Remain Relevant in Changing Times

Business cards are more relevant than ever!

Sorry it has been a while since I've posted to this blog. I didn't take the summer off; rather, I started a new blog to coincide with new responsibilities I have at Edelman. I am spending a good bit of my time helping organizations understand how best to market to Boomers. That's how it came to be that I'm now writing www.BabyBoomerInsights.com, a blog that offers insight about how Boomers think, act, and make purchase decisions - all based on research. Stay tuned to find out about some original research findings Edelman will soon be releasing. You just may be surprised by some of the nuggets in there! In short - in my world, few things are as relevant as Boomers.

Meanwhile, I just had to bring to your attention an Associated Press article I read last week in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about business cards. The timing was almost eerie because just 48 hours before this article appeared,  someone asked me if I thought business cards were  on their way out, given people's love affair with  Blackberrys, the iPhone and other PDAs. I hadn't seen any research on the subject but my response was, "I sure hope not."

Despite being addicted to my Blackberry (but I confess, I'm seriously lusting after the iPhone), I still like collecting business cards. I rarely throw them away and to I've collected about 1,000 over the past five years or so. I keep them in zip lock bags in the bottom drawer of my desk. I love technology, but a little piece of me never trusts it entirely, so I see my card bags as extra insurance. Besides, I love to look at the weight, size, design and colors of business cards. You can tell something about a person by what they choose to put on a small rectangle. Vcards just aren't the same.

Apparently, a lot of people agree with me. According to the AP article, business cards are becoming even more popular, despite the ease with which we can all exchange information electronically now. In fact, even kids are getting in on the act, designing "calling cards" that have only their MySpace or Facebook information on them. In other words, they're using offline techniques to drive people online to check them out. Very clever. And very real world. I almost always look up a web site I see on a business card I've acquired at a networking meeting.

These days, I often get a LinkedIn invitation following a networking meeting I've attended or spoken to. Apparently, some people use LinkedIn as an electronic rolodex, rather than as the networking tool it is intended to be. See my post just before this one if you want to know what I think about the "Link hos."

Anyway, I think it's fascinating how people are using their business cards to remain relevant, from offering multimedia mini-disk cards to stock ones with embedded computer chips that let you download information into your computer. But nothing replaces a beautifully-designed, high-quality card that makes you want to know more about a person.

So, spend the money and take the time to really think through your business card. Unless you have an unusually gifted knack for design, don't do it yourself. Hire a professional. After all, your card may just be the ticket to getting your intended audience to check you out.

Business Week floats idea of YouTube for wanna-be moguls

Business Week says it wants to start its own version of YouTube. Essentially, people who are looking for money for their business venture would get an opportunity to develop a video pitch with the intent of receiving funds to back their idea or new company.

The magazine's Executive Editor John Byrne, even envisions a contest in which wanna-be moguls can participate in an online contest to for the chance to win a cool half-million bucks. Visitors to the portal would vote on the pitch they think is worthy of funding.

When I first read the story, I thought, "What a cool idea!" It's a sure-fire way to keep people coming to the Business Week web site. All print publications are seeking to drive more online traffic as interest in print continues to slide. But then my second thought was, "Wait a minute! Voting for the best video is hardly a way to demonstrate good journalism, which is one reason Business Week is one of my favorite magazines."

As I've mulled the idea, though, I'm liking it better and better. After all, daily newspapers have been involving their audiences through blogs. In fact, USA Today's subscription rate has skyrocked since revamping its online presence and asking people to exchange views on stories. Even CNN encourages its viewers to send in their own potential news clip to iReport for the chance to have it selected for an actual broadcast.

I think Business Week is on to something. Before joining Edelman, I ran my own consulting practice for nine years. During that time, I helped numerous small companies put together their presentations for pitches to venture capitalists. Many entrepreneurs really struggled with the idea of telling their story in five minutes, which was the typical timeframe they were given at VC pitch-a-thons. The most common complaint I heard was, "I can't possibly relay how passionate I am about this through slides!" This BW video idea helps to solve that problem because now pitches can be anything from a talking head to an office tour to a person writing on a white board to a fancy PPT presentation with a voiceover narrative, along with dozens of other ideas.

If Business Week does move to this new format and you decide to "go for it," take my advice and work with a professional to ensure you have the best video possible. Remember, this isn't YouTube, where most of the videos are slapped together with little thought or creativity.

There are no "do-overs" or "let's put it out there and see what happens" when the world is watching - and voting - for you to get money.

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.

 

We're watching history in the making: Va Tech tragedy changes how stories are covered

If you're still talking about "new media," please stop. There's no such thing any more. It's just media now. Citizen journalists and consumer generated content have never been more relevant than what we have seen in the past two days. The horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech tested the incredible potential - and limits - of the technology that is forever changing the way we communicate with one another, whether across the hall or around the world.

As you know by now, the most compelling video of the police on campus trying to find the gunman came from a camera phone owned by a student (who, btw, was paid by CNN for exclusive footage). So far, it has generated over 2 million views. Hundreds of people have sent what CNN calls i-reports, providing a citizen's eye view of the events as they unfold. Suddenly, the number of "reporters" covering the story has completely changed the way we are able see and absorb the story. We don't have to wait for over-produced, high-priced media personalities to reserve satellite time and set up temporary sets to tell us what they think is going on.

