Web 2.0 agency.

I recognized one of the names immediately, and a check of our media contact database confirmed that we knew this guy very well. In fact, we first started successfully pitching to him when he was a columnist at a print trade magazine, then as a columnist for the online version of the same magazine, then as publisher of his own online newsletter, and now as a blogger. And guess what? He is just as pitchable, and he responds to the same things, now that he’s breathing the rarified air of the blogosphere as he had as an ink-stained wretch.

The second name was also in our database, and also had been for years, but we generally didn’t pitch him any more because his blog was the equivalent of what we used to call a rip-and-read outfit. That is, like small radio stations that just read wire copy for their newscasts, he didn’t do any original reporting; he just wrote about things he had read about elsewhere. A useful conduit, perhaps, but not one we’d bother pitching directly; better we get a hit in one of the media he watches and let him write about that. Which he does regularly.

Point is, in my world, the bloggers who count are either bona fide, and often dyed-in-the-wool, journalists making use of this latest communications channel, or they’re newcomers to the game who think, act, and respond to newsworthy pitches, in exactly the same way as journalists.

Problem is, too many people think like my favourite-fiction spinner. So we’re careful to once again add a phrase to our proposals, which these days read, “all appropriate media outlets, including bloggers.” This, too, shall pass.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Fiction: Media relations is “free advertising”

media relations 300x251 Fiction: Media relations is free advertisingBy Francis Moran

At the time my PR agency, inmedia Public Relations, was founded, I worked out of a large integrated agency in the city and some of the account executives there loved to push my buttons by declaring that media relations was free advertising. They especially liked to do this in client meetings because they knew it would prompt me to mount a fevered defence of the merits of PR and all the ways in which it differed from advertising.

I knew they were only kidding. I knew they really knew better. I knew it was all a bit of harmless fun.

But the perception that media relations is free advertising persists, and I was reminded recently that it persists even among so-called PR professionals and others who really ought to know better. I received a promotional email this week about a media-training workshop organised by a large group that specialises in consulting, training and speaking on marketing and communications. The first paragraph of the email read, “Do you know the media can give inMedia free advertizing [sic]?!” (The bold font, underlined words, redundant double punctuation at the end of the sentence and misspelling of “advertising” are all faithful reproductions of the actual email.)

I don’t want to name and shame any one. I know the consultant who wrote the email and will be giving the workshop, and am familiar with the organization putting on the workshop and have no desire to conduct a drive-by smear of either one of them. But the fact that a group positioning itself as expert counsel on subjects like PR can suggest that media relations somehow equates to free advertising demonstrates just how poor a grasp even seasoned practitioners can have of the strategic fundamentals of public relations.

Media relations is not free advertising.

First of all, it’s not free.

The editorial space in which media relations practitioners seek to get their clients’ stories may come at no cost but the process of pursuing that space can be very costly indeed. My clients pay a lot of good money for the media coverage we get for them and they most certainly do not see it as free. The strategic pursuit of media coverage is far more than a flippant pitch for a bit of free publicity; the time and skill it takes all cost a lot of money and many organisations invest far more in media relations than they do in advertising.

(Parenthetically, the same “free” tag is being attached to social media with the same potential that doing so creates unrealistic expectations of what a social media campaign ought to cost and sharply degrades the value of the results a good campaign achieves. Because access to social media networks and tools is largely without cost, there is a wide misconception that social media is a low-cost or even free communications and marketing tactic. Doing it properly is incredibly time-consuming, though, and time, whether ours or the client’s, is expensive.)

Second — and far more critically — media relations is not advertising.

While media relations can complement advertising and both, in a properly integrated program, ought to be built from the same messaging platform and address the same objectives, media relations is very unlike advertising and those who can’t see the difference ought to get into another line of work.

Media relations is more credible

Market research has long demonstrated that editorial coverage is perceived by consumers as being more credible than advertising, and this may be where media relations has its greatest advantage. Notwithstanding the generally poor regard in which journalists are held, consumers believe they have made some effort to filter and evaluate the claims made in their stories and that journalistic standards of accuracy and balance make editorial coverage more reliable.

