Must-Read: Another nail in the coffin

by Brian Reich | 27 Apr 2010, 12:48pm

I firmly believe, and have said on the record, that marketers as well as consumers would be better served if TV networks (or really any media/channel creator - radio, TV, internet, print, etc.) took over the full functions of advertising agencies.

So, I was obviously excited to read that media companies have started to offer ad-agency-like services in hopes of stealing a few more of their clients’ dollars.  According to AdAge, “some have taken it a step further by creating ads for clients that appear on other media properties” as well.  Conde Nast is leading the pack.

This is both long overdue and a clear sign that the future of advertising agencies will look very different than the past, or present — if there is a future at all.  Happy reading.

TAGS : Advertising Advertising Age Conde Nast media Must-Read
leave a comment

Why local news can change the world… but doesn’t.

by Brian Reich | 2 Sep 2009, 8:19am

Henry (my 21-month old son) and I spent part of the afternoon on Tuesday playing at Bushnell Park in Hartford, CT.  We don’t spend a lot of time in Hartford, but we are staying in nearby Manchester, CT with my in-laws for a few weeks while we wait to move in to our new apartment in New York City.  So, my mother-in-law suggested we venture downtown to ride the park’s vintage 1914 carousel.  Why not, right?

We weren’t able to ride the carousel - it is only available Thursday - Sunday in the fall, and apparently the new fall hours started on September 1st - so we opted for the next best/closest attraction, a playscape. As playscapes go (and I am a self-styled expert now, of course) this one was pretty nice.  Lots of room to run around, structures to climb, slides to slide.  There are padded floors in case you fall.  And all around the play area are cement statues of turtles and frogs (which spit water) for kids to explore.

The playscape area, along with the park itself is pretty dirty and depressing, even on a bright sunny afternoon.  There are plastic bags and empty water bottles on the ground.  There weren’t very many people hanging around.  In fact, my mother-in-law, who works nearby and eats her lunch by the fountain adjacent to the playscape, noted that the half-dozen kids who were playing when we arrived were the first kids she had ever seen in the area on a weekday.

Anyway, when we arrived, I noticed some graffiti written on one of the elements - a tic-tac-toe board.  I didn’t pay much attention, and frankly wasn’t surprised — it is not uncommon to see graffiti written on a playground structure. This graffiti happened to be profane, which isn’t all that common, but I didn’t give it much thought.  Then, a few minutes later, while Henry introduced himself to the cement turtle on the far side of the playground, a local news crew arrived.  Apparently a viewer, visiting the playground with his 3-year old daughter, had alerted the local news about the graffiti and they decided to do a story.  My mother-in-law and I were both asked to interview.

The reporter asked three, maybe four, very basic questions and I did my best to give a good sound-bite, while also making a larger point.  Here is the quote that appeared in the online story:

“It certainly reflects badly on Hartford.  This is a place you think you can raise kids and bring kids.  You see something like this though and you start to wonder,” said Brian Reich of Hartford.

You watch the story, which was the lead on the 11 O’clock news, below:

First, I just want to note that I do not live in Hartford.  The story listed me as a resident, but that is not true.  Further, until yesterday, I had not given any thought to the upkeep up Bushnell Park.  I lived in Fairfield County for a few years growing up, and have done political work in Connecticut which has brought me to Hartford somewhat regularly over the years.  I agreed to interview for the story because when you have kids and they are running around on a local playscape, you start to view this type of issue as important, and form an opinion.  I also submitted to the interview because, well, I was asked… if you put a camera in front of me, I can’t help but make a comment.  That is just part of my nature (grin).

Second, the City of Hartford, which is already struggling, could probably have done without this completely avoidable hit to its reputation.  Like a lot of municipalities, in Connecticut and across the nation, Hartford has lost jobs during the recession, along with tourism dollars.  The state capitol has never had the best reputation, and on top of everything else, has an ongoing political scandal (the mayor was indicted for corruption, and new charges are expected to be filed this week as well) to deal with right now. Having the top story on the news reinforce all the negative stereotypes that already exist about the city - that the local government isn’t doing its job, that the city isn’t safe, or welcoming, piles on further.  I tried to make this point in my comments to the reporter, both on and off camera, but those comments didn’t make the cut.

