You provide the lunch, we’ll provide the learning!

Get expert insights from PFS Marketwyse owners and best selling authors on topics related to your specific business needs.

With our new Lunch & Learn program, PFS President Deirdre Breakenridge (author of PR 2.0 and Putting the Public Back in Public Relations) and CEO Jason Miletsky (author of Perspectives on Marketing and Perspectives on Branding) will meet with your entire team to help get your marketing program on track and moving in a positive direction.

Send us your goals, target demos, creative briefs – any information you can share before the Lunch and Learn.  We’ll base our meeting on your specific needs, and give your company:

• A full analysis of your current program
• Specific strategy recommendations for improving market share and visibility
  
• Insights into how you can better integrate Web 2.0 tools
• An action-item list of immediate and long-term next steps

Most importantly – the PFS Lunch and Learn is not a sales pitch – it’s two full hours of no-nonsense, practical strategic planning your brand can actually use – and benefit from.

We’ll also give you five free copies of any one of our books for your team to further learn from.  Get your entire department up to speed on new innovations in public relations, general marketing strategies or the true value of brand building.

+ Find out more about PFS’s Lunch and Learn program

I was recently in a debate with a friend of mine about what the best ad campaign ever was.  Not necessarily the most successful – but which one was the best creatively.  The conversation was interesting enough that I thought I’d add my thoughts to the new book I’m writing, and include them here as well.  With so many great campaigns out there, it was hard to pick just one, but I feel pretty confident about my answer.

The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book, ‘Perspectives on Marketing.”

I love great advertising. I really do. And there are so many amazing campaigns that could vie for the title of best ever. The “Got Milk” campaign is clearly a contender, as are the Pepsi Challenge, the Energizer Bunny, Mastercard’s “Priceless” campaign, and some of the older, classic efforts like the “Please Don’t Squeeze the Charmin” ads with Mr. Whipple or Calgon’s “Ancient Chinese Secret” ads. I could go spend the better part of this book just going down the list of all the amazing marketing campaigns I’ve admired over the years.

Having said all of that, my choice for best ad campaign ever might surprise people. I’m sure I’ll get plenty of e-mail or comments on the blog about how ridiculous I’m being. Keep in mind, my choice has nothing to do with results, and it’s not about the best single ad ever. So here it goes. My choice for best campaign ever, among all the other possible candidates, is Bud Light’s “Real Men of Genius” campaign.

This campaign was originally named “Real American Heroes,” but Bud Light respectfully changed the name to “Real Men of Genius” after 9/11 so as not to offend the real heroes who rightly deserved our collective admiration during that time. But while the name of the campaign may have changed, its humor and attitude have not. The campaign, which debuted in 1999, features a powerfully voiced announcer humorously touting a nameless individual or group of people whose contributions to the world or activities in their everyday lives couldn’t be less pointless. Mr. Tiny Dog Clothing Manufacturer, Mr. Professional Sports Leg Cramp Rubber Outer, and Mr. Handlebar Mustache Wearer Guy are just some of the more than 100 spots that have been produced over the last decade. Each spot is hilarious, with the announcer playing up the associated achievements while a fantastically cheesy backup singer chimes in to support each point. They say nothing at all about the product – nothing about its taste or the calories it contains – they’re just pure brand building through humor and, in a sense, self-deprecationAs much as I wanted to choose a TV campaign for the answer to this question, I kept coming back to these Bud Lights radio spots. (Supposedly there were two TV spots in this campaign, but I’ve never seen them.) Talk about getting a reaction! Not only do I turn the radio volume up when these spots come on, but I’ll end any conversation going on so I can listen intently until the commercial is over. Considering that radio commercials are usually my opportunity to change the station, pop in a CD, or make a cell-phone call, any campaign that can stop me in my tracks and make me listen to every second has got to be among the best ever.

If there was one thing that our Feb. 10 ‘Quick Clinic’ made us realize, it’s that a lot of people have a lot of great marketing and communications questions!  Way more than we could fit in just a 2 hour period.

So we’ve scheduled a 2nd ‘Quick Clinic’ and invite everyone to come and chat with us one-on-one about any marketing or communications topics you’d like.

