Remain Relevant in Changing Times

US Netcom hits new low: proves opportunistic, not relevant

I was so appalled when I saw this news release, I actually began looking for it on several sources just to make sure I didn't misread it or that it was the hoax of a sick mind. Could there really be a company so shameless, so idiotic and so desperate for attention?

US Netcom  appears to be all of those things. Clearly, this company doesn't understand the difference between being relevant and being opportunistic. If the idea is to drive up traffic to their web site so they can put out another release about how they have achieved record number of hits (thus - in their minds - becoming more relevant), let me remind you what HITS stands for: How Idiots Track Success.

I hope all the people who are making history by reporting on the Virginia Tech tragedy online will take note of this company's actions and use their considerable power to give them the attention they richly deserve.

Follow this link to read the full release. Meanwhile, here's the most offensive excerpt:

For $1 per student per year, services such as AllCall Notification could have provided VT with a method of crisis control capable of reaching every student far faster than email. It should have been in place as part of the schools' emergency preparedness plan.

Here are the names of the people who put out this ridiculous release, just in case you want to contact them: Kim Cooke, Mark Hefley, Jeff Worhol, JJ Kelly. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you at 1-800-695-7788 or jeff.warhol@usnetcomcorp.com.

 

CBS and Imus: more a misfiring than a simple firing

Imus says he is done apologizing for the remarks that got him fired. Thank God. He was starting to hog ink that could be used to continue to tell us the sordid details of the soap opera about Anna Nichole's baby and speculation over just how bad Sanjaya will be on the next episode of American Idol.

These three stories have one thing in common: they are far more relevant to advertisers than they are to most viewers and listeners. Advertisers care about ratings. They want to know that their products and services are being exposed to the largest audience possible. And these three stories have drawn huge audiences, each for a different reason.

So, I find it just laughable that CBS wants us to believe that they fired Imus because he stepped over the line with his racist remarks. Oh puh-leeze... Imus has offended just about everyone during his 30 year radio career... multiple times, in fact. In many ways, the more offensive he was, the higher his ratings and the happier the advertisers.

This time, though, advertisers ran scared as soon as Jesse and Al got involved and then they really got nervous when the brilliant PR machine at Rutgers went into high gear. Suddenly, they began to worry that this story wouldn't blow over and the strong wind that kept it stirring could well damage sales.  Seems to me they waited just long enough to fire him that it ruined their ability to argue that it wasn't about the advertising dollars, but the offensiveness of his comments.

The lesson to be learned from this is that timing is a key element of relevance. CBS took action too late for most people to believe its argument that the decision was driven by moral outrage rather than the almighty dollar. Right... next thing you know Sanjaya will win American Idol and Fox will try and convince us there was absolutely no manipulation of the process. 

   

Girl Scouts go digital: Computer cookies get a whole new meaning

One of the great ironies of my life is that I got fat eating Thin Mints. I cannot resist them. I've been known to drive all over Cobb County, GA in March searching for uniformed Girl Scouts standing behind folding card tables hawking the most wicked of all treats.

But that is so last year. Now the Girl Scouts have gone digital. That's right - they're promoting their annual fundraising cookies in all the places we visit every day: YouTube, Grouper, Friendster, MySpace and more. No more driving around looking for cookies. Look for them in blogs (like this one!) and heaven only knows where else. There will be no escaping the Girl Scouts now. If you have a zip code, they can tell you the closest place to buy their cookies.

Well, let me say, "Thanks a lot, girls." I have always justified buying cookies my hips didn't need because I have a hard and fast policy to always purchase anything a child is selling for a good cause. When I started at Edelman, I even considered it an employee benefit that I could order cookies right here at the office, thanks to one little Allie Tucker, a beautiful child with the darkest, brownest, most soulful eyes I've ever seen. Although she's a talented little sales leader, the truth is all she has to do is look at me and I'll hand over a blank check.

She reminded me this year that I could order several boxes of cookies and freeze the ones I don't eat right away. I'm not sure what planet Allie is from, but in my world there's no such thing as leftover Girl Scout cookies.... or extra boxes. I ordered more than usual this year so I could participate in an Edelman plan to send some to the troops in Iraq. In case I lose that altruistic feeling when those beautiful Thin Mints, Samoas and TagAlongs arrive, I've bookmarked my favorite places where I can send others a link where they can begin their own lifelong habit that's as powerful as any drug being peddled on the street. Somehow, it feels almost dirty, but I'm sure I'll get over it.