Finally, what frustrates me more than the fact that a nice local park has been defiled with graffiti, is the fact that the attention the media gives to the issue likely won’t change anything.  Hartford’s local government knows that it isn’t keeping the city as clean as possible, but it can’t solve every problem - especially in tough economic times.  The Bushnell Park Foundation is fully aware that plastic bags and empty water bottles litter the areas that they manage, not to mention the fact that graffiti abounds not just on this playscape, but it doesn’t have the resources to do anything about it right now either.  Local residents who frequent the playground, not to mention tourists like me, aren’t surprised when graffiti appears on a local playscape, or when it doesn’t immediately get removed — but we don’t bring a spray bottle or a spare garbage bag to help make things better either.  And if, somehow, the outrage generated by this story on the news were to prompt a quick response, it would almost certainly be in response to the story, and the desire to avoid future public shame, and not because cleaning up the park is the highest priority for all involved.

I believe the local media, which tops its broadcast with this story and claims the moral high-ground in a way by calling out the failures of the local officials, bears some responsibility as well.  With the interviews completed and sufficient b-roll collected, the reporter and her cameraman packed up, walked back to their truck, and left the graffiti there to be cleaned up by someone else.  Ater broadcasting the story, the local news station didn’t offer tips to local residents on how to clean up graffiti.  And the best the local government and park officials could offer was an apology, with an asterisk, that tough economic times result in tough choices.

Everyone failed, but for the moment, let me focus on the media.  You see, the media believes that to increase awareness of this (tiny, but obviously meaningful) blight on the city’s image, it has helped the community and fulfilled its civic responsibility. It has not.  Awareness is not enough.  The media must act if it wants to completely fulfill its responsibility to the local community.

Telling the story is not sufficient.  Changing the story, or helping to change the story, would be a big step in the right direction.  I don’t expect local media to become the leading civic activists in Hartford, or any other municipality, but recognizing and understanding the role that media plays in people’s lives would be a good starting point.   Media drives awareness and helps to educate people on their relationship to the issues that impact our society.  Once that awareness is raised, the media should be supporting action, not just highlighting when the actions that are being taken - by government, local institutions, or citizens - isn’t enough.  That is what viewers want and expect - to be shown how to make a difference, to be supported in their quest to have an impact.  Viewers want their media to help them change society.  And until the local media does provide that help, people will continue to tune out and their frustration will continue to grow.  We can do better.

I wrote a paper (opens as a PDF) earlier this year for iFOCOS, a think tank, about how technology and the internet were changing the relationship between government, the public, and the media.  Here is an excerpt that I think is relevant here:

Local news operations are supposed to be information hubs for the communities they serve. And when they play that role, the audience responds and the community prospers. Of late,however, the local news seems to be focusing less on the stories that require unique attention and community focus and more on the sensationalistic (car crashes, crimes and fires) or functional (weather and traffic). In the age of digital media, it isn’t enough to simply exist; local news must inform, educate, and help spur us to action.

People want a place, digital or otherwise, where they can gather and learn about the community in which they are a part, a place where they can get in touch with the issues. News organizations can host and foster that community with the tools available to them online. The Obama campaign turned the Internet into a gateway for millions of Americans to participate in the political process, and now the President and his team fully expects that base of support to continue on their own, acting locally, to bring about change in our communities. At all levels, but especially on the local community level, the media should be a part of the community, taking direction from individuals about what issues are important and what changes must be made. Where the local news organizations can’t find resources to cover an issue, they should ask the community to contribute. Instead of going alone, they should collaborate to demand action.

Can every citizen be a reporter? Can news organizations be organs of change? Can our government truly welcome the participation of its constituents and maintain the focus necessary to lead? Are we prepared to take on the massive challenge of getting our government moving again? Are we truly interested in opening up our democracy to those who make it strong, at the risk of also needing to include those who might undermine it with their actions? Did the public ever really trust the government or the media? Will they ever, even when they are a part of the process that shapes how our country is managed?