When: Thursday, March 5, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM EST

Where: The chat box at talkwyse.com

It’s free, easy, and totally private – even we won’t know who you are (unless you want to tell us!).  Some of the more popular questions we’ve been asked have centered around:

• How to effectively market while the recession gets worse (we got a lot of questions about that).
• Making Facebook and Twitter a viable part of a marketing strategy.
• Internal marketing to keep employees moral high when everyone is worried about being laid off.

But the floor is yours – ask us anything you’d like!

IMPORTANT NOTE: Because we get so many questions during our clinics, we need to limit everyone to ten minutes each so we can answer as many people as possible.

The ‘Quick Clinics’ are hosted by PFS partners and best selling authors, Deirdre Breakenridge and Jason Miletsky who offer their personal expertise in these intimate online sessions.

by Deirdre Breakenridge

I can’t remember a time in my PR career when a brand (B2B or B2C) wasn’t in some kind of trouble. From product recalls and e coli poisoning to airline flights cancellations and accounting scandals. Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson resulted in Sarbanes Oxley and more financial transparency and stricter reporting procedures. I’m not sure if social media would have helped those companies. But, today is different. On any given day, a brand that is on top of the world (i.e., athletes and MLB) can fall from grace. Did anyone say Alex Rodriguez? There is a way to restore the trust.

Edelman just came out with a Trust Barometer and it’s not a pretty picture. According a PR Week article on February 2, 2009, “America’s trust in businesses has dropped to its lowest point in a decade ….” It appears that consumers would much rather hear important news and information from their trusted peers and are more apt to believe what their friends in a community say over what a brand may advertise on TV or in print.

With the socialization of media, consumers, more so than ever, will be looking to their brands for transparent communication. I believe that transparency, and, of course, honesty and integrity are the voices of the brands that gain consumer trust in the future. Ask yourself this question: will PR 2.0 and social media help a brand to repair and/or maintain its reputation or will the power of social communication kill the brand? Of course, keep in mind that the answer may depend on the nature of the brand, its current reputation in the community, and the severity of an offense.

I believe that social media will help to repair a damaged reputation if used correctly and will also aid in maintaining a necessary level of transparent communication with customers, media, analysts, bloggers and other important stakeholders. Here’s my short list of why PR 2.0 and social media can help:

• Social media communication gives a brand a voice, a face and emotion. If there’s an apology due, then seeing a CEO or spokesperson address a situation and offer a mea culpa is much more believable than a canned, written statement read from a podium. Of course we know that a PR team was behind the communication, but emotion still comes through the body language and facial expressions.
• Social media will get the right communication to the right people in a short period of time. Communities share information quickly and when crisis occurs, social media doesn’t waste any time. There are no more excuses for a brand that has “no comment.” We can use social media to evaluate the brand damage and then apply the appropriate, transparent communication to rectify any miscommunication or to state the facts.
• When you engage in social media communication your brand becomes a member of a community. If you have a good reputation and you are providing the community with important information (not marketing and promotion), often your blogger evangelists will come to your aid if your brand is challenged. These loyal enthusiasts will set the community straight and help to clear up any communication that is not accurate. The community takes care of its own.
• Social media monitoring allows you to tap into conversations that you were never able to monitor before. When you set up a key word system, whether it’s Google Alerts or through proprietary monitoring software, you are able to evaluate the conversations in the blogosphere. At this point you can make the decision to inject the right communication among certain groups or you can post content on your blog/website and offer appropriate information to the public.

I’m sure there are many other reasons why social media will help a brand with a damaged reputation that’s on the mend. Let me know your suggestions and/or if you have any good examples of how social media helped a brand rebuild its image.

I admit it – I’m excited.  You’d think that after 15 + years of launching campaigns and working on projects that I wouldn’t get crazy excited over the development of a new Web site, but I still do.  I guess it’s the creative part of me that just loves seeing an idea come to life, and this particular site really meant something to me.

For one thing, it’s Hershey’s Kisses.  We’ve worked with global brands before, but it’s just somehow different when it’s a brand we’ve all grown up with and actually have an emotional connection to.  I remember being a little kid, and finding Hershey’s Kisses that my mom would leave in my lunchbox.  Decades later, PFS is playing a major roll in their marketing.  How cool is that??

