links for 2009-11-25
by Brian Reich | 25 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
Women are in charge of 80 percent of consumer spending. What are marketers doing to appeal to them? Stacey Vanek-Smith talks to women's marketing expert Mary Lou Quinlan, who says women can't be trusted when it comes to why they buy products.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-20
by Brian Reich | 20 Nov 2009, 11:03am
-
Six Apart co-founder Anil Dash plans to reinvent the way the government listens to its citizens. We’re not talking about wiretapping. Rather, he wants to solicit expert opinions on scientific matters through a new social network belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Expert Labs.
-
There is no consistent model for communities on corporate sites. Every company is different. But these maps of how their systems interact help to paint a good picture for how an ideal interaction might look.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-17
by Brian Reich | 17 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
Between 2007 and 2009, the amount of on-site engagement has dropped by over 50%, while the off-site engagement has skyrocketed!
TAGS
leave a comment
Most PR Firms Don’t Get It
by Brian Reich | 16 Nov 2009, 11:49pm
I don’t think most PR firms understand social media - or how our society is changing as a result of the influence that the internet and technology are having on our lives. And I don’t see any evidence that they will ‘get it’ any time soon. Consider, for example, how they build their teams.
A well-known PR firm (I won’t name them) recently posted a Supervisor of New Media position which included the following necessary qualifications:
The Supervisor of New Media must have 4-6 years of relative PR/Marcom agency experience. The ideal candidate must be able to show examples of their work in the form of relevant case studies that highlight digital programs conducted for clients. S/he should love to infuse social media and new media techniques into PR programs in a clever way, be a strong team player and enjoy following and mastering new trends.
I have three issues with this:
1) The definition(s) of expertise are ever-changing. I wrote in my book, Media Rules! (back in 1997) that “Knowledge makes you an expert. Your experience makes you an expert. Your network makes you an expert. Your notoriety makes you an expert. Truly expertise in the current media environment is in the eye’s of the beholder. But to be an expert for the long-term, it takes a couple of things. Expertise comes from the skills and knowledge that someone possesses, distinguishing them from a novice or less experienced person. People become experts as a result of their membership in a community of practice – a group or partnership around a specific issue or service. You can become an expert simply by being the only one who has experienced something.”
My point was that expertise has to be considered in context. 4-6 years of ‘experience’ won’t qualify you for much in a job that focuses on New Media (capitalization is theirs, not mine…). Facebook only launched five years ago. Twitter didn’t exist. Most/all of the tools and channels that are shaping the online universe today, if they did exist five years ago, have radically changed in just the past year or two, or are due for a major restructuring soon. Years in the business don’t give you any relevant experience. To find the best employee you have to look to see if someone understands the space, not how long they have been playing around online. Expertise is put to the test every time a new project comes along.
2) Case studies don’t prove anything. The world is changing so quickly and so significantly - online and offline - that looking to case studies as a metric of someone’s capability and expertise is a flawed exercise. So, having candidates be able to “show examples of their work in the form of relevant case studies that highlight digital programs conducted for clients” won’t ensure a qualified employee either. Someone’s ability to generate successes for one client, or one project, does not mean they translate to another situation. Case studies are interesting, but in my opinion they aren’t transferable. There are no models for success anymore. There is no way to emulate what you have done in the past and get the same results. Good strategy and support will be defined in each situation, by each professional, and similar.
3) There is more to success online than being ‘clever’ The job description above requests that candidates “love to infuse social media and new media techniques into PR programs in a clever way…” I’m probably reading too much into it - but being funny, or creative or ‘clever’ is just one small piece of a successful social media effort. We all know that sex sells. We all remember the funny online videos (or commercials, or gimmicks and campaigns). The big flashy campaigns certainly get attention, but in today’s hyper-connected world, those blips on the attention radar disappear as quickly as they emerge. That’s PR 101, the basic stuff. Being ‘clever’ isn’t going to work well as it did in the past, especially with the audience in control of its media experience, able to skip commercials or tune out the crap.
Social media, and communication/marketing in general today requires a deeper understanding of the audience, a thoughtful approach to how people get and share information, knowledge and understanding of how technology impacts our society, and an appreciation for what role media - not to mention whatever product or service a PR firm is promoting - plays in people’s lives. Put another way, I wouldn’t consider most of the people who truly understand social media to be particularly ‘clever’.
\Maybe you can’t advertise for someone who is smart, passionate, able to think on their feet, able to analyze situations and make decisions quickly. Maybe you can’t easily build a job description around a space that is changing constantly, targeting audiences that are evolving continuously, with new tools and new techniques emerging in real time.
