Tag Archives: advertising

Why nonprofits find PR so difficult

While all nonprofits are different, they all share common attributes and challenges.  Most of those challenges are in marketing, PR and having their voices heard.

Every nonprofit wants the world to know about the great work they are doing.  And most deserve to be heard.  They want people to know how they are making the world a better place.  Some of this desire is self-interest.  They want to attract funding, volunteers and Board members.  Some is truly altruistic.  Wanting the world to know how their services can help.

So why is it so difficult for the average nonprofit to stand out?

First, there are so many nonprofits.  Tens of thousands in the country, and thousands in each major city.  Competition.

Second, there is overlap.  Too many nonprofits do the same thing.  They have the same mission.  So when the media cover one organization, they won’t cover a similar one that isn’t that much different.

Third, many nonprofits simply don’t understand the media and how to structure a story pitch.  They do social media, but social media only hits their circle.  The media want certain stories, presented to them in a certain way.  This is a PR skill that most nonprofits don’t have.

Fourth, there are many avenues to tell your story.  TV, newspapers, internet and social media aren’t the only avenues to attract attention.  What are others?  That’s where experienced PR and marketing counselors come in.

Last, nonprofits are great at doing their work, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily at telling their stories.  Most of our clients lack basic understand, skills and contacts to convey their message.  Not their fault.  PR and marketing is a skill that takes training, practice and understanding.

The larger nonprofits can afford to hire PR and marketing consulting firms.  Smaller nonprofits often can’t.  But that doesn’t mean they can’t work with a firm.  Some PR and marketing firms will take on small projects for reasonable fees.  Having a PR firm doesn’t mean all or nothing.

The moral of the story is PR and marketing is a skill like running a nonprofit is a skill.  Everybody can’t do everything.  Let the PR experts do the marketing while the nonprofits change the world.

 

PR vs. Marketing vs. Publicity vs. Advertising. War of the Words

Words matter. But does it matter in the public relations (PR) and marketing business?

If it matters anywhere, it matters in marketing. We have had many meetings when clients say something like, “we need some publicity for this new initiative.” To us, “publicity” means media relations — working with reporters to get articles and TV segments for the client. To the client, it could mean taking out an ad. In one case, the client was referring to billboards.

So it is important to define terms and everybody be on the same page. That’s why organizations hire PR / marketing firms to create strategies. But when talking with one another, defining what terms mean, and what makes the most effective marketing sense, can make all the difference in the world.

The Twitter PR battleground

Seems hard to believe, but Twitter is only about 11 years old.  It started as a cute social media venue, used mostly by celebrities to promote their movies and shows.  Somehow it has become a PR battleground and major political communications force.

Twitter now is used by presidents (I don’t have to mention who) and state leaders around the globe.  Police forces, business people, everybody.  It is the favored way to instantly get a message out, hopefully reposted, and then often regretted.

It is fascinating that something that allows only 140 characters can become so powerful.  Of course most people post multiple messages, strung together, to make their point.  But Twitter’s constraints have forced people to write more concisely, use abbreviations they make up and often convey nonsensical messages.

President Trump has said he believes he wouldn’t have been elected without Twitter.  He touted his Twitter account years before entering politics and has never stopped using it.  Today, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, he still refuses to give up the habit, much to the chagrin of many Americans who see it as “unpresidential.”

What does this say about our communications, PR and marketing?  It says a lot, but foremost it underscores the fact that we don’t have the time or patience to write complete, thoughtful sentences. It says a lot about lashing out impulsively at another person, a company or a government.

The lesson to be learned from the Twitter craze is it often does more harm than good for the user.  How many people have been fired for insensitive or racist Twitter posts?  How many people in prominent positions have had to retract their Twitter posts, only to see them live on.

Instant communication via social media or even email is tempting.  Getting back at someone quickly through electronic communications can provide instant gratification.  However, for most people if they take a couple of hours, and a few deep breaths, they usually decide it is not worth it.

The internet never forgets, and too often people never forgive.

The danger of email and text, especially to a reporter

It is now big news that Johnny Manziel’s attorney, Bob Hinton, accidentally sent a lengthy text message to an Associated Press reporter about his client’s case.  The text was meant for Hinton’s co-counsel, certainly not the media.

When Hinton was asked about the text by the AP, he was unaware he had mistakenly sent it to one of the biggest media outlets.  Further, it contained legal strategy and facts about the case — information no lawyer wants to reveal publicly.

Hinton tried in vein to claim the text was privileged and threatened to sue the AP if they released details of what he wrote.  The AP wasn’t scared off, printed the contents, and it spread throughout the internet within seconds.  A day later Hinton was off the case.

This inadvertent mishap underscores what I have said many times.  In our digital age where information is sent, received and spread immediately via email, social media and texting, everyone must use extra caution when communicating.  We do it so often, and so rapidly, that sending a confidential message to the wrong person is an often and easily made mistake.  Just hitting “reply” in an email and you could be sending a private message to someone unintended.

That’s why we advocate the “three second rule.”  Our “three second rule” is before any email, text or social media post is triggered, we take three long seconds to look at who it is being sent to, whether there are any attachments that shouldn’t be there and the content.  The worst thing someone can do is respond immediately either in haste, anger or because there is a deadline involved.  The odds of making an honest error is just too great — as Mr. Hinton realized.

If you want to be really paranoid, as we sometimes are, when we send an email we do not insert any recipient in the address bar.  This will avoid sending an email accidentally before we finished it or have a chance to think about it.  The worst that can happen is the email system will tell you it can’t send the email because there is nobody listed to send it to.  So we write our emails first, think and examine them, then manually insert the recipient(s).  We don’t forward or reply too often, and when we do, we remove the recipient name then re-insert them manually to avoid what happened to Mr. Hinton, and I am sure countless others.

Give the “three second rule a try.”  You’ll be glad you did.

 

 

Will the real Amy Pascal please stand up

High profile Sony Entertainment Pictures co-chairman Amy Pascal is just the latest example of someone who foolishly put her career on the line by writing stupid emails.

In the midst of Sony being hacked, with employees’ social security numbers, salaries and other vital information going online, the hackers also included a bunch of email exchanges.  The most juicy of which were some emails from Pascal to producer Scott Rudin in which they make fun of an event Pascal has to attend and meet President Obama.  She goes on to make “racially insensitive” remarks as the LA Times put it, or in other words, racist jokes.

When these emails hit the web, the results were predictable.  She and Rudin went into damage control, releasing statements that sound like everybody else’s statements who have done similar idiotic things.  In Pascal’s case she said, “The content of my emails to Scott were insensitive and inappropriate but are not an accurate reflection of who I am.”

In other words, someone else took control of her computer and wrote those emails because it wasn’t her.

Really?

When these things happen, executives rush to “crisis management” experts for advice and to make it all better.  These crisis management gurus (of which I am one) try their best to release statements that try to explain away the mishap and then make recommendations about actions the executive can take to prove s/he isn’t racist.

It is mind boggling that people who have achieved such high levels of success, whether in the corporate or political arenas, can be so foolish.  They put in writing — whether in confidential emails or on Twitter — comments, remarks, jokes, whatever that make people scratch their heads.  How can people who are seemingly so smart, be so stupid?

When executives look to crisis management experts to make it all go away, the experts are usually wondering what they were thinking in the first place.  If you don’t want a crisis, don’t put things private thoughts in writing.  Period.

But the real solution is if someone truly isn’t a racist, then s/he will not think racist thoughts and there will be no chance that racism will emerge in their friendly email exchanges.

 

The new marketing strategy: prime for parody

As soon as Amazon introduced its version of Apple’s Siri called “Amazon Echo,” YouTube was flooded with parodies of Amazon’s YouTube commercial, making fun of the device.

For those unfamiliar with the new Amazon offering, it is a cylinder device that sits in the middle of a room in your house and answers questions.  It also can help with “To Do” lists and other tasks.  The seemingly only difference between Echo and Siri is you don’t have to pick it up and talk into it, just speak from anywhere in the room.

Amazon put various versions of the Echo commercial on YouTube as does every company.  And doing so presents a perfect opportunity for would-be humorists to download the commercial and overdub the voices to make fun of the device.

This is nothing new.  It is done for virtually every product.  But if you watch the original Amazon Echo commercial, it is prime for a parody.  You can watch it here:  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amazon+echo+commercial

Because “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” parodies of products are not necessarily a bad thing.  We’ve seen in other instances that when a commercial is made fun of, more people are drawn to watch the funny commercials and while the copies are usually not kind, they bring awareness to the product.  In the case of the Amazon Echo, with all the copies of the commercial floating around YouTube, it seems likely more people will find the parody first and then seek out the real commercial to check out the product.