The other thing is that this is just a cool site (check out the old site, on the left, for a comparison).  Playing off their new TV commercial (I really have to hand it to the Kisses team and their lead agency, Arnold Worldwide – they did an amazing job on this), we built a completely animated factory showing Kisses being made, wrapped and distributed.  Check it out and roll your mouse over various items – we’ve hidden some fun things around the machinery!

Overall, the site took close to three months of intense work to design, program and build, and we blew through nearly a dozen unique factory designs before moving forward with the factory that’s currently on their Home page.  And this won’t be the end of it – we’re already hard at work mapping out strategies for driving traffic, creating new rooms of the factory (starting with a fully animated kitchen), and developing social networking tools to keep visitors engaged.

Check out the site and let us know what you think!

(The following is an excerpt from the upcoming book, ‘Perspectives on Marketing’)

If there’s one thing that’s not up for debate, it’s how obsessed Americans are as a whole with celebrities. Witness those crappy magazines you see in the checkout line at the grocery store, not to mention the meteoric rise of TMZ online and on television. Combine that with the 64,000-plus videos posted daily on YouTube by people just aching for their 15 minutes of fame, and it becomes clear that celebrities are – and always will be – an integral part of our lives. That means they’ll continue to be a force in marketing.

Using celebrities can be expensive and frustrating. They can be demanding, hard-headed, obnoxious, and impossible to work with, but they can also sell a product or service. Consumers relate to celebrities and in many ways, they admire them. A famous actress changes her hairstyle and suddenly it’s a wide-sweeping fad. I’m not a psychiatrist, but my guess is that many people want to feel like they have somewhat of a personal connection with their favorite celebs – which, in marketing terms, often translates to “He uses Colgate toothpaste, so I’ll use Colgate toothpaste.” Maybe it’s not as clear-cut as that, but on a subconscious level, there’s definitely a “Well, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me” kind of thing at play. So in that sense, yes. Celebrity endorsements are worth the expense. If a celebrity can make a brand stand out among its competitors and help compel people to buy a product then there’s no question about that celebrity’s worth.

With that said, brands can’t simply put a celebrity next to a product and expect magic to happen. (It’s never as easy that, is it?) There are certain variables that brands need to consider when working with celebrities:

• They’re human, and they’re prone to getting into trouble. The difference between them and regular people, though, is that when an athlete or celebrity gets into trouble, the media is all over it. And I’m not just talking about Kobe Bryant and the other thugs in the NBA, or even Michael Phelps and his recent pot-smoking antics; after all, even Martha Stewart went to jail. (And if one more person tells me that she was just made an example of, so help me!  She was not just made an example of – she sold stock she knew was faulty. And in order to sell stock, someone else needs to buy it. Maybe it was you, or your neighbor, or some guy who suddenly can’t pay for his kid to go to college because she knowingly sold him faulty stock. But I digress…)  When the superstar gets into trouble, it can immediately reflect badly on the brand.
• The more exclusive the celebrity is, the better: When a star endorses too many products at once, it comes off as disingenuous. It might cost a brand more to keep a celebrity to itself, but it could be worth the expense.
• A celebrity can’t replace a good idea or a creative concept: McDonald’s classic “Nothin’ but Net” spots, which I discuss in detail later in this book, are a great example of how celebrities can be used well. Same with Nike’s “Bo Knows” campaign, or that single great spot with Joe Namath wearing women’s stockings. They didn’t just rely on the power of the celebrity; they used the celebrities to drive home a winning idea. That’s why those spots, and others like them, work.
• Whatever the star is selling has to be believable: Remember that campaign with Tiger Woods pitching Buicks? Perfect example. The dude makes a gazillion dollars a year chasing a white ball over a well-trimmed lawn. He’s not lusting after a Buick. But Michael Jordan wearing Hanes? That made a little more sense. In order for people to buy into a campaign, there has to be a plausible relationship between the celebrity and the product he or she is endorsing. People need to believe that the celebrity could reasonably be expected to use the product even without compensation.
• Not every athlete can deliver a line like Peyton Manning. Most of them deliver their lines like Mike Tyson. Athletes in particular may not be the best actors and brands have to make sure that their spokespeople can, well, speak.

