Unbelievable!

Let's just pray Maidenform doesn't get in on the act!

Time Warner P.R. Fail

Enjoy this amazing response to a viewer complaint about a Time Warner Cable commercial, courtesy of Stuart Elliott and The New York Times:

The commercial was "done in humor with no intention of offending anyone" and, as a result, "we don’t feel we need to apologize" for the spot.

Whining as Marketing

Tim Ferriss has done a fair amount of whining that many bookstores won't carry his latest book. Why would that be, as he's such as successful author?

It's because he chose to publish his latest with a small competitor of bookstores called amazon.com.

Thus he has built a marketing campaign around his complaint that he is being unfairly boycotted.  As Brett indicates in this nice takedown, it works, at least to a degree.

Yet, I don't think this approach is a smart one in the long run. It will leave a bad taste with many, and that taste will remain for a long time.

What does Facebook know about me?

Facebook is selling itself to advertisers on the strength of the data it mines about us, the users, to help advertisers create targeted campaigns.

My sidebar doesn't bode well for this "target marketing."

Anyone who manages a Twitter account for a company or organization...

...must monitor the news. How did the person responsible for this account tweet at 9:20 AM without having looked at any news source this morning?

A Big Fan!

AJ Jacobs ‏@ajjacobs

A PR guy just emailed my Esquire account and started his pitch, “I am a big fan of PUBLICATION.” Hmm. I wonder