Or maybe PR firms can’t, and that’s why most don’t seem to truly ‘get it’ and aren’t likely to any time soon.
TAGS
: PR firms social media
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-14
by Brian Reich | 14 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
When Sesame Street turned 40 earlier this week, this guy made it my business to learn more about how this show became such a huge phenomenon. What I discovered was tons of learnings for marketers. Read his insights.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-13
by Brian Reich | 13 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
The most radical shift to media in recent years is that we now have a central real-time hub that serves to enhance every other content platform on the web. Here's Mashable's take…
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-12
by Brian Reich | 12 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
The Internet has already radically changed the way we shop. Googling for promotion codes, free shipping, free return shipping, virtual models, live chats with sales associates – it’s all become common place. In fact, a recent study from Burst Media found that 85% of consumers will shop online this holiday season, and the majority of those people will continue to shop online throughout the year. Now that online shopping is widespread – just try finding someone who has never purchased an item on the Internet these days – it’s about to enter whole new dimension: social shopping.
-
Bill Gates visited the 92nd Street Y (in NYC) to talk about his philanthropy and other plans. This is a writeup from Mashable on the event.
-
While mainstream social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have always been free to users, paid social network content models are alive and well. Networks that cater to market niches have particularly thrived on hybrids of paid models and ad-based systems. Some of these, such as LinkedIn, Classmates.com and MyLife.com, are earning at least as much revenue from fee-based content and services as from advertising.
-
The tactics and focus employed by the campaign may not appear novel to presidential-level strategists, but for statewide campaigns, the McDonnell campaign should serve as a model. A cautionary note about any case study on political campaigning: glean valuable lessons but recognize that the political environment and dynamics vary from race to race.If ones takes just a few basic lessons from the McDonnell online effort, take these, the 7 habits of highly successful campaigns:
-
Experiences, it would seem, are the new advertising. Experiences reach and engage customers in new and more meaningful ways, they promote "trial" over simply messaging and — quite frankly — experiences are much more suited to our digital era when everything is just a click away. Our challenge now, as marketers, is to make sure that our products and brands can actually live up to the experiences that we advertise.
-
Today our social rules seem to have been overloaded by our always on, always connected culture. Behaviours developed for the industrial age simply cannot cope with the new possibilities for information sharing. We are clearly going to see a lot more inappropriate use of social media before new rules emerge.
TAGS
leave a comment
Why Today’s NYTimes Giving Section Isn’t Good Enough
by Brian Reich | 12 Nov 2009, 10:27am
The New York Times published its ‘Giving’ section in today’s paper. I was totally underwhelmed. Here are my comments, in the form of a series of Tweets that I fired off during my commute into work this morning:
It’s refreshing to see the NYTimes Giving Section cover new philanthropy stories with different and refreshing angles (note sarcasm).
Thanks NYTimes - I wasn’t aware Target gave away 5% to charity. Causes let’s people tap social networks to raise money? Fascinating.
I am going to have to check the archives, but I am sure the NYTimes has never written up the WH Office of Social Innovation - that’s huge.
And that story about corporations having to do more than just brand themselves with a cause - I had never considered that. Thanks NYTimes
Dear NYTimes - if you want to continue to be my (or the) paper of record, you have to elevate your game. Start with your Giving section.
Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up Lucy Bernholz’s ideas for how to re-shape the policy and governance structure behind non-profits?
Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up the Wal-Mart Foundation’s ideas for how to end hunger, to go beyond just making donations?
Dear NYTimes - how about being a forum for the discussion about activity vs impact (and how many argue online hasn’t made it’s mark yet)?
Dear NYTimes - maybe you could tell us about the innovative mobile programs that enable individuals to volunteer while waiting for a bus?
With all due respect to the NYTimes Giving Section, there are more and better stories out there than what was in the paper today.
I came up with some (not so new, but newer than what is in the paper) better ideas for the NYTimes Giving Section on my walk to work.
Dear NYTimes - your yesterday’s news approach to the Giving Section today proves what everyone says about the print media not getting it.
Dear NYTimes - if you want ideas, or help, covering what is really important in philanthropy, let me know. I will help and others will too.
