Your marketing communications budget has been cut, staff head count is frozen and the pressure to make sales numbers is relentless. Diminished resources don’t matter. You’re expected to innovate something new to get it done.

What now?

The natural inclination for marketers facing an economic recession is to focus on customer retention and selling more to your existing base of loyal customers. It’s harder, and generally more costly to reach out and grab new customers. But is retention enough? Certainly not in a deep, longlasting recession where consumers simply buy less. Instead you have to find new and cost effective ways to gain more customers in these tough times.

Marketers in recessions past turned to the tried and true methods of direct marketing to weather the storm. In B2B worlds, there was an increase in direct mail and more involvement in trade groups and associations, and you could step up your telemarketing activities. Consumer product companies would step up direct mail, sampling, couponing and discounting, or cleverly package multiple products together with a heavy discount to stimulate sales. In short, you talked more directly with your most valued customers and offered a good deal. Rifle shots instead of shotgun blasts.

A Digital Recession

Even without the economic turmoil, the world of marketing and communications today is very different than it was just a few years ago. Digital media have changed most everything.

In today’s world, the old direct marketing techniques have morphed themselves into social media. Well, maybe.

There is no doubt that CMOs today have a bevy of new arrows in their quiver thanks to the emergence of interactive media. The bad news is that, except for the big, well funded groups, most marketing and advertising teams are just not coming to grips with what these tools are and how they should be used. And beware the recently graduated 20-something heading your ad agency’s interactive group. You need experienced, grey hair, been there and done it types that know the difference in load balancing and a balance sheet. Just having seen it done by someone else isn’t going to cut it.

Social Media = Direct Marketing

It’s tempting to see social media as the electronic equivilent of yesterday’s direct marketing — and in some ways the two are very similar. Both offer channels to communicate directly to select audience groups. Both are effective delivery systems for offers, tips, techniques and advice. Both can be implemented, results reviewed, corrections made in creative and/or offer and implemented again — allowing a staged roll out.

The problem with the interpretation that social media can be used as a direct marketing vehicle is that the social media users reject even the slightest hint they are being manipulated. These users jealously guard their control of the social media systems and rebel whenever a change is made to push an ad or an app too much in front of the various communications tools they use everyday.

So, try to infest Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn with your ad messages, or put up a blatantly commercial blog or podcast. The users won’t say anything directly to you, they’ll just laugh as they block you, befriend you, remove you and generally ignore you. Then they’ll go behind your back and say awful things about you, your products and your employees. Everybody has a story about you and they will pull it out and tell it if you invade their territory.

Change Your Thinking

The new digital social order requires marketers to change their thinking in order to succeed.

Spewing out messages with reach and frequency targets doesn’t work here. The consumer now has enough control to just stop your messages from ever being delivered. Instead you have to be both clever and useful.

Being Clever

The fun Jack-in-the-Box campaign was recently interrupted with the news that Jack (the guy with the big white ball for a head) was run over by a bus (didn’t Jack get blown up a few years back?). News of his condition was hard to come by until you discovered the HangInThereJack.com web site. Then pages showed up on MySpace, Facebook and a channel on YouTube where the latest news could be had and well wishers could send their sentiments to Jack. You can even catch the latest on Jack’s condition from his doctors by following them on Twitter.

A fun story, served up in 30-45 second video clips, emerged from all this with a nefarious, character called Phil seeking to take over the Jack-in-the-Box helm. Looking like Snidely Whiplash in a suit, Phil gets credit for shaking Jack out of his deep coma by announcing that the company would change its name to Phil-in-the-Box. Yes, Jack is back.

Through weeks of online entertainment, Jack-in-the-Box cleverly reinforced their marketing messages, especially that they sell everything on their menu all day, every day. They offered discount coupons and cajoled us to try new menu items. In short, Jack-in-the-Box used social media as the primary vehicle to drive a fun marketing campaign about their menu, and their food. It was a great example of how to cleverly entertain us and feed us key messages at the same time.

Being Useful

The number of blogs, podcasts and social media network spaces that deliver relevant information is astounding and far too numerous to try to mention. While some offer unique and useful information, others engage in meaningful causes.