…

The most trusted institutions in the We Media age, whether they are familiar big media brands or new upstart competitors, will be those that engage in, celebrate and strengthen civic life. Journalists, digital communities, special interest groups and independent storytellers will continue to compete for time, attention and influence in the We Media culture. Whether they behave as neutral watchdogs or partisan activists, the most influential of these voices and institutions inside and outside of government will be those that empower individuals to apply what they know to improve their lives, their communities, and the world. One measure of this empowerment will be the ability to influence government and its policies. Another will be trust – whether the public continues to believe that the president is acting with their best interests in mind, whether they are willing to commit their time and effort to help advance his agenda. We Media is the public – and the public’s increased interest and participation in covering the president, supporting his agenda, challenging his claims and holding him accountable to his commitments, will reflect a rising tide of passion and purpose within the swelling ranks of We Media.

In some cases, the local media does live up to the expectations that local viewers have — and takes an active role in addressing the issues that impact the community.  But for the most part, media believes its role is to simply report, and argues that by doing just that, it deserves the attention and support needed to sustain operations.  We know better today, as viewers and as citizens.  We have power and opportunity, thanks in part to the access to information and community that now exists as a result of the influence of technology and the internet, to address these issues ourselves.  As a result, media needs to change its role, and how it does its job. To help them, we all have to shift our thinking, and our behavior.  When we do, things will begin to change for the better.

TAGS : Bushnell Park CT graffiti Hartford media social change WeMedia
leave a comment

Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?

by Brian Reich | 26 Aug 2009, 7:15am

My friend, Amy Jussel, the Executive Director of Shaping Youth and an all-around super smarty-pants on the issues of how media and marketing influence kids, tweeted me last week to ask modern-day advocacy and activism.  Specifically, she asked me: “Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?”

Amy has now written a very full post — including some of the thoughts I shared.  Here is an excerpt from that post, my answers to three questions that she posed over email:

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: When cause-marketing prompts us toward ‘urgent action’ for a piece of legislation, lobbying at a state level, etc. does it ‘do any good’ to pick up a phone, quick click an autofill form, retweet, SMS, or otherwise respond to digital pleas? Does it ‘count/matter?’ How so? Give us the inside scoop from the back end of these campaigns!

Brian Reich: Each situation is different. But the short answer is yes – feedback from constituents plays a big role in the outcome of a vote by a Member of Congress or similar. There are lots of factors that go into a decision on an issue, how to vote — not to mention a host of different meetings and votes along the way.  Still, at the end of the day, elected officials want to know that their vote reflects the will of their constituents and provides the best possible outcome for their district/state. That’s who they answer to in an election year (and when it is an election year, or a big election issue, that is top of mind). Providing a personal word of support or opposition on an issue can have a big impact.

That said, there are some important things you should know:

- Email is a commodity. It has become so easy for people to send emails to their members of congress that the direct impact of that form of communication has become limited. e.g. Members of Congress receive so many emails that most of the time what is presented is just a summary; a chart showing what percentage of the emails are in favor of a  piece of legislation and what percentage are opposed and use that, along with a host of other things, in their decision making. Calls, texts, etc. are treated the same way by many officials.

Most decisions are made long before votes. There are some cases where the vote is very close and some Members of Congress (for example) are wavering one direction or another. In those situations, a last minute flood of calls/emails can have an impact.  But, in most cases, the decisions are made well in advance.  So, what is more important is for people to show their support, share their stories, lodge their opposition or similar early on – when a bill is being shaped, when a committee is taking up the issue, before an elected official has decided their position and announced their intention to vote.  And if you really want to get your opinion known by an elected official, set up a meeting, attend a town hall, talk to them personally — they remember that stuff for sure. (AJ-yay, I did it right!)

- Local is key. The most important people that an elected official wants to hear from is their constituents.  You can get millions of people to send a note or make a call, but if they don’t live in the district, if they don’t vote, if they are only spewing advocacy organization created talking points, it will fall flat.

Personal, genuine, authentic communications win the day.  Technology can help speed and scale the delivery of those, so organizations should use them accordingly.  Millions of the same note aren’t as helpful as a handful of the right notes.

- List Building: A big reason why groups send out the last minute requests is to build their lists.  Every time you send an email or similar you add your email address to their list — and open yourself to future fundraising solicitations, requests for action and similar. If you are already on their list, responding shows that you are interested and willing to be active in future efforts.