My frustration is driven by three issues:
1) There are better stories out there. The was little new ground covered in the stories offered by the New York Times as a part of their Giving Section today. Is the ‘paper of record’ not paying attention to what is going on in the world today? Do they not read the existing mainstream media coverage of nonprofits and charities, or the blogs and other sites that talk about the philanthropic community? Not only are there better stories out there - new innovations, different perspectives, approaches that are having more impact, and the like. But even within the stories that they covered - Causes, Target, the White House Office of Social Innovation, cause marketing and branding for corporations, to name a few - there are other voices and important perspectives that should have been included. The coverage was stale, incomplete — and barely worth the effort to read it.
2) The New York Times still has influence. Because people still view the New York Times as one of the leading news organizations in the country (and in some ways it still is, but apparently not when it comes to the issues related to philanthropy), their coverage in today’s Giving Section will have legs. People will read about it, blog about it, talk about it, and shape their plans based on what the New York Times says is important. But the news they offer is stale, the perspectives are incomplete, and as a result, the potential harm it can do probably outweighs the good. Nonprofits and charitable institutions continue to struggle - for reasons including (but certainly not limited to) the economy and the rapid changes in technology and how information travels. The New York Times had an opportunity to elevate the discussion, to change minds, to educate those who don’t have the luxury of being a part of philanthropic community every day, wrestling to figure these things out. But instead, the New York Times’ contribution to the discussion will do nothing to help any organization understand or deal with those issues, or the countless others that are out there, and probably will stunt the discussion somewhat, because of the need to go back and revisit issues that had, at least in my opinion, already been considered and addressed.
3) We do this to ourselves. Society has changed. How people get and share information, what we view as important, how we spend our time, energy and money have all changed. And all those changes are shifting the role and responsibility of the media as well. The New York Times (clearly) is no longer the authority on all issues - and in the case of their coverage of philanthropy, as demonstrated by today’s Giving Section, there are some areas where they are woefully behind the curve. There are all sorts of new and better sources for information, analysis and insight about the philanthropic community. And yet, for some reason, organizations still look at the New York Times as an important voice in this conversation. PR firms pitch their stories to the New York Times, even though they know that they don’t have the best examples or the greatest impact. Donors and ‘experts’ will put the groups profiled in today’s Giving Section at the top of their list of success stories, and must support organizations, despite the fact that many other, more compelling opportunities exist - and need help if they are going to break through. Bloggers, and columnists, and advocates for the nonprofit community will tweet, and re-tweet, and crow about the coverage in the Giving Section, ignoring all the other powerful examples and potentially game-changing opportunities that are out there. We do this to ourselves.
In the back of our heads, we know that the coverage in the New York Times isn’t good enough, isn’t far-reaching enough, and won’t change anything. But we let it happen anyway, year after year after year. Put another way, until the philanthropic community calls the New York Times out for not doing enough, for not covering the best stories in the best ways, the coverage will never change, and the space will never make the leaps forward it needs. So, let me do that now:
November 12, 2009
Dear New York Times:
You can do better.
I expect more of you.
Your truly,
Brian Reich
Subscriber (and someone who is active in, and concerned about, the philanthropic community and the ways in which the media covers its work - and potential).
That’s it. Now, get to work.
TAGS
: Causes Giving Section New York Times Philanthropy Target White House Office of Social Innovation
3 comments
links for 2009-11-11
by Brian Reich | 11 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
Recent research provides evidence that there are business benefits to becoming an über-connected organization
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-11-09
by Brian Reich | 9 Nov 2009, 11:01am
-
There are plenty of theories about how to improve education. Most focus on what appear to be big levers–a point of entry and system intervention that appears to provide some improvement leverage. These theories usually involve 'if-then' statements: 'if we improve this, then other good stuff will happen.' Leading theories focus on people, schools, policy and community. Nonprofit ecosystems develop around theories, they ebb and flow with foundation interest. Although seldom discussed, leading levers differ substantially in terms of risk and return.
-
I'm quoted in this (really good) article about the challenges for online activism in today's political culture:
The Obama campaign showed how digital tools can fuse the personal touch of local organizing with the powerful message of a national candidate and create a large, mobilized, virtual community, but online strategist Brian Reich is still looking for signs that Barack Obama the president can make the political personal as deftly as Obama the candidate made the personal political. "Obama did that extraordinarily well during the campaign because it was decentralized," says Reich, who is also a former staffer to Vice President Al Gore, "but the White House is the ultimate top-down communications vehicle." The traditional polarity of governance is not the only challenge to grassroots engagement by the White House."
-
This is supposed to be a participatory democracy, but we've all gotten used to non-participation. And the cost is enormous.
TAGS
leave a comment