The “Nuts about Southwest” blog is offered by Southwest Airlines (BlogSouthwest.com). There you can learn more about the history and culture of that company than you might want to know. They show aircraft and talk safety and run surveys about funny airplane movies and generally show what pride they have in their company and what it does.
Southwest also runs a popular Twitter account which has gained thousands of followers. In its story “10 Corporate Twitter Accounts Worth Following’ by PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2341886,00.asp) they say “Southwest Airlines is one of the few that answers customer questions and gives a glimpse into the lives of Southwest employees.”

Starbucks uses several blogs, including http://www.v2v.net/starbucks and http://red.starbucks.com, to further their causes and encourage each of us to do something helpful for the planet and each other.

In both of these cases the companies weave their key messages into the information and answers they provide. It’s a fine balance between delivering relevant information and marketing messages. Tip the scales too far one way or the other and the consumer will lose interest or the company’s needs will not be met.

Continue the Conversation

In a few situations, like the HangInThereJack campaign, social media can play the dominant role in a marketing campaign. But most often, social media is combined with several other channels to fuel the campaign. Alone or in combination, social media is versatile, engaging and cost effective. It’s one of the few tools where you can “continue the conversation” with the consumer, once you’ve gained their interest. That’s why it’s called interactive and social.

Until next time, may all the good that you see be true.

steve

We used to question the impact new media would have on traditional media. Now we know.

Just five or so years ago all the talk was about how much, if any, impact this unknown thing called “new media” would have on traditional media. Traditional media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and TV looked indestructible. New media, then fledgling but showing promise, was made up of web sites, blogs and podcasts.

It wasn’t long, however before the debate ended and the handwriting on the wall became clear — traditional media was rapidly faltering and new media was grabbing reader, listener and viewership at a surprising rate.

The dilemma for traditional media worsened to the point that newspapers, radio and TV all took big hits in people and in advertising revenues. Radio has dropped by as much as 40% according to some sources and TV has dropped but is struggling to hold it’s own. By far, newspaper with a 60% drop in circulation in just four years, has crashed the hardest.

Even Bill Gates speaking at a 2007 Microsoft SAS event predicted that traditional media would go online or disappear (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003698400_webmicrosoftads08.html). Now we just may have to view this dark forecast with a tiny bit of focus as Brother Bill was, at the same time, introducing Microsoft’s less than stellar IPTV online broadcast TV system.

While all traditional media has been impacted, let’s focus on newspaper, the most deeply affected, and ask “Why did this decline happen?”

Scandal

The past decade has been riddled with local and national scandals regarding the honesty of newspapers and newspaper reporting. If it’s not lapses in honest reporting it’s big city newspapers getting caught multiple times fudging circulation figures to their advertisers. The list of reported infractions is long and from across the country.

Reid Goldsborough in his October 2005 story titled “New Versus Old Media” for InfoToday (http://www.infotoday.com/linkup/lud101505-goldsborough.shtml) cites reporting scandals at the Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press, New York Times, and Washington Post, just to name some big names. There’s even a Pulitzer prize given and then taken away because it was discovered that the stories on which the award was based were faked.

In broadcast journalism, one of the most notable scandals got Dan Rather of the CBS Evening News fired for “Memogate” where he based a series of stories about President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service on documents he knew were forged.

In a casual defense of all journalists Rafe Needleman who writes and edits CNET’s Webware blog says “trained journalists are not suffering from fuzzy ethics. Every publication has an ethical lapse sooner or later, the question is will they do it again.”

Old Media or New Media – Who can we Trust?

During the 2004 elections the blogging world began to take its place at the table. For the first time bloggers were admitted into the party conventions and treated like journalists. This really irritated the “paid” journalists who openly voiced their misgivings.

Then and now, classically schooled journalists often look down on bloggers as untrained and unethical. It’s a natural feeling if you have a lot invested in your craft and you are suddenly beat to the story by some young gun, paid-no-dues and bet they never wrote an obit, blogger. But readers didn’t seem to appreciate the time and effort some “good journalists” had put into their craft. Instead, they remembered the scandals where reporters just made up stories, hurting individuals and organizations. They remembered arrogant journalists who didn’t seem to care. Unfortunately, they remembered the bad seeds and seemed to forget the decades of service most news media have contributed to keeping us informed. But such is the nature of society.