From my view, the organizations don’t always interpret that action as they should… that you were interested in a specific issue or action, and that your support may not be broadly for the entire organization or effort.

- There are exceptions. I worked for a member of congress years ago who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban in 1993/1994, knowing full well that the decision was right for the country but not supported by his constituents.  And then, as expected, he was voted out the next election.  He was personally lobbied by the President (Clinton) and his head/heart was what drove the final decision, not electoral politics or constituent feedback.  So, every situation is different.

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: Is one media form more impactful than another? (obviously fundraising is quantifiable but I’m talking lobbying actions/legislation-appeal)

Brian Reich: There is no way to quantify the effect of one media over another any more — to get your message across, to get an elected official to consider your issue, etc. you have to present your argument across a variety of channels and hope that it finds the right target.

In terms of how to figure out a specific approach or tactic, start with an understanding of who the decision makers are.  Most of the time, elected officials aren’t reading their own mail, or in some cases working on the details of the legislation themselves. Their aids and deputies are.  What do those people read?  In the ten minutes before the LA or LD goes in to meet with a Member of Congress to advise him/her on how to vote, what sources are they checking? That is the media you want to use.

In a lot of cases, the audience that you are trying to reach is only one person, and determining not only what channel to use in reaching them, but also what content/argument/experience you need to create for them to understand and appreciate your argument is what matters.

Mainstream media still has sway in that regard – an editorial from the local paper in the district, or a high-profile article in the Washington Post will get read.

Blogs are increasingly powerful for the same reasons, because certain blogs, on certain issues, or representing certain geographic areas, have influence and audience.

That doesn’t mean the YouTube videos or Tweets don’t get watched/read, but it means that a campaign focused around a really compelling video may not find its intended target.  And that doesn’t mean that a mass virtual protest won’t get an issue some needed attention.

But at the same time, some of the tactics that result in big, measurable numbers have the opposite effect you want (e.g. if so many people call the office, urged on by an angry radio campaign, and it shuts down the phone system and stresses out the staff, you made your point that people care about this issue, but you also may have burnt a bridge).

The way I see it, you have to look at activity vs. impact:

You could get 100,000 people to watch your online video, but if the LA or LD, the member of congress, or whoever advises them isn’t among that audience, and you don’t flip their vote on an issues as a result, that effort was a failure.

Obviously, getting 100,000 people to do anything is pretty impressive, but you have to look at using online/social media/technology to facilitate the kinds of actions that will get the results/have the impact you want.

In the case of media/social media, many of the decision makers still aren’t using the tools, or haven’t figured out who to trust online.  So, you have to use a mix of traditional approaches and more innovative online approaches.

And again, if you look at the organizational goals, getting 100,000 people to watch a video may be exactly what they want, regardless of the outcome of the vote – because those people get fired up, they join the email list, they make donations, they spread the word… and all that allows a group to sustain its operations and live to fight another day.

My personal belief is that too much time is spent serving the cause and not solving the cause – meaning that groups spend a lot of time raising money and keeping the lights on, but don’t apply the smart strategy and tactics to getting their issue passed, or similar.  Its a different approach and very different use of media, and social media, and technology in general, when you are trying to drive and measure impact vs. activity.

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: How can change agents more effectively mobilize and activate time-crunched consumers?

Brian Reich: That question requires a very long answer.  But I would suggest three things quickly:

1) Engage them early and often… you want to build relationships with the audience/consumer so that when you need them to take action, they are already interested and motivated.

2) You need to add value… don’t just ask for money or action, give them something in return.  Something they need.  Something they want.  Add value.

3) Have impact.  I know full well when I sign an online petition that the likelihood that petition will result in a meaningful, measurable change on an issue is slim.  Everyone knows that now (or soon).  So the more times you ask for help, and direct action, and still can’t produce a real impact, the sooner you will find yourself asking and getting a response.

Here is a related blog post turned US Airways Magazine article I wrote on this called “The Internet Has Made Us Lazy.”

I hope you will read the entire post, and I encourage you to pay attention to Amy’s work generally - its super important, and there are lessons for all media and marketing efforts, regardless of audience, that you can take from her focus on kids.

Thanks for asking, Amy!