Meanwhile, students learned from other students who was injured, killed and missing by reading Facebook, blogs, MySpace, Wikipedia, and of course through IM's and text messages. Today, there are hundreds of Facebook pages and forums dedicated to mourning the students. In fact, one has drawn more than 28,000 members who share memories, photos, poems and questions. Global online communities are  coming together in a matter of hours. The mainstream media can't keep up. Nor, by the way, can the technology. This horrible event will serve as a blueprint for communications companies to develop even more robust interactive programming.

Over the next several weeks we can expect to see tremendous online coverage of this story as an official investigation gets underway. Every hour new information is revealed as people share their experiences and insight.  We're watching history in the making. News will never be covered the same way again.

Consider this, too: this week marked another new milestone: a majority of teens (55%) now have online profiles.  Watch that continue to grow quickly, especially with the corresponding growth in online coverage of major news.

So, let's drop talk of new media. It's so 12 hours ago.

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. 

   

USA Today, America's McPaper, embraces Web 2.0

One of my favorite newspapers, USA Today, has relaunched its web site and it's a real beauty. The paper that built its reputation on giving people colored pie charts and an abbreviated version of the news has decided to take a deep dive and actually involve its readers, whom they're asking to participate online and use the paper as a resource.

The first thing I noticed was all the white space on the screen, a far cry from the original wide screen layout with lots of color and bold fonts. Now, the online paper is elongated and fits on the screen in a much narrower format (which advertisers tend to love). Then, I saw how the cover photo changes as you mouse over the thumbprint photos in the margins. That means instead of selecting a cover story and playing it up, the cover story changes based on your own interest. Can you say relevant?

The site uses a public comment tool, social network capabilities and gives people the ability to upload photos and participate in blogs; in other words, all the things that make Web 2.0 the must-have format for newspapers now.

But what I like best about USAT's efforts is that they're not turning the paper over to consumers to be "citizen journalists." Instead, the paper's "real" journalists can use the consumer tools as a listening device, but the reporting will still come from those trained in the craft. Thank goodness. I've always hated the expression "citizen journalist" because it implies expertise that in most cases does not exist. (Full disclosure: this could be an ego thing with me. I have a degree in journalism and worked as a reporter for several years. I'd hate to think I wasn't special somehow.)

Watch for other newspapers, even midsize local fishwrappers, to grab on to Web 2.0 too. Today's newspapers will thrive only if they go beyond giving consumers what they need and include what they want (which, apparently, is the ability to be a part of the process).

I predict USAT will be successful because it has always had a breezy, consumer-oriented writing style that makes it appeal to the average reader, who will be quicker to share the site with "like kind." And when that happens, advertisers will start to throw their support behind it and before you know it, USAT becomes a "gotta see" portal.

Check it out.

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?

How American Idol remains relevant

One thing Americans seem to do exceptionally well is watch TV... especially when it comes to American Idol. We can't get enough of it. The show has never been more popular than it is in its sixth season. Interestingly, when I talk to people about American Idol, it never ceases to amaze me how they go about selecting their choice for a winner.

Often, people tell me they like a particular participant because the person's backstory is so interesting. Maybe the singer had a tough childhood, or "really seems to want it." One friend told me he liked a particular girl singer because she "had the look." So what? To me, none of that seems relevant to what the contest is really about - finding a phenomenal  voice talent. But, hey, relevance is in the eye of the viewer, isn't it?

Producers have the formidable task of keeping the show relevant year after year while honoring their original purpose of discovering great singers. This season they promise a mid-season "surprise." Already, they've gone to unexpected cities, like Seattle and Minneapolis, looking for talent (and largely failed, based on what we've seen so far). They seem to be focusing even more (at least initially) on the remarkably bad candidates. Nothing makes viewers feel more superior than watching some really weird people sing very badly. Now, THAT's entertainment!

So, for better or worse, highlighting the most bizarre singers is one way to keep the show relevant to voyeurs (oops, I mean viewers). By the way, I confess I fall solidly into this category. I think Simon is especially entertaining and I usually agree with his assessment. I have no sympathy for the singers who get ridiculed. It's not like they didn't know what they were risking when they signed up.

Another way American Idol producers are making the show more relevant is finding new ways to involve the viewers. Now, for instance, you can go onto the AI web site and  vote on which singer made the biggest impression (usually a negative one),and who made the most interesting fashion statement. There are multiple ways to get involved in the show and get friends in on the action as well. Find out what's happening with past AI candidates. Go behind the scenes to see what it's like to get on the show. Even the ubiquitous Coke cup that we always see in front of the judges is up for redesign by the viewers. What a great way to get people to pay attention to every little detail and stay tuned to see if their design makes the final cut!

And let's not forget the mobile component. Not only can fans vote for their favorite singer, they can download AI ringtones.

What started as an entertaining TV show has, in fact, become a cult of sorts. The show  attracts kids and older adults alike and when it gets into the final stages, it becomes the focus of viewing parties, much like the Super Bowl.

Frankly, I believe the biggest challenge now will be to resist extending the brand so much that it becomes overexposed, people OD on it and decide to tune out. This season will be a pivotal one. It's the show to watch, not just because of the water cooler talk it generates, but because of the lessons we can learn as it embraces new ways to remain relevant.

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.