Even today, newspapers are charged with knowlingly pushing the negative news to the forefront and hiding any positive news. If there are four main points in a story and one is positive, you can bet the writer or editor will bury the positive facts and banner the story with a sensationally negative headline. It’s obvious and it’s wearing on the reader.

Make no mistake, there are bad, terrible blogs and bloggers, just as there are good ones. Readers must be aware of the source and clearly understand who the author is and what credentials they claim. But given all the problems with bad reporters and unchecked publications, what’s the real difference?

How do you get your news and what sources do you trust?
Help us by completing this brief online survey and we’ll report the findings in a future QSIBlog article. Click Here to take survey

Rafe Needleman in an interview this January at CES (http://www.podtech.net/home/4877/cnets-needleman-on-his-views-of-traditional-versus-new-media) noted, “All media is new at some point and then becomes old media. The fundamentals of journalism don’t change.”

“It wouldn’t be a problem if the audience could tell the difference,” says Needleman. “If it mattered, the audience would read that one (the traditional media) and not that other one (the blog). But that’s not happening. The audience is reacting to the passion, and maybe the lack of training and just the raw energy they (the bloggers) are putting up there.”

So what, then, is the value of the journalist. Well, it’s certainly not trust because polls tell us that next to politicians, the news media rank as one of the most mistrusted groups around. ANd if the distinction between journalist and blogger wasn’t already murky, it went away entirely when traditional journalists started up their own blogs.

Needleman in conclusion said, “I think there will be a shakeout and the good blogs will become more like traditional media and the bad ones, the unethical ones, will fall away.”

Immediacy – Why Wait for the Story?

From Princess Diana’s death to 911, traditional media has been at a total loss as to how they can keep up with Internet-based reporting techniques.

When Princess DI was killed in a car accident in France, the American media was fumbling to report that “something tragic” had happened to the beloved Princess. My wife and I were watching live French television coverage as the television crew drove up to the mangled black car and the French police and fire crews were just arriving on the scene. For many minutes the American media, even TV, waited to get more details while we watched the news live and read more and more detail from English-speaking European media publishing on the Internet.

The morning of 911 put every news person everywhere on the line as we all clamored to learn anything more concrete than rumor about the horrific and unbelievable events of that morning. We watched live on network TV at the horror of Tower 1 collapsing and saw the plane plow into Tower 2. I had jumped onto nyc bloggers (http://www.nycbloggers.com), a site I show and explain in my Social Media speeches and workshops and discovered the scores of blogs located in the general vicinity of the striken World Trade Center. Bloggers were chattering about what they saw from their apartment or office windows. Their descriptions were raw, vivid and emotional compared to the more cultured mental images painted by on-the-scene reporters.

I’ll never forget watching a blogger’s live web cam as Tower 2 came down. You could see that immense dust cloud driving down the street, coming straight at you in between buildings and then it all went black. Sitting in Texas and seeing that happen in New York at the very moment it happened was an immensely powerful experience.

“With the tools we have now for one-man publishing, you can smoke traditional media in terms of timeliness and depth of coverage,” says Needleman. “Everything that can be covered now, is being covered. The audience is segmenting into smaller and smaller pieces, into areas of passion. That’s why there are so many blogs, at CNET and elsewhere.”

Newspaper reporting just can’t compete with what’s happening now all over the planet. Even with an army of reporters covering all angles and getting great interviews, by the time the newspapers hit the street they are covering old news.

The old school ways of controling the story employed by the traditional media and public relations practitioners are not typically used by bloggers and other new media content generators. In fact, the old methods are resented by many bloggers.

Cost

It doesn’t take a math degree to see that producing a newspaper costs far, far more than producing a blog. Even if you employ the same number of reporters, editors and staff, just the sheer cost of printing and distributing a newspaper tips the scales in favor of blogs.

The Silicon Alley Insider blog on The Business Insider (BusinessInsider.com) says that the New York Times would save money over printing a daily paper if they gave an Amazon Kindle free to every subscriber and produced the paper all digital. (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle)

But I know how people feel about the tactile touch of an open newspaper and a hot cup of coffee in the morning. It’s, well, tradition. But as the cost/benefit ratio continues slide, that “traditional” habit may have to vanish, or be banished to the weekends only. More than a few times lately I’ve seen news media who tell of abandoning their newspaper subscriptions because it’s “just dumb to pay for what you can get free online.”

So that leads us to the newspaper business model and the question, can it be fixed?

Method or Model, Which is the Madness?

In a great February 5, 2009 story by Walter Isaacson in TIME entitled “How to Save Your Newspaper” (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191-1,00.html) the author claims that even in the midst of this crisis for newspapers “they have more readers than ever and are as popular as they have ever been, even to younger audiences.”

“The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn’t see fit to charge for its content, I’d feel like a fool paying for it.

“This is not a business model that makes sense. Perhaps it appeared to when web advertising was booming, but when web advertising declined in the fourth quarter of 2008, free felt like the future of journalism only in the sense that a steep cliff is the future for a herd of lemmings.”

Henry Luce, co-founder of TIME said, “I suspect that 2009 will be remembered as the year news organizations realized that further rounds of cost-cutting would not stave off the hangman.”

Isaacson contends that neither the ad-only model or the subscription-only business model will save newspapers, and that what is needed is a micropayment system that is quick, easy and doesn’t carry the overhead costs of a PayPal. In essence, an iTunes Store for newspapers so you can pay for only that which you read, story-by-story.

Such a system could be used to fund all types of online content like magazines, blogs, podcasts — any place where content is generated worthy of purchasing. (Would you pay 25-cents to read this article? Do I have to share that revenue with the individuals and groups I quote or cite? Email me at slee@qsigroup.com and tell me what you think.)

Irony of Ironies

Ironically, the very industry that contemptuously branded public relations practitioners as “flacks,” and claims that digital media is just not as good at delivering the news as the old traditional media, has turned to the very spin it once scorned.

A February 2, 2009 story in Editor & Publisher (America’s Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry), based on a news release sent by a consortium of newspapers says, “New York Newspapers and their online offspring combined are more popular than ever imagined and yet media reports nearly always paint a portrait of an industry gasping for air in the digital age.” I wonder who the “media” is in this context.

The story blames the economic recession for the newspaper industry’s woes, and to tell their side of the story they didn’t turn to the very newspapers which they represent. No, they established a blog (http://news.newspaperproject.org) where they post articles.

The “newspapers fight back” blog started off telling us ways to save your local newspaper, but after only a week, the articles have turned to stories like “Seven Ways to Keep Costs Low, Content Fresh Using Social Media.” So now they advocate using social media to deliver the news, not newspapers?

I’m sorry. Am I missing something? Is the irony only in my head? But doesn’t this sound like these newspapers are openly admitting that blogging is the better way to distribute news and information? After all, they are using the technique, and they are smart people, so doesn’t it stand to reason that they are using the best tools available [Pardon the clear and obvious arrogance. I couldn't help it.]

Death of Newspapers

Those that predict the disappearance of newspapers haven’t studied much history.

When radio started to become commercially available the hue and cry was that newspapers were dead because hearing a human voice was far preferable to reading words. And newspapers lived on.

Then when television came on the scene we heard how newspapers and radio were obsolete because seeing and hearing a human was much better than reading or hearing words. And newspapers and radio lived on.

When cable TV brought us hundreds of channels, 24/7, we heard that there was no need for network or local television because you could now get everything you ever wanted to see and learn through that little set-top cable box. And newspapers, radio and television lived on.

In the face of these and many others lessons in history it would be childish to proclaim newspaper, or radio or TV for that matter, to be dead or dying.

Never Be The Same

There is no question that newspapers, and all other traditional media, will never be the same. The total reach, instantaneous speed and interactive capabilities of new media have changed forever the old ways of news distribution.