TAGS : advocacy Marketing media politics Shaping Youth
2 comments

Media and the 2016 Olympics

by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2009, 10:18pm

I was asked to share some thoughts about how media and technology will change before the 2016 Olympics - and what that should mean to the bid process, the preparations whoever is selected as host City need to make, and the sporting world in general.  They were compiled on StadiTech, and interesting blog about stadium technology and innovation.

Media For 2016 Olympics Interview with ‘Media Rules!’ Author - Brian Reich

StadiaTech.com takes a look ahead at the 2016 Olympic Games and interviews Brian Reich, author of Media Rules!, on his views of media activity and technological advances for the 2016 Games.

Q: What will be the three most popular personalized marketing methods by 2016?

A: I’m not sure I would describe it as a method, but I think high quality content will be the most important element of marketing in the future. The process that someone goes through when deciding whether to buy a product or make any other decision is a personal one — they are looking to satisfy their personal interests or needs. They are looking to be a part of a community or to know that their investment, whether its time or money or something else, was worthwhile. The more than marketers can adapt the messaging of their campaigns to meet individual interests, the more effective those efforts will be. In the context of sports and the Olympics, marketers should be looking at the Olympics as the ultimate experience, the chance to represent your country or live vicariously through an athlete — stories and details that make the Games accessible (through the product experience you are selling) will resonate. Second, marketers should be looking at how to create conversation about their product, especially among a friend or family member of their target. The community that surrounds a consumer has the greatest influence on their decision making, so facilitating peer-to-peer marketing is critical. Not surprisingly, people talk about the Olympics, the achievements of the athletes, the triumphs and tragedies that only the Olympics can create. They don’t talk about the soda they drink or the car they drive. So in terms of creating conversation, find ways to thoughtfully and credibly integrate your product into the Olympic experience, so that people discuss it naturally. Finally, marketers need to be transparent about their activities and responsive to the audience. Consumers have questions, and they want those questions answered before they make a decision to buy (or to buy again - since you can, in most cases, trick someone once into buying something they don’t want). The transparency helps demonstrate to an audience that you have nothing to hide, and good, responsive customer service shows you value your relationship with the customer. That is true no matter what you are marketing, and all the more true when you are aligning with someone as heavily watched and scrutinized as the Olympics.

Important - I didn’t mention technology, because if you can embrace these methods for marketing, you’ll be successful not matter what set of tools you use to communicate.

Q: What affect will stadium usage as broadcast points have if Chicago is selected as Olympic host?

A: Stadiums present an opportunity for a large audience to have a shared experience. Everyone remembers being at the big game, and the people they were sitting with at the time (even if they didn’t know them beforehand). The more information and opportunity you arm that community of people gathered at the stadium with, the better. The stadiums are also marketing experiences themselves — rather than try to interrupt or co-opt the viewing experience of the fan, find ways to enhance the whole event through the stadium. If the line for food is too long, or the event is interrupted by too many announcements, that is what the fan will remember. If every piece of information delivered, and the methods for delivering that information, enhance the whole experience, you are doing something right. And marketers can and should take on some of that responsibility, as a way of showing their interest in supporting the fan experience. An example would be how the Seattle Mariners are working with Nintendo to use mobile/video game devices to provide statistics and replays to fans attending the game. In the case of baseball, statistics are important to understanding and appreciating the game being played on the field… so making that information available to fans, in real time and in context, only creates a better baseball experience. That is true for every Olympic sport and should be integrated into every venue.

Q: How important is a nations media infrastructure in the selection process or is this irrelevant?

A: Its very important, but its more than just media infrastructure that is important. In my mind, media is about information, experiences, and stuff. Its not limited to the quality of your broadband or cell network, how many news stations you have. There are places with less technological capacity that can create incredible media. And there are countries with great wealth and technology that place unnecessary and unacceptable limitations on how media works. As a host nation you have to be able to provide timely, relevant and compelling information, create meaningful experiences, and sell/offer/support stuff that people want and need. If you can’t do that, especially when the eyes of the world are on you, you shouldn’t be hosting the games. Countries where the flow of information is limited for technological reasons, or political reasons, should not be hosting the games in my mind — because full transparency, flow of information, freedoms and similar are central to the spirit of the games and the function of hosting them. China, to its credit, was willing/able to relax some of its normal controls because they understood the potential of the games to highlight their evolution over time (and recruit partners to help them get the rest of the way). But even they placed too many controls on the media — and knowing that, we shouldn’t be doing to countries that adopt such rules. There are plenty of potential host countries that have free and open media and the ability to create the kind of meaningful experience fans and athletes deserve.

Q: Should stadiums and the media be concerned by live cell phone video streaming or should it be encouraged?

A: Encouraged. First of all, the results of a competition are not the only, or in many cases, most important element of the games. The television networks like to limit how much information leaks out so they can focus the audience on a particular broadcast, but that is antithetical to the way we get and share information today, so its a mistake to attempt. The mashing of cultures, the integration of language, the spectacle of the competition — those are all important as well. The perspectives and experiences that individuals fans, athletes, and others are having is important. Streaming a live feed of someone running a race or scoring a goal can’t fully capture that. so even if the results are known, people will still go seeking information, or highlights, so they can create their own good experience. In the future, the media experience around the Games will have to be multi-dimensional and multi-platform. You need to be able to get real-time results or watch live, as well as choose how and when to get more information about athletes and competitions. That information shouldn’t be limited to who owns the rights to the games either. Fans who are in attendance should have as much voice in the coverage of events and should be encouraged to use the tools to share their perspective and raise awareness about what is happening in the competition. That will only spur more interest and more media consumption (sort of a rising tides lifts all boats theory).

Q: Will celebrity sports personalites have less or more influence as the interests of consumers continue to grow thanks to the arrival of the Internet?

A: Celebrity sports personalities will also be important — particularly for those who are only passively interested or who have limited understanding of the complexity of the games. And as long as the television or other media partners related to the olympics try to limit how information about the games is distributed, they will grow in importance — because celebrities are one of the few ways of attracting mainstream awareness around a topic. But, if the controls are lifted and information flows freely, the emphasis won’t be on celebrity. Rather than unified interest in one or a small number of athletes or competitions, every athlete or competition will have the ability to host its own audience and build its own interest. The idea of celebrity will change - and hopefully be focused again on the athletic achievements, and not the personality or marketability. Someone like Michael Phelps is deserving of attention and celebrity because of his accomplishments, but that doesn’t diminish the face that hundreds of other athletes from the most recent games also have compelling stories and represent huge successes. People want to hear those stories, and learn more about their sports, and find topics that relate to their particular interests. So instead of a few celebrities which capture all our attention (because its our only option), we’ll see everyone capturing just a little bit of attention (and some getting more, for sure), but it should add up to more interest across the audience of prospective fans. Technology allows this, and of course it is how technology is used generally - to give people access to the information they care about most, regardless of the topic. Such an understanding will need to be in place for the 2016 games (and well before frankly) if the audience is going to continue to show its interest.

Here is the link to my comments: http://www.stadiatech.com/?p=298

TAGS : 2016 media Olympics Stadiums Technology
leave a comment

The Future of Media, Discussed By Media

by Brian Reich | 1 Sep 2008, 5:49pm

Arianna Huffington, in her role as New Media Baroness (and founder of the Huffington Post), convened a panel discussion today in Minneapolis about the future of media and the influence of blogs — on politics, and society, and all things decent in the world. The lineup of talent assembled for the discussion included (in no particular order, and not limited to), Tony Blankley, Frank Luntz, Laura Ingraham, David Kralik, Cyrus Krohn, Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peggy Noonan. It was ‘moderated’ by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. In the audience were such luminaries as Liz Smith, Ron Brownstein, Tucker Carlson, Joe Klein, and Ana Marie Cox (the original Wonkette).

Huffington had hosted a similar panel last week in Denver (with a significantly different lineup of talent, including George Stephanoupolos, Will.i.am, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) among others).

I took notes, and have lots of thoughts - a few of which I will try to summarize here. But, the event took place in the basement of a hotel — with limited/no internet connection and few electrical outlets — and when my laptop battery died I was forced to take handwritten and thumb-types notes. As such, my thoughts below are far from comprehensive (and could be far from coherent).
Continue reading The Future of Media, Discussed By Media

TAGS : Convention media Media Rules! politics
leave a comment