For those of us that watched the Super Bowl commercials nine days ago, never mind the game, we were treated to yet another kick-line of ambitious and much-anticipated advertisements. Following the trophy hoisting we’ve heard considerable chatter about these spots, certainly within the so-called marketing and branding community. I should say that these days it’s not just the bona fide ad agency and media cognoscenti who are branding experts, it’s everyone and anyone. Thankfully we live in a democratic country, and anyone can (and should) sit on a jury in judgment of price elasticity abuse in anti-trust lawsuits.
So while the Packers were sending the Steelers packing it appears that amongst the Super Bowl TV ad Rockettes a new Internet thing called “Groupon” blew more than a few mil with three commercials and pulled off a spectacular Offense. But following an aggressive kick-off, the tide quickly turned and Team Groupon had to fall back on a pathetic Defense as 100 million members of the opposing team rushed the poor sods at the point of scrimmage. Under rules regarding in-play TV ad injuries, they couldn’t even call time out.
You can’t fault Groupon for having a unique playbook. Full-on brutal tackle of Dalai Lama (the opposition’s lightweight Running Back); unnecessary roughness to Rain Forest (who may be in his final season); and a quarterback sneak around Peaceable Whale (the slow-moving but no-nonsense Samoan Full Back). We certainly didn’t see any Hail Mary’s from this team.
It definitely seems as if the Groupons knew who the enemy was, and who to take out of the game one-by-one. Yet the last laugh was on Team Groupon, and as we speak we can guess that it is still huddled in conference calls with lawyers, advertising and branding agencies (who now it seems want their business), irate ambassadors, pissed-off non-profit conservation organizations, geography teachers (those weren’t Tibetan mountains, and anyway how the hell can you make fish curry in a totally landlocked country? or why would you even want to?), possibly law enforcement officials due to threats, reporters, investors, Liz Hurley’s agent, and those so-called lunatic fringe “branding” experts from all over the world.
It’s kind of interesting to note that back in the bubble days, fledgling Internet startups, flush with cash (that they could, and did, flush), bought Super Bowl airtime to run “edgy” ads featuring things like gerbils being shot from cannons, and no one made a peep (surprisingly the Gerbil Rescue Foundation itself wasn’t even fazed). So now it seems that we’re in another self-righteous era where these annoying “causes” are important, and we can’t poke fun at them, even a little, on the Super Bowl without getting spanked.
Then there is the antiseptic and un-biased view of the whole thing. Success! Groupon is a household name! Listen to that “buzz”! Wow, we got way more bang for our Super Bowl buck! Damn, we’re good! Run that recall number by me again? 100%? You’ve got to be kidding!!
And so it goes. From what little I saw, the actual football game was pretty good. Next year -- on Super Bowl LXVI we can expect another spectacular Groupon Fat Boy or two. Here are two that have been kicking around the pinball machine in Groupon’s Mountain View employee lounge:
“Baby arctic seals -- adorable, sweet and innocent – are being slaughtered by the millions . . . so Groupon members can get 80% off these luxurious seal fur coats!”
“Black Americans – noble descendants of a proud African culture . . . [that’s enough! ed.]
[If you were otherwise occupied during these and all the commercials, tune-in to: http://tinyurl.com/ygm5gjq]
[And for far more intelligent commentary on this topic see Wager James Au’s lovely piece at http://tinyurl.com/4d7lsfw]
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Who should lead an organisation's employee communications, HR, PR or...?
Here's one that popped up in a discussion in one of the professional groups I am part of:
"What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement? [if it has sole authority]"
Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.
Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.?
I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?
And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?
So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.
What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement?
Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.
Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.? I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?
And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?
So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.
"What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement? [if it has sole authority]"
Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.
Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.?
I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?
And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?
So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.
What value, in your experience, has HR added (or not added, as the case may be) to employee communication and engagement?
Seems like this discussion has been going back and forth for a while and I think it reflects the fact that this is a perennial and eternal debate that frankly distracts everyone from doing something useful. Having handled internal communications to populations of thousands (including retirees), I generally prefer the responsibility to go to an employee communications subset within corporate communications, and they can liaise with HR and all the various other parts of the company when it's time to say something to the troops. HR has to tee-up the facts, which (trust me) aren't always evident at first blush, and then collaborate with corp. comms to get the announcement or whatever done.
Aside from things like the usual benefit updates and changes, what happens when you have an acquisition announcement, a restructuring, executive changes, etc. ? Well, then you've got the CEO and whatever he wants to say; HR with the questions like "how does it affect me?"; then PR whose press release has to have consistent messages with everything else; Legal; then Investor Relations; and on and on. So who is going to traffic cop all of this and make sure that we don't have a demolition derby of messages, styles, themes, etc.? I've seen a variety of permutations in reporting structure but in my experience it largely depends on how much the leadership wants to see consistency in the corporate image writ large. Not to disparage HR, but it is more often the case that few in HR can write terribly well and without corporate restraints they'll go off and hire this agency or that agency, then everyone retreats into turf skirmishes. Heavens to Betsy! Why not let the PR guys work their magic with those prickly medical deductible increases?
And now, more and more, the CEO has to be a trusted leader to all his employees, therefore he's got to talk with them on a regular basis and be accessible. Who's going to write that? HR? PR?
So, you get my point. Just give it to corporate communications and let them enjoy the misery of trying to herd whatever cats are supposed to line-up in perfect formation. They can lift material from HR and repackage it so that it is coherent and If that doesn't work, give it to someone else and see how that goes.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Yikes! NASDAQ hacked!
Yes, Crisis Communications Tornado Hunters, it's that time again. Force 2 WSJ scoop touches down on NASDAQ.
http://tinyurl.com/487qh37
Time to muse and critique the poor sods!
Well, first off, no surprises really. This is pure textbook.
Crisis Communications 101, Lesson 2: Don't kid yourself, you can't keep it contained.
Lesson 3: You can't communicate fast enough.
Lesson 4: State the facts as best you know them. Don't editorialize. Implications are not clear on short notice. Never speculate.
Lesson 5: Keep an open channel to the press, etc., for follow-ups and plan them.
I'm sure the comms gang at NASDAQ was cowed by the clowns at the US DOJ but it was a stupid move and NASDAQ was quick to share the cock-up loud and clear in their forced statement.
Hacking is a fact of life these days, and it's more of a corporate badge of honor to be the target of viral sneaks from Bulgaria or the bedrooms of nerdy teens in Nutley, NJ.
So I think NASDAQ will have to bulk up future communications with various anodyne security assurances, but this too shall pass and it will all blow over pretty quickly. Nothing was interrupted anyway, etc. Short/medium term it's going to be on every journalist's lips when they cover anything about the exchange. And it better not happen again or else it will be referred to as a "plague of security problems". In journalism, once is bad, twice is a "plague".
We also can assume that the security communities are going to want to wallow in all the pathological detail of this intrusion. We'll just wait for the whodunit and howdunit.
Meantime, it is a really stinky customer issue, and NASDAQ management will have to fall all over themselves and their Directors Desk product is going to have to go back to the shop for a few small repairs. They may have to go for a new, improved, hack-proof (ha ha) version, which thankfully they'll make more money on.
Kudos to the WSJ for blowing the lid. And for reminding all of us again of Crisis Communications 101 Lesson 1: Murphy's Law.
http://tinyurl.com/487qh37
Time to muse and critique the poor sods!
Well, first off, no surprises really. This is pure textbook.
Crisis Communications 101, Lesson 2: Don't kid yourself, you can't keep it contained.
Lesson 3: You can't communicate fast enough.
Lesson 4: State the facts as best you know them. Don't editorialize. Implications are not clear on short notice. Never speculate.
Lesson 5: Keep an open channel to the press, etc., for follow-ups and plan them.
I'm sure the comms gang at NASDAQ was cowed by the clowns at the US DOJ but it was a stupid move and NASDAQ was quick to share the cock-up loud and clear in their forced statement.
Hacking is a fact of life these days, and it's more of a corporate badge of honor to be the target of viral sneaks from Bulgaria or the bedrooms of nerdy teens in Nutley, NJ.
So I think NASDAQ will have to bulk up future communications with various anodyne security assurances, but this too shall pass and it will all blow over pretty quickly. Nothing was interrupted anyway, etc. Short/medium term it's going to be on every journalist's lips when they cover anything about the exchange. And it better not happen again or else it will be referred to as a "plague of security problems". In journalism, once is bad, twice is a "plague".
We also can assume that the security communities are going to want to wallow in all the pathological detail of this intrusion. We'll just wait for the whodunit and howdunit.
Meantime, it is a really stinky customer issue, and NASDAQ management will have to fall all over themselves and their Directors Desk product is going to have to go back to the shop for a few small repairs. They may have to go for a new, improved, hack-proof (ha ha) version, which thankfully they'll make more money on.
Kudos to the WSJ for blowing the lid. And for reminding all of us again of Crisis Communications 101 Lesson 1: Murphy's Law.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is corporate advertising a waste of time and money?
The way some companies execute it, it absolutely is. Sometimes it’s just a big ego thing for a CEO, looking for a bit of Hollywood visibility during a top secret job search for something bigger and better. And of course, rarely is it measured, as if anyone knows what they are measuring anyway. Results? Forget about it. It’s bad enough that we’re spending too much money already on product advertising and we’re getting nothing out of it.
So in case you are about to commit “corporate advertising”, here are a few thoughts.
1. There are always noble objectives. Examples:
a. Raise the share price: We really are more valuable than you think!
b. No one knows we exist.
c. We exist but no one knows why.
d. We’ve just been eaten by a bigger company and it’s a “win-win”.
e. We’ve just eaten a smaller company and it’s a “win-in”.
f. We believe in the same stuff our customers do.
g. We have a new name. It’s confusing so let us try and explain it to you.
h. The critics are wrong; we really are useful and responsible.
i. We’re green now.
j. Let’s associate ourselves with a big positive event (a rocket takes off) and bask in the halo for a while.
k. Yup, we’ve really got a strategy!
l. The jury is being selected as we speak. Let’s implant some positive lawsuit-busting messages into the jury’s unfocused heads.
m. This particular bit of government legislation is really stupid. It’s going to hurt all of you more than it will hurt us.
n. We took a big financial hit by recalling (name deadly product) for fixing (name defective product) but it’s really for your own good.
o. Given the fact that corporate advertising objectives are sort of ethereal anyway, we’ll find something to talk about and just get our logo out there with the least investment fewest gross rating points possible.
2. Corporate advertising is a bit of a specialty, but the specialist agencies aren’t that creative, and the creative agencies go a bit wild and off-strategy (anyway, they don’t like pre-testing anything so their word on what is effective is as good as anyone’s).
3. Probably the audience that gets the most out of a company’s commitment to telling its story is the employee population. Employees instinctively want to be proud of the companies they work for. Some advertising and promotion to the outside world does wonders for instilling some pride. And also family, friends, and other associates, get a look at the company you work hard for. Share the upcoming campaign with everyone in the company before you launch anything.
4. Next, the sales guys occasionally like the ads to stuff into customer proposal packets.
5. If you are a global company, the countries, particularly the smaller ones, will gobble up and translate the (free) ads and use the artwork for anything they feel like. You’ll never find out.
6. The process of figuring out a corporate advertising strategy and campaign can be an incredible internal forcing mechanism for a company to get down to brass tacks and figure out what it really stands for, its values, its personality, and what the facts are. Even if one ad never makes it out the door, this process will have catalyzed a very important collective soul-search about purpose, values and ethics, strategy, and the truth.
7. Unfortunately, it’s really true that audiences like fuzzy animals, children and some, not all, images of “real” people. Just be careful that this stuff doesn’t just blend into the swarm of ads that have been created by creative geniuses who would rather be doing something else.
8. Trotting out a CEO to put a face on the company can be OK, but most of them aren’t particularly photogenic and usually hate the whole process.
9. Really try to measure this stuff against some specific messages. Use recall testing, attitude measurement, etc. Numbers are unassailable in the Board Room.
10. Try to measure “Share of Heart” as well as “Share of Mind”, so keep in mind who your competition is in the race for the much sought-after goodwill attitudes of your intended audiences.
11. Try to put as much media weight or focused media buying into corporate advertising as possible. Corporate advertising campaigns are notoriously and noticeably weak in these areas, and tepid exposure can telegraph a message of insincerity or lack of commitment.
12. The other reason for seriously investing time and money in media is that corporate messages are by definition more difficult to grasp or recall than hard hitting product messages. There is a lot of “so what?” in audience reaction to corporate messages and so you have to make up for weaker recall by pounding audiences harder and more frequently with what you have.
13. If you are searching for a resource for really good corporate advertising creative, take a look at the people who do PSA’s (Public Service Announcements). Agencies do them for free to promote just causes, and they tend to put their best creative work into them, if only because they serve as nice samples to wave in front of new business opportunities.
So there you have it. I’m personally a fan of well-crafted corporate advertising and have studied it. The lessons I’ve learned from everyone’s mistakes and successes (including mine) have enabled me to deliver some very nice stuff that test well and delivers on communications objectives – building reputations, enhancing image, and helping pave the way for future growth of the business.
Perhaps in my next post I’ll reflect on the great and the miserable corporate tag lines that have populated, or possibly more accurately littered, the corporate advertising landscape for generations.
Until then, good luck!
So in case you are about to commit “corporate advertising”, here are a few thoughts.
1. There are always noble objectives. Examples:
a. Raise the share price: We really are more valuable than you think!
b. No one knows we exist.
c. We exist but no one knows why.
d. We’ve just been eaten by a bigger company and it’s a “win-win”.
e. We’ve just eaten a smaller company and it’s a “win-in”.
f. We believe in the same stuff our customers do.
g. We have a new name. It’s confusing so let us try and explain it to you.
h. The critics are wrong; we really are useful and responsible.
i. We’re green now.
j. Let’s associate ourselves with a big positive event (a rocket takes off) and bask in the halo for a while.
k. Yup, we’ve really got a strategy!
l. The jury is being selected as we speak. Let’s implant some positive lawsuit-busting messages into the jury’s unfocused heads.
m. This particular bit of government legislation is really stupid. It’s going to hurt all of you more than it will hurt us.
n. We took a big financial hit by recalling (name deadly product) for fixing (name defective product) but it’s really for your own good.
o. Given the fact that corporate advertising objectives are sort of ethereal anyway, we’ll find something to talk about and just get our logo out there with the least investment fewest gross rating points possible.
2. Corporate advertising is a bit of a specialty, but the specialist agencies aren’t that creative, and the creative agencies go a bit wild and off-strategy (anyway, they don’t like pre-testing anything so their word on what is effective is as good as anyone’s).
3. Probably the audience that gets the most out of a company’s commitment to telling its story is the employee population. Employees instinctively want to be proud of the companies they work for. Some advertising and promotion to the outside world does wonders for instilling some pride. And also family, friends, and other associates, get a look at the company you work hard for. Share the upcoming campaign with everyone in the company before you launch anything.
4. Next, the sales guys occasionally like the ads to stuff into customer proposal packets.
5. If you are a global company, the countries, particularly the smaller ones, will gobble up and translate the (free) ads and use the artwork for anything they feel like. You’ll never find out.
6. The process of figuring out a corporate advertising strategy and campaign can be an incredible internal forcing mechanism for a company to get down to brass tacks and figure out what it really stands for, its values, its personality, and what the facts are. Even if one ad never makes it out the door, this process will have catalyzed a very important collective soul-search about purpose, values and ethics, strategy, and the truth.
7. Unfortunately, it’s really true that audiences like fuzzy animals, children and some, not all, images of “real” people. Just be careful that this stuff doesn’t just blend into the swarm of ads that have been created by creative geniuses who would rather be doing something else.
8. Trotting out a CEO to put a face on the company can be OK, but most of them aren’t particularly photogenic and usually hate the whole process.
9. Really try to measure this stuff against some specific messages. Use recall testing, attitude measurement, etc. Numbers are unassailable in the Board Room.
10. Try to measure “Share of Heart” as well as “Share of Mind”, so keep in mind who your competition is in the race for the much sought-after goodwill attitudes of your intended audiences.
11. Try to put as much media weight or focused media buying into corporate advertising as possible. Corporate advertising campaigns are notoriously and noticeably weak in these areas, and tepid exposure can telegraph a message of insincerity or lack of commitment.
12. The other reason for seriously investing time and money in media is that corporate messages are by definition more difficult to grasp or recall than hard hitting product messages. There is a lot of “so what?” in audience reaction to corporate messages and so you have to make up for weaker recall by pounding audiences harder and more frequently with what you have.
13. If you are searching for a resource for really good corporate advertising creative, take a look at the people who do PSA’s (Public Service Announcements). Agencies do them for free to promote just causes, and they tend to put their best creative work into them, if only because they serve as nice samples to wave in front of new business opportunities.
So there you have it. I’m personally a fan of well-crafted corporate advertising and have studied it. The lessons I’ve learned from everyone’s mistakes and successes (including mine) have enabled me to deliver some very nice stuff that test well and delivers on communications objectives – building reputations, enhancing image, and helping pave the way for future growth of the business.
Perhaps in my next post I’ll reflect on the great and the miserable corporate tag lines that have populated, or possibly more accurately littered, the corporate advertising landscape for generations.
Until then, good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)