The Girl Scouts are celebrating their 90th year of sales in 2007. More than just a fundraiser, this annual rite aims to teach girls the ins and outs of being an entrepreneur. I can't think of a better lesson they could learn than the importance of how to remain relevant in changing times. 

I congratulate them - and their partner, Ripple Effects, for this brilliant strategy. With the money I'll save in gas, I can buy more boxes of Thin Mints!

Super Bowl commericals reflect mood of the country

It's the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl as I'm writing this and I feel like I've seen enough commercials to detect a distinct pattern. It's not pretty. Seems to me the commercials have been more violent than in the past, including the cartoonish ones. What's up with that? I can only assume those producing the commercials decided to take their frustrations about the war out in supposedly more subtle ways.

Two guys who apparently love Snickers bars ripped off their chest hair. In a FedEx commercial, a poor fellow was creamed by a meteor. Bud Light showed a hitchhiker toting an ax and looking like a mass murderer, which, frankly, wasn't as scary as ETrade's depiction of a bank where the employees rip off customers and make them feel like they're in the middle of a violent bank robbery. At first I thought I was watching CSI.

I confess it struck me as a tad funny that Prudential's commercial "Like a rock" theme made me think for a nanosecond they said "Iraq."

I wasn't sure what to expect when I heard that Coca-Cola would make a comeback this year at the Super Bowl after an absence of several years, but I was delighted and pleased to see they went for the tender, sweet touch, harkening back to the days when they did the famous "Hilltop" commercial in which they offered to teach the world to sing.

Over all, I can't say I've been terribly impressed with the commercials this year. (The half-time show, however, was one of the best yet, IMHO).

Of course, not every company can afford the $2.6 million it takes to advertise for 30 seconds at the Super Bowl, which is why we have seen such a rise in companies turning to YouTube to grab viewers. A quick check of "2007 Super Bowl Commercials" on the YouTube search engine brought up several and the viewership on some is already pretty high. On the downside, a lot of the comments about the commercials are pretty snarky. At least during the big game, you only see/hear what others in your living room have to say.

This Super Bowl has been unusual in many ways, from the history-making first play (92 yard return for a touchdown) to consumer-generated commercials, to instant postings of commercials on YouTube.

There are now 6 minutes left in the game and it appears the Colts will win (YAY!). But the real winner, in my view, are the companies that got to try something new this year, whether or not it appeals to me personally. I'm eager to see how this shift from high-dollar, over-produced commercials to something more relevant to today's multitasking viewers turns out. What do you think?

The Painted Veil targets TV viewers with relevant information

I absolutely love to go to the movies. I've been known to see a dozen in a week. Recently, during the week between Christmas and New Years, I managed to see only six, but what can I say? I had other things on my plate to do too.

One of the best movies I saw was The Painted Veil, an independent film staring Naomi Watts and Edward Norton. Shot in China, it is the most beautiful cinematography I've seen in ages. The story is captivating and the casting spot on.

But what intrigues me even more about this great movie is the way it was promoted. Warner Independent Pictures initally boughtTV commercial spots in 18 markets (on cable). Rather than ending each with the typical, "Now playing at a theater near you" or "Now playing at selected theaters," the spots told viewers exactly which theater to go to in their city. In Atlanta, for instance, viewers are told to go to the Landmark's Midtown Art Cinema.

What a great concept: tell consumers what they need to know without making them work for it! It also helped to create a sense of urgency to see the film. Seeing that the movie was playing in only one theater - one known for indies - made me want to rush out to see it before it disappeared. I didn't know if if would ever make the screens in the suburbs.

As it turns out, The Painted Veil will roll out to another 73 markets next week and at that time Warner will run broader national TV campaigns. But this initial targeted campaign was a stroke of genius that speaks once again to how consumers want information that is relevant to them.

By the way, kudos to SpotRunner, an LA-based ad ageny that created the specific tags and handled the execution in each market. Don't be surprised if you see more movies go down this path.

Now if only someone can figure out how to get rid of those annoying commercials that play in front of the movie trailers that play in front of the actual movie you're there to see...

Wall Street Journal Proves Its Relevance With New Look, Format

Most of us probably started 2007 with the goal of being skinnier at the end of the year. Not the Wall Street Journal. It is starting the year in a trimmed down state. It has shed the fat, built up its news analysis muscle and will probably gain nothing but a more loyal readership as a result.

Starting with today's issue, the WSJ showcases a new design that makes the paper much narrower and deeper than it has ever been. I loved it the moment I released it from its pink wrapper on my driveway this morning. I was immediately struck by how much easier it is to read now, solely because of the change in navigation. Summary boxes, increased use of color, photos and a generally less cluttered look wowed me.

Best of all, the new design integrates beautifully with the WSJ's web site. Let's face it: the Internet and broadcast news outlets keep us up to date on the news. People read the WSJ not to learn what's happening, but why and how. The print edition can now do what it does best - offer analysis and deep background - while the web site takes on the task of keeping readers informed on corporate news. What's more, readers who really want to get under the covers of a story can go to the web site for online interviews via podcasts and sidebars that didn't make the print edition.

Page G8's top headline screams, "The Relevance of Good Design" and the accompanying story lists the eight principles that served as the guide for the paper's new look. Here's the top line. They are:

1. Make it easier for readers to navigate the Journal

2. Create a hierarchy of stories, so readers know the relevance of important news

3. Maintain the best visual traditions of the Journal.

4. Remember that Journal readers come to read, not to look.

5. Innovate graphically where improvements can be made.

6. Don't skimp on good journalism.

7. Balance long-form stories with secondary readings and quick story summaries.

8. Guide readers to the Online Journal - but don't overdo it.

Based on the inaugural issue of this new design, I have to say the WSJ absolutely nailed it. You can do that when you spend two years researching what readers really want and how people truly interact with the media.

The lesson for the rest of us is that no matter how relevant we are today, we can't remain relevant without making some changes along the way. But those changes have to be customer-driven. It doesn't matter if we think customers should consume our product a certain way if they prefer a different method. Perhaps nowhere else is this more evident than in the way we consume the news.

Congratulations, WSJ! I hope more papers will follow your lead.

Should Michael Richards be forgiven?

Several people have asked me if I planned to write about the Michael Richards debacle, so here goes. My take, in a nutshell is this: he did a really stupid thing and has (and will continue to) suffer the consequences. But, people, let's move on already. He's a minor celebrity whose ignorance and lack of stand up savvy collided like a freight train. Now everyone wants to survey the wreckage and pontificate on whether this train can ever get back on track. Maybe it's time we get in our cars and go home.

He said he's sorry. He hired a publicist. He's seeking psychiatric treatment. He went on Letterman. He has repeatedly offered apologies to the people who provoked him. What more do we expect?

We have ways of "punishing" him, so if you feel you must, then don't see his shows (if get gets any more). Don't buy the Sienfeld DVD box set that, unfortunately, hit the shelves just as this was going down. Don't watch anything Richards appears in. In other words, vote with your wallet and you'll be amazed at how quickly the psyciatric treatment works. Problem is, when you see him arm in arm with Jesse and Al, you'll never know whether he has really changed his ways or is just having a successful PR campaign. It's all about what you CHOOSE to believe.

I think it's far more interesting to consider HOW this all happened. Remember that the video we've seen on the Internet and on national television was generated using a cell phone. Bloggers were among the first to go after Richards and before we knew it, the story grew longer legs than a supermodel. Wow. That's pretty powerful, huh? Talk about consumer-generated media!

Well, guess what? None of us is immune from having our own faces or companies splashed across the news based on a single moment in time captured by someone in close proximity using equipment that costs maybe a couple hundred bucks. There are potentially millions of Michael Moores in the world, some lucky and others just savvy enough to capture an intriguing event and market the hell out of it. Provocation doesn't even matter.

What does this mean for us? There's no such thing as "it's just this small, private group so I can be more me." Gone are the days when speaking off the cuff was largely harmless. Smart people don't take chances. They think about what they want to say, figure out how to say it (often with the help of PR experts, no doubt) then they just shut up when it's time to do so.

Michael Richards didn't have enough sense to just shut up. And believe me, it'll cost him plenty. Will he ever be forgiven? Sure, by some at least. But for better or worse, he'll never be the same.

Your outrage is really working!

Just moments ago, CNN announced that the interview between Judith Regan and O.J. Simpson has been canceled. Moreoever, O.J.'s book won't be published either.