Media relations is harder to control

The flip side of the credibility coin is that editorial coverage cannot be controlled in the same way as advertising space. Media relations practitioners have no say over how much space their story will get, where or when it will run, or what other messages — even opposing messages — might also run in the same story. You can mitigate this lack of control and vastly increase your chances of achieving your desired outcome, however, through the effective and strategic planning of your media relations efforts along with a sharp tactical understanding of how newsrooms operate.

Media relations can deliver greater message reach

The impact of any campaign is measured in terms of reach — the number of people who will see your message — and frequency — the number of times the message will be seen. Media relations can vastly increase the reach of a campaign although it is usually difficult for it to do much for frequency.

Advertising costs increase in linear fashion — that is, it generally costs twice as much to reach twice as many people or to reach them twice as often. Media relations efforts, on the other hand, scale more efficiently. Once having completed all the work to develop the story pitch and materials necessary to reach our first journalist, the cost of reaching the second and subsequent journalists is a small increment. The reach of a media relations campaign can be extended more cost-effectively than that of an advertising campaign but it is unlikely that a media relations campaign will deliver multiple exposures like an advertising campaign can do if you pay for them.

Media relations can deliver greater message scope

Most advertising is limited to a couple of sharp selling points. Media relations, on the other hand, can produce coverage that goes well beyond a headline or two. As such, it is particularly effective when you need to explain an issue or educate an audience. For a better understanding of how this advantage of media relations fits into a marketing campaign, see my post last week on my three buckets of customer segmentation. The downside of this advantage is that any story can, of course, also include negative messaging.

Media relations is rarely transactional

Although it can happen, media coverage rarely puts bums in seats. Any good ad must have a clear and compelling call to action. No good journalist is going to allow such a thing to creep into her or his story, although a lot of coverage, especially outside the hard news and business sections, will contain information on where readers, listeners or viewers can go for more information. In a connected world, this can be done more easily — and seemingly without compromising journalistic integrity — through the use of hyperlinks in online coverage that lead readers to a company or advocacy website.

So what’s the harm?

The advertising colleagues I referenced at the outset of this post were just taking a bit of mickey, and no harm was done. But real harm is done when media relations is conflated with advertising.

In the first instance, as I have already explained, calling media relations “free” degrades its value and the effort required to do it properly. Second, it can lead to really bad strategic planning and deployment of marketing resources if media relations is expected to accomplish the transactional objectives of an advertising campaign.

Perhaps most dangerously, however, it leads to a mindset that there is no such thing as bad publicity; that any engagement with the media is to be desired and pursued. I have in the past counselled two extraordinary local organisations that deal with children in times of extreme hazard. Both organisations have amazing and heart-warming tales to tell of how they quite literally save lives every day, and they rightly pursue media coverage of those stories in the same honest, principled and good-hearted way they conduct all their affairs. But because they deal with the most at-risk of our society’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens, the outcome of their very best efforts is often a tragic one, and tragic outcomes involving children are headline-making events. If these organisations viewed media coverage as a benign publicity resource they could mine for “free advertising,” they would be hammered by the fallout that would ensue.

Technorati Tags: ,

We’re going to fill the tank when we get there

RunningOnEmpty Were going to fill the tank when we get thereBy Francis Moran

No sane person setting out on a long journey of indefinite length would wait until they had arrived before filling up the gas tank.

And yet technology companies tell me all the time that they’re going to do exactly that.

“We’ll start marketing as soon as we have some customers,” is a variation of a line I’ve heard often but that still pains me deeply every time I hear it.

I heard it again just the other day from an amazing company I’ve been watching for a while. Like most promising technology companies, this one has developed a new way of doing something that creates massive value for users. Their product costs less money to use than the alternative, saves huge amounts of incredibly expensive time at a critical juncture for its potential customers, and avoids the considerable environmental damage wrought by existing approaches.

Like many compelling technological advances, however, the adoption of this company’s product requires significant changes in behaviour in a risk-averse industry.

In short, this company needs marketing, and lots of it.

However, like most companies that give me the fill-the-tank-when-we-get-there line, this company quite obviously views marketing as an expense item that can’t be contemplated until revenues start rolling in. Lost on them is the reality that marketing is an investment item that ensures the revenues will roll in.

By contrast, let me talk a little about another company with which I am meeting in a couple of weeks to start work on the first ever proper marketing strategy this company has ever done.

We’ve known this company for several years. It is an important partner of one of our long-standing clients and we’ve had the pleasure of helping it out with some modest media relations requirements. Their new reality is exactly the reason why I’ve chosen to add this strategic marketing practice to what has long been a sharply focused PR practice — many of our B2B PR clients need help with more than just PR.

In this instance, this company has the opportunity to enter a promising new market, and has turned to us for counsel beyond the straightforward media relations stuff we’ve been doing. Their first request was for something tactical and, when we told them what it would cost, they had sticker shock. I validated their concern about how much marketing costs — it is expensive. But I also started to turn the conversation around. “If you view marketing as an expense item, you’ll never do it,” I told them. “You need to look at it from the other end of the telescope.”

The exercise we will bring this company through starts with its objectives for its new market and then goes on to ask and answer many questions. How big is the opportunity? How many customers are there? How many of those customers could you acquire — or do you need to acquire to meet your business plan objectives — in your first year? How are you going to acquire them? What should it cost to acquire them? What is the life-time revenue of every new customer you acquire? What’s your profit on that revenue? How much of that profit should you invest in acquiring that customer?

I’m simplifying things here but what we will have at the end of this exercise is a business case supporting an investment in marketing rather than an expenditure on marketing. The difference is subtle but illuminating. The latter creates a mindset of limited opportunity where costs, rather than results, are the key focus and the impetus is always on constraining those costs as much as possible. The former creates a mindset of expectation where a dollar spent is expected to return a multiple of revenue, where the focus is on results, and where investment decisions are made on the basis of their effectiveness.

With this business case in hand, our client will be able to put exactly enough gas in its tank to get it to where it needs to go.

Technorati Tags: , ,

The saddest marketing story I’ve ever heard

By Francis Moran

screen shot option2 300x145 The saddest marketing story Ive ever heardI heard the saddest story the other day.

A few years ago, we worked on the launch of a new personal finance website developed by a veteran personal financial advisor. The site was detailed, secure, incredibly useful and solved a sharp, expensive and disruptive pain that the advisor had been running up against his entire professional life.

Our media launch went well. We got some decent coverage, both in mass media and, more valuably, in the trade media reaching financial advisors. Although the site was designed for individual subscriptions, advisors were identified as its most important channel to market since they were expected to counsel their clients to use it.

We were a little confused when the campaign was not continued past that initial launch, especially since some of the best opportunities we generated for the client were over the long term, including, for example, an agreement to have the site’s creator contribute a regular column to one of the key trade publications in the space. From the other folks working on the launch we heard encouraging news about the possibility that the site would be white-labelled by one of the largest firms of financial advisors on the continent, and other early signs of traction. So we were at a bit of a loss when everything went unexpectedly quiet.

Still, it wasn’t the first time that a client had invested in a launch only to tell us they would be unable to continue funding the program so we moved on, occasionally curious about what had become of the endeavour.

Then, last week, I heard the full sad story.

I was meeting with the person who had originally introduced us to the account. We had a few completely unrelated things to chat about and, after we had dealt with all that, I asked him how things were going with the web site.

Things weren’t going at all, he told me. Nothing more had really happened on the marketing front and the site had eventually been taken down. A Google search on the company name will still find the media coverage we got, and will even uncover a few archived pages of the site itself. Click on those site pages, though, or type the URL into a browser address line and you get the dreaded “The connection has timed out.”

Here’s the kicker.

According to the guy I spoke with last week, the site’s creator invested fully a million dollars into the development of this useful and powerful new tool. And $60,000 into its marketing, about a quarter of which was spent on the media relations bit that we did. When that meagre marketing budget failed to produce immediate traction, he pulled the plug.

This sad tale would depress me all the more if I hadn’t become somewhat inured to this sort of thing during the 20 years or so in which I have been working to bring technology to market. It is far from the first time that I have seen inventors, application developers and otherwise-very-clever entrepreneurs invest their hopes, dreams and hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of their and other people’s money into developing the greatest new whatever. And then, having given birth to their wonderful new baby, they deny it the marketing nutrition it requires and it starves to death.

It’s a sad, sad story. With far too many chapters still to be written.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >