Random observations
When I was in college, one of my professors had been a field reporter for Voice of America. He told us the story of an influential CEO he interviewed who appeared to be the busiest man in America. He asked the CEO (unfortunately I can't remember his name) when, if ever, time was afforded to simply think. The CEO responded (and I am paraphrasing) that "he used to be able to think on long flights, but now they put those phones on the back of the seats. I never get a break."
It's been a while since I have been on a plane that has phones, but given a New York Times story I read this morning, it looks like very soon we all will have no peace in the skies. A few different Internet start-ups are developing services that allow air passengers to check email and even surf the Web in flight.
I am not surprised that the response from the blog community has been positive. Without a doubt I would pay for this service. Initial reports say JetBlue will be offering it for free for email use. I would pay for that, too. As it is, I spend money each time I get to Logan Airport to sign up for its Wi-Fi service, even though I log on for only thirty minutes or so before boarding a plane.
Another interesting aspect of the in-flight Internet news--JetBlue is one of the early adopters. JetBlue often promotes its technology and its relationships to popular technology companies. That's smart. People want to fly airlines that are technologically advanced, for obvious reasons. Being early to market with Internet access enhances the company's hip aura, in contrast to the dingy relic image I associate with many other airlines. No question Virgin Atlantic is also in the hip Airlines category. As noted in The Times piece, they are also one of the first to offer Internet access, except for them it's through the inflight entertainment systems.
Going back to my college professor's story for a minute, if I'm trying to work or think through some deeper topics, I'd much rather have the person sitting next to me in flight surfing the 'Net than chatting (probably loudly to be heard over the engines) on one of those seat-back phones.
Posted by Ross Levanto on December 7, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Many clients turn to us when they are about to engage with their first analyst firm and ask for recommendations. The questions we in turn ask: "What are you looking for from your firm? Market sizing data for the next round of funding? Lead generation? Feedback on messaging and market strategy?"
Most of the discussion heads down that path about which firm is the perfect fit based on focus, cost, support and what the competition is doing. Is it Gartner? IDC? Burton?
Unfortunately, this where the client vetting process often stops. Companies often assume that all analysts at a firm are the same and that they, the client, will get the same level of service, expertise and support from every analyst at that firm. This is a bad, bad assumption.
Most of the time when we meet with a prospective client, they request a follow-up meeting with the entire proposed team. Why? Because most savvy marketing people realize that a firm's reputation is important, but that in a services business it is all of the people doing work on the team that matter. That is why repeatability is the single most important element in a successful services business. The comfort of knowing that whenever you go to that restaurant or hotel, fly that airline or work with that law firm, that you can expect a close facsimile of good service that you have experienced in the past.
This extends to analyst firms. The best analyst firms have a repeatable service model and have built a solid reputation by servicing a large percentage of their clients well. That said, I am sure that every company has worked with an analyst in the past who didn't meet the standard of the firm's reputation. This is not an indictment of big firms or brand-name firms, but of poor analysts at any size firm. So what do you do?
Every company should ask their PR firm to arrange a briefing request with the analyst that covers their space. During that initial conversation, the company should actually interview the analyst about their professional experience, past coverage areas, planned research for the coming year, how they support their clients and what they consider to be a successful analyst firm/client relationship. During the conversation or (preferably) in-person meeting, they should also get a feel for the personality and work style of the analyst. Is this someone who will be open to our view of the market? That's important. Are they willing to challenge our views at the risk of offending a prospective client? Even more important. "Yes man" analysts lose their credibility quick and with it, any return you may have gotten from that relationship.
At the end of the day, you have to be confident that you will get a return on investment from that relationship because you work hard to get that budget. The firm name and reputation are important, but a dead weight analyst is dead weight no matter which firm they work for and it can seriously impact ROI.
Bottom line? Find what you want in an analyst and then focus on the firm. Weigh firm name and influence as one of many factors in the decision.
Posted by Jason Morris on November 26, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The evolution of social media and technology is constantly causing companies and people to try new approaches and tactics to take advantage of and react to technology advancements.
Sometimes this can cause people to head down some very strange and impractical paths. This isn't unusual. It has happened throughout human history.
For example, I am reading a great book on naval warfare in WWI (Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massie). To deal with the new submarine threat, the British Admiralty tried a number of initiatives.
One that has caused me great amusement was allegedly proposed by Admiral Sir Frederick Inglefield. He not only proposed the idea - he received authorization for it.
The idea was to train seagulls to block the lenses of German periscopes with seagull droppings. (Google it if you don't believe me). Eventually the program was dumped. The admiralty tried a number of ideas before they settled on something more practical...depth charges.
There are a number of lessons to be learned here. The most important one for us as PR and marketing practitioners is to keep our eye on the end goal and not get distracted and pursue something tangential.
We need to embrace and respond to changing technologies. Social media is changing the dynamic just as much as submarines did in World War I. But don't panic over new developments. That will only cause you to react in sub-optimal ways. You don't need to use and react to every social media tool that is created.
Clearly define your goals and then figure out the best way to achieve them. Ask yourself about the desired outcome. Determine the level of engagement and ask if it is sustainable in the long run. Otherwise, you may just end up training seagulls.
Posted by Mark McClennan on November 14, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I recently attended a conference on PR measurement put on by the Institute for Public Relations. Hearing what’s working for other PR people is always interesting, but this conference was particularly welcome because it brought together people who are doing the deep thinking on probably the hottest topic in PR: evaluating PR’s impact.
Measuring PR is rough for a number of reasons. Just a few include the difficulty of tracking changes in perception of a company or product to editorial coverage (as opposed to advertising, opinions articulated by colleagues, etc.), the sometimes prohibitively high cost associated with measurement itself and, not least, the desire PR people have to defend their budgets.
Conference presenters included a senior director at Microsoft who’s working to represent the effectiveness of PR for that company’s product lines and executives with a single number. There’s an appeal to the simplicity of a single-number score. But I didn’t understand why obliterating the nuance associated with, for example, media reports on Vista, was a good idea. Nevertheless, good to know that Microsoft is playing with the idea of measuring PR with one number.
At Schwartz, we work with entrepreneurial companies that are looking to grow very quickly. In the past, many of them “just knew” when PR was working. They’d report more in-bound calls, greater willingness of potential customers and partners to take meetings, and so on. We liked to hear anecdotal evidence that our programs were working, but it was only partially satisfying.
A few companies found it meaningful (some still do) to look at advertising equivalents. This is okay—if nothing else, it makes the case that PR is cheaper than advertising—but ultimately not that useful.
Here’s what I’m seeing a few small companies do, and do really effectively over the past couple of years. It’s cheap, it gives the PR team instant feedback they can use to tailor the PR program going forward and it doesn’t require that we ask inane questions like “what’s the ad equivalent of an Associated Press article?”
A couple of my clients care only about software downloads. Those companies like their Google Analytics and they track, to the number, visits to their websites stimulated by editorial coverage. I love to get their updates on what’s working. Hearing, for example, that an article in Dark Reading brought nearly 100 highly qualified visitors, but one on another site stimulated maybe 10, helps our team place a premium on the sites that deliver visitors (many of whom then download the software, white paper, etc.).
A while back, a client told us that a cover story in a well-read IT journal barely caused a blip in traffic to their site. They liked the article, they were kind enough to say, but it didn't, well ... do anything for them. I was glad to get that feedback, too, because it told us that the publication barely mattered for the client. The cover story was a nice vanity placement, but not much more than that.
Ability to focus programs—to fine tune them over time based on results and not only focus on what’s working, but discard initiatives that show little return, and all for little to no expenditure on measurement—is something both clients and PR people can be genuinely pleased about.
Next up: Measuring thought leadership campaigns
Posted by Laura Kempke on October 30, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
BusinessWeek has just done a big re-design. Here's the new logo:
It's still red. They kept the big "W" in the middle of the name. But is it any good?
Well, it's not bad. Certainly bold. Perhaps The New York Times should take a poll of designers like they did for the New York City taxi logo.
Here's what I find interesting. Buried in Stephen Adler's Editor's Memo it says, "We'll be opening our doors to an Internet-type model of aggregation--that is, offering other smart perspectives from around the world alongside stories that we develop. In this way, we'll share ideas that we have found worthwhile, even if they weren't invented here."
Now that's quite a statement for arguably the world's top business publication to make. In essence, BusinessWeek is recognizing that a huge part of their value is to be one of the few "must read" resources for busy professionals. If that means cherry picking enough good tidbits from competing publications to assure their readers that they're not missing much, then so be it.
Fits my theory on how the big "traditional" media outlets that figure out how to best integrate "new" media techniques and tools will wind up even more influential than before.
Posted by Mike Farber on October 23, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
OK, maybe Al Gore didn't actually invent the Internet, but he has certainly demonstrated the effectiveness of combining traditional media with new Internet media. Gore's crusade to combat global warming was recognized last week with the announcement that the former Vice President will share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the International Panel on Climate Change. Author David Rothkopf told Thomas Friedman, "Gore, even without the presidency, used all the modern tools of communication, the Internet, video and globalization to reach out and galvanize a global movement."
The key phrase is "modern tools of communication." Gore wisely used all the tools at his disposal. Inexplicably, many organizations today are still sitting on the sidelines when it comes to utilizing new forms of digital communication. There are tremendous advantages to be gained by combining traditional and new Internet communication tools. You may not need to spark a global movement, but I'm sure a movement within your market space will do just fine.
Posted by John Moran on October 17, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Add this to your file on the long-discussed difference between the entrepreneurial climates on the two U.S. coasts. Recently, I traveled on a press tour with a client to meet with business press---reporters and bloggers---in Boston, New York and Washington. My client also went to San Francisco, and we compared notes on all the meetings.
The reporters in San Francisco did not ask any questions related to the client's business model. They were impressed with the technology demonstration. They like gadgets.
The reporters on the east coast generally asked about revenue models in the first five minutes. The common question: "How do you make money?"
Questions about west coast versus east coast have permeated my entire career in PR. My first-hand experience provides clear on-the-ground evidence of the split.
Extra Credit: If you have not seen it yet, you should read an account by Scott Kirsner, who freelances for the Boston Globe, on why Boston lost Facebook. It describes how an idea hatched on the east coast ultimately earned financing out west.
Posted by Ross Levanto on October 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I propose a new theory: You can tell whether a specific market is hot based on the value of the give-aways at that market's tradeshows.
Tradeshows are part of the foundation of any good PR program. Perhaps most importantly, a trade show offers a chance for key players and influencers (including reporters, partners, analysts and end users) to congregate at the same location. The concept of a press tour today is somewhat hard to grasp--reporters, analysts and bloggers tend to live and work all over the place. But they all come to a tradeshow if it represents a market they follow.
So can one base the "hottness" of a technology market by its trade show? Sure. Look at the number of attendees, number of exhibitors, and number of reporters and analysts attending. See if large recognizable vendors are sponsors. And, perhaps, per my theory, take a look at what exhibitors are giving away.
Joan Geoghegan, a senior vice president at Schwartz, recently attended VMworld, the trade show run by VMware, a leader in the virtualization market. Anyone will tell you virtualization is hot. So given that, let's take a look at what certain vendors were calling tchotchkes at the event:
-- EqualLogic: A $40K Harley
-- Wyse: A Mercedes Smart Car
-- Dunes: A hardened PC fully loaded with their software (one a day)
-- Microsoft: A 42-inch flat TV screen (one a day)
There were too many iPods, Nintendo Wii consoles and other "basic" give-aways to count, she notes.
I don't know about you, but if giving away a Wii at a specific show is blase, that show must be very hot.
Posted by Ross Levanto on October 15, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