We can only hope that some of the sage, old media types weave their way into new media organizations, and that the wiser of the emerging new media types will listen and learn from the rich history of news reporting to forge better, more ethical, accountable and personally accessible news media institutions.

Sounds to be a naive hope, doesn’t it? Maybe not. I have great faith in most people, and the innovation they can bring to necessary situations (Mother of invention? remember?). Having been in the interactive world for these 16 or so years I have seen truly remarkable changes come about. Today our youngest children can access more information than most of our parents could see in a lifetime. We just have to teach them to use their minds and sift to find the truth and use that news and information to make good decisions.

Until next time, may all the good that you see be true.

steve

I’m bombarded with scores of emails and phone calls from disrespectful people selling something.

You too? Do their tactics really cheese you off!

Be Respectful

What ever happened to just basic respect?

If you don’t know who I am and you’re calling me to sell me something, start with “Do you have just a minute to talk?” If I’m on deadline and don’t have the time, I’ll arrange a time when you can call back. If I’m short of time, I’ll tell you how much I have and we’ll go from there. And if I have some time, I’ll listen to what you have to say (for a short period, anyway).

Most telephone solicitors ask me how my day is (but clearly they don’t really care), and then just dive into their spiel. When I try to interrupt them, they just talk faster and louder.

So what makes you think I’m so stupid that I’m going to listen to you drone on and on about whatever useless offer you have that I clearly don’t need? In their infinite wisdom, Westinghouse Electric created the button that hangs up the phone for a reason. If you don’t let me stop you from talking, I use that wonderful little button. It works every time.

CLICK!

Don’t Lie

If you’re selling something, don’t start our conversation with “I’m not selling anything.” Cause I’m immediately going to ask you, “so if you convince me of whatever it is you want, what will I do?” This disarms most solicitors because they don’t want to up-front tell me they want me that they really do want me to buy their product or service.

I guess they really think I’m a moron and that I believe you are calling me because I’m such wonderful human being and that you don’t need to sell me something to get paid this week.

CLICK!

No, Means No

What is it about the word “No” that conveys to you that I want you to carry on telling me the same thing you’ve just been saying but please say it in another way?

Here’s how it works — You talk, I listen, I understand, I decide.

If I say No, then your brilliantly conceived pitch didn’t convince me I need whatever it is you have to sell. So, again, what makes you think that if you just keep talking after I’ve nicely said “No, Thank You,” that I’m so stupid as to keep listening?

CLICK!

Get a New Pitch

You know what I’ve discovered?

• There are tons of people out there ready to buy my company. But I have to attend a seminar to find them.

• It doesn’t matter who I’m using now, but I’m paying far too much for telephone, Internet, office supplies, health insurance, office equipment, investment services, and the list goes on.

• A few little pills will make lots of things grow much bigger and make the swelling (ie. Fat) in my aging body magically disappear.

• I can really please the ladies.

• I can make more money working from home today than I can at this job. No matter what my job is or how much I’m paid.

You know, if a hundred other people have pitched me that same tired, old song, what makes you think your story smells any better.

CLICK!

Bright Spots

So as loudly as I whine about the silly losers who make their living wasting everyone’s time, even their own, there are a few groups that approach me with respect.

Here’s how one from a market ROI firm began…

Hi Steve,??
I hope this note finds you well. I’m not a big fan of getting phone calls unannounced so I try not to do it myself. I know you place tremendous value on your time, so I’ve attached a high level overview of what we do. You can decide for yourself whether it makes sense to talk or whether I should be following up with someone else in the organization.

Now that’s a pitch with a bit of good old fashioned respect. The e-mail was still unsolicited spam that snuck through my filter, and I don’t need their service, but I love the opening. I only hope they don’t disobey their own words and call me tomorrow.

It’s tough to sell out there and we all have to use all the means at our fingertips. But come on direct sellers, does this disrespectful approach really work?

Maybe it’s like spam — if we would stop buying junk from unsolicited e-mails, maybe they would stop sending it.

If we just start hanging up immediately when we are disrespected by the person on the end of the telephone line, maybe they will stop calling.

Until next time, may all the good that you see be true.

steve
\//