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

I can't tell you how delighted I am to hear that this show and book won't see the light of day. It tells us that we consumers have power. Outrage still works. We all need to keep that in mind. One of the great things about viral campaigns and blogs is that those of us who don't have bully pulpits in the traditional sense still get to affect change by giving voice to our convictions and opinions in a forum that doesn't rely on editors and producers to determine what makes the cut. I want to encourage you to turn to the blogosphere, e-mail and other online tools to garner support for what you believe in.

Thanks for all your notes of encouragement and your willingness to join me in my personal protest. We matter. And hopefully Fox won't forget that (at least until next November sweeps time)!

An open letter to publisher Judith Regan, O.J.'s pimp

Dear Judith Regan,

You've really done it this time. You've sunk lower than a snake's belly to publish O.J. Simpson's  controversial new book. I won't even give you the satisfaction of linking to you or O.J., nor for that matter will I even call the disgusting tome by name. I saw your pathetic "explanation" - an eight page statement in which you claim you published this book because you thought the money was going to his children, you've been the victim of domestic violence and you hoped to get a confession from this presumed killer.

Gimme a break, Judith. You have a reputation for publishing controversial books. For you, it's all about the publicity and you're getting it in spades. It sickens me that the main stream media is being suckered into covering this non-story. I don't believe for a nanosecond that you brought this crap to life for any reason other than your own selfish need to be the center of attention. You and O.J. deserve one another. This book doesn't offer anything of historic value. O.J. isn't introspective enough nor smart enough nor honest enough to provide insight. In short, this is the perfect example of what is truly IRRELEVANT.

The only thing more smarmy or irrelevant than you so-called publishing coup is the fact that a  national TV network plans to  air an interview with O.J. Sadly, it's likely that millions will watch the show. I plan to Tivo it for one reason: so I can later zip through the show and see who supported such dispicable programming with advertising. I'll document each advertiser and then refuse to ever buy a product from them. Will they notice? WIll it make a difference to anyone other than me? Probably not. But activism starts at home. I would love for the readers of this blog to join me in this protest.

I can hear your argument now: national TV programming has long included interviews with child molestors, death row inmates and any number of other dysfunctional people. The difference, in my opinion, is that those shows also present the consequences of this dysfunction and usually are instructive in some way. In this case, O.J. is simply getting air time to promote a book, which you published because you're greedy, selfish, myopic and totally, completely irrelevant.

You seem to think this new controversy will somehow make you relevant. I've got news for you, Judith. Being in the news doesn't make you relevant. Making a contribution to the world somehow does.

Please just go away and take O.J. with you.

Plane and simple: Apple scores again with iPods in the air

Anyone looking to learn a lesson in how to remain relevant needn't go any further than this week's announcement by Apple that it struck a deal to have iPod jacks installed on planes at six different airlines.

According to the Wall Street Journal on November 15, Air France, Continental, Delta, Emirates, KLM, and United have agreed to offer passengers a way to connect their iPods to their seats so they can use them in flight or at least charge them while soaring thousands of feet in the air. What's more, video iPod owners will be able to view their videos on the screens embedded into the back of the seats. I guess this is Apple's way of saying "Take THAT!" to Microsoft's new Zune, which also launched this week.

What an ingenious plan to find yet another way to make the iPod relevant to people who love it most: those who travel. I just can't wait to experience this new arrangement when it becomes available in mid-2007. Do you suppose customizing my seat even further will make me forget - or at least forgive - the fact that I'm usually cramped into a space intended for someone or something the size of an average house cat?

Apple's quest to constantly find new ways to make the iPod a part of our lives is working. When I bought my new Lexus last spring, it was the iPod jack I looked for first, not whether it had a CD changer. I'm hooked. I've even come to expect hotels to provide a clock/radio combination that accommodates my iPod. Next, I'll want a waterproof iPod system in my shower. And why not? I can buy shoes and athletic clothes with built-in  pockets for  an iPod. Mind you, I wouldn't do that because it might give someone the impression that  I actually would do something that requires athletic apparel. (I wouldn't dare: all I exercise is caution).

We could all learn from Apple's example. They're not only making the iPod ubiquitous, they're positioning it as a way for other companies to remain relevant. This time next year you may find yourself rocking out in 21D, completely unaware that  you haven't been fed, your luggage is lost and drink prices have gone up. And then the next time you book your airline ticket, you'll  first check to see if the plane has iPod jacks.