In addition to placing them in mass-media spots, brands that use celebrities typically require access to those stars for a certain number of public appearances, signings, Web contests, and other uses, heightening their exposure in relation to the brand. Considering all this, companies that are aware of the pitfalls and can work around the particular difficulties involved with star endorsements should find that these efforts can provide a solid return.

Almost daily, I find myself explaining and counseling on the differences between the Social Media Release (SMR) and the traditional news release. When I look at the SMR template and the traditional press release, I immediately notice the differences just based on the information in the SMR and the way it’s organized.  SMR’s are not fluffy paragraphs of hype or inflated content.  Rather, they are succinct stories with bulleted information, approved quotes and interactive content including podcasts, video, hyperlinks, high resolution images, etc.

However, reviewing my explanations, I think I’ve found the easiest way to make other communication professionals, business owners, entrepreneurs and executives get the major difference – it’s the ability to use the SMR as a viral tool that is shared by people in web communities.

The news wire services such as Marketwire and PR Newswire are successfully providing traditional news releases or multimedia releases with these downloadable elements.  Traditional news releases can be search engine optimized (with hyperlinks and key words) and they can also be enhanced with multimedia, but they are generally not equipped with sharing tools and they are not distributed over the wire.

The distinguishing differences are in the sharing and the platform of the SMR.  It’s the sharing tools including:  Reddit, Digg, Technorati, Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Newsvine, Furl and many other Web 2.0 applications that allow people to gather, organize and share the information in an SMR.  The sharing tools make the difference.  The other distinctive feature is that the SMR is housed on a blog platform with the ability for people to comment.  Although many of the newswire services have added some of what I call the “PR 2.0 sharing tools” (as I mentioned above), SMRs typically don’t go out over the wire.  Brian Solis and I wrote about these very differences in Chapter 8 of our new book, “Putting the Public Back in Public Relations“.

“SMRs should not cross the wire. They should be hosted on a specific company blog channel dedicated to SMRs to complement traditional releases, SEO releases, company blog posts, and all other outward focused communications. Any customizable blogging platform will more than likely serve as an effective-and social-platform. Remember that a traditional Web page isn’t necessarily social, so any published SMRs on a standard Web site will most likely not appear in social search.”

It’s the viral component and the ability to tell many different stories that are meaningful to people in web communities that are the major difference between the SMR and the traditional result.  SMRs enable you to share news.  They also allow readers to bookmark and share the content with anyone at anytime, with one-click from the news release.

As a result, communications professionals need to recognize when and why they need to use the SMR.  It’s more than just a new, shiny object; it can be a very powerful tool that ignites conversations and two way conversations with journalists, bloggers and customers.

Okay, so I’m excited.  My new book, “Principles of Internet Marketing” has been officially and finally been released.  This is my second college text book, and sixth book over all.  Over 460 pages (my longest one yet), and seven months out of my life, but it was worth it.

One of the things I liked best about writing this book was that I was able to pull from a lot of great experiences I’ve had with national brands, setting strategy and developing creative campaigns.  It’s a cool feeling to see it in print like this and think, “Wow – I was a part of that!”  I also really enjoyed the interviews I was able to secure for the book, like Ward Cunningham (inventor of Wiki technology), Konstantin Guericke (co-founder of LinkedIn) and Catherine Cook (co-founder of MyYearbook.com).  Of course my favorite interview was with my partner, Deirdre, who gave some great insight on PR 2.0.

I do have to admit that I’m not a huge fan of the cover…but it’s growing on me.  Unfortunately, most of the time the authors don’t get a lot of say about the cover art, so I’m not really sure how I’m feeling about the abstract crayon thing going on in the background, but there’s not a lot I can do about it, so hopefully I’ll grow to love it!

People tend to ask me pretty often why I’m so committed to writing books.  I can understand the question – I spend a lot of time at PFS, which means I end up writing these books at night and when I should be sleeping.  But I think they’re important.  For one thing, I like being able to contribute my voice and speaking my mind about marketing and brand building – they’re topics I get excited about, so why sit on the sidelines when I can be right there in the mix.  But just as important is what they mean to our clients.  It gives them confidence to know that PFS is run by recognized experts.  A lot of people claim they understand marketing and social media, but they really don’t.  Having major publishing houses put their imprint on our writing helps validate our expertise.  That’s meaningful for brands, especially now when budgets are getting tighter – things have to be done right the first time.

by Jason Miletsky

There are two things brands can always count on when a recession hits: less consumer spending, and hungry agencies making the case for why this is the right time to increase their marketing budgets.