So should Amazon be angry that its Echo is being made fun of, or should it be happy?  It seems to me that those who think the device is useless (as many of the commercials point out), are not potential customers anyway.  But there will be a percentage of viewers that will now be made aware of the device and probably purchase it.

If I were advising Amazon, I would say that its commercial is brilliant in providing people with fodder to make fun of its device and thereby spreading the word.  As I said previously, this is not the first time it has occurred and won’t be the last, but it may be the new marketing strategy when bringing a product to market.  Make a commercial that is prime for parody and the word will spread much faster.

Crisis PR and telling the truth

Over the past week, we witnessed two amazing displays of truth.  First, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitted that he had used crack cocaine, something that was alleged but he denied.  However, when word came that a video existed of him using the drug, and the police had the video, he had no choice but to tell the media that he had not been truthful.

Then, President Obama cited the words so few presidents ever dare utter: “I’m sorry.”  He was not only apologizing to the American people, but implying that he had misled them by promising that they could keep their “old” health insurance if they wanted and not be forced into Obamacare.

The list goes on and on with public figures admitting wrongdoing rather than continuing the denial game.  Is this a sudden display of truth over lies, or is something else going on here?

Lying is certainly nothing new to people in positions of influence and power.  But what is new (relatively) is something called the internet.

It is impossible for a public figure to say anything without the risk that it will come back to haunt them on the web.  It often comes in the form of a cellphone video.  In the case of the president, everything he says and does is documented and there is no denying anymore.

The “mainstream” media have played and replayed Obama citing his promise about people keeping their insurance.  Faced with his own words, president had no choice but to own up to what he said.  Ford was happy to deny his drug use until he knew for sure that a video existed of him using drugs.  Then, he had no choice but to admit it.

So are our public figures better people for admitting the truth, or are they just appearing to be truthful to save their jobs?  The new remedy for lying seems to be telling the truth and asking for forgiveness.  But it is pretty clear that the catalyst for this truthfulness is YouTube and the internet.

When faced with a crisis PR or marketing situation, telling the truth is always the best policy.  Continuing to deny will almost always come back to bite.  There are just too many cellphones around and too many YouTube videos.

Truthfulness has always been good public relations even before the advent of video.  The public can be surprisingly forgiving for making mistakes.  What people don’t forgive is lying.

That’s the Watergate story, and for another time.

 

PR / Marketing 101 — How to get the most from your agency

What makes for a good PR agency – client relationship?   Allow me to briefly describe perhaps the most notable and successful agency-client relationship in advertising history.

In 1935 a man by the name of Leo Burnett opened an advertising agency in Chicago. Then,  Chicago was not the place to be if you were in the advertising business.  It of course was Madison Avenue in New York.  But Burnett had different ideas.

For the first 10 years he did okay, not great.  But then the agency took off, eventually growing to become one of the top 10 largest ad agencies in America.

The client example I am getting to is when Leo Burnett Company, Inc. landed the Kellogg’s account in 1949.  Working with Kellogg’s was the birth of a long line of characters that we all grew up with.  Burnett is credited with creating Tony the Tiger,  The Jolly Green Giant,  The Pillsbury Doughboy, and The Marlboro Man.

The Burnett relationship with Kellogg’s has lasted decades and to the best of my knowledge continues to today.  That’s remarkable.  In a business when the average ad agency-client relationship is a few years, representing the same client for 60 years is virtually unheard of.  (It does happen, by the way, as I continue to represent one client going on 27 years.)

To what does Burnett attribute this long-last relationship?  According to one Burnett executive, the two companies will get together for creative sessions and they will scream and yell at one another, arguing for their ideas to be heard.  Because Burnett knows that the relationship is solid and will go on, they have the freedom to be as creative, forceful and loud as they want because they know — “the business is not on the table.”

That means the Burnett people are not afraid to speak their minds for fear of losing the account.  Whether it is an advertising, public relations or marketing firm, most firms are overly careful to speak their minds and be wildly creative for fear they will be fired.  If the agency is able to put that fear aside, what’s left is innovative, creative and effective marketing, advertising and PR.

A PR firm can’t ask a client to promise that they will work together forever.  But when a client has confidence in their PR/marketing consultant, and allows them the freedom to do their best work, the result will almost always be work that achieves the client’s goals and objectives.