It’s a weak argument that’s been repackaged in any number of variations, all basically centering around the idea that brands need to advertise more to get a greater share of a smaller consumer pie.  But that’s not reality.  The reality is that when recession strikes, companies may be forced to go through severe cost-saving measures, and the marketing budget is the first place they’re going to look.  Efforts that strictly work to increase brand exposure are especially vulnerable, as companies shift their focus from long term growth to short-term, measurable ROI.

The truth is, those companies are making the right decision.  According to ChangeWave Research, 57% of US consumers plan to spend less through April, 2009 than they did a year ago, and despite a small uptick in January, 2009, future spending levels don’t appear ready to improve anytime soon.

So if brands shouldn’t spend more, what should they do?  Clearly companies still need to market themselves to drive sales.  But instead of spending more, brands need to spend smarter.  There are two ways to do this:

1. Ditch the expensive NYC agency.  We recently went on a pitch for a potential client who was interested in hiring us to run a promotion for them for the 4th quarter of 2009.  As it turned out, one of the ideas we pitched was the exact same concept that their lead agency came up with, and is currently working on for the 3rd quarter of 2009.  Well, not exactly the same – their lead agency (out of New York), charges over double what we charge.  So look around – there are great agencies outside major cities that are every bit as creative and talented, definitely hungrier, and can stretch you budget farther, simply because we don’t carry the expense of marble floors and Madison Avenue addresses.

2. Seek out better avenues.  Mass media advertising can bring significant exposure, but it’s expensive and the effects typically take longer (and can be harder to measure).  During tighter times, brands need to seek out other ways of communication, including online messaging through social media, viral marketing and CPC advertising campaigns.  If done correctly, these methods can not only increase brand exposure (even beyond what mass media can accomplish), but they can drive short-term sales and provide immediate ROI analysis – even with a greatly reduced marketing budget.

So as much as I hate to debunk the myth the industry has been fostering since agencies felt the wrath of the very first recession, tough economies are not the time to increase your marketing budget – their the time to spend your remaining budget more efficiently.

I remember my mother telling me when I was younger, “The people you associate with affect your reputation.”  When I was 14, I’m not sure I believed her or cared.  However, now that I’m a Mom, and my daughter is social networking, I care! I try to be objective and not lecture her too much about some of the photos that I see on her friends’ profiles (and I’m happy to report that pictures with middle fingers and tongues stuck out don’t appear on her Facebook).

PR and branding starts when you’re young – when you don’t really care.  It becomes more important when you’re in high school and applying to a college and then when you graduate college and apply for a job.  I read Patrice-Anne Rutledge’s  book, The Truth About Profiting from Social Networking and she devoted a section of the book to how recruiters and potential employers scour Facebook and MySpace profile pages to get to the “skinny” or truth about a potential employee; something a resume just wouldn’t tell you.  Your profile can say too little, too much or it can give just enough information to have someone want to learn more about you (that’s the most positive scenario).

I’ve been asked at conferences, “So, how much should you put in your profile so that you don’t damage your image and reputation?”  You want to be thorough, yet you don’t want to provide too much information?  Here’s what I tend to avoid in my profile on a social network:

• Religious beliefs
• Political affiliations (even my tweets and status updates are neutral)
• Photos that present my colleagues, friends, family or anyone that I associate with in a questionable way. Note: My brand is representative of the company I keep.
• Specific names of family members, addresses and locations of residence (you just never know who watching)
• Information in the form of updates regarding my business and/or client work that is too specific and not considered “approved” communication by legal and/or communications
• Very personal information that I would share with a close friend (who just may be on Facebook with me). Social networks mix business and pleasure so you have to be cognizant of personal info that posted for all of your contacts to see.

There’s a good chance that if you want to sabotage your reputation or damage your career, then too much info in your profile just may be the way to go about it.  Now, I’m not saying that a profile should look like a resume after all social networking is about people and relationships, so you do have to share to get the dialogue going.  However, there’s a limit and it’s up to you to decide how much or how little you want to offer depending on your purpose for engaging in that social network.  Any thoughts on what you would avoid in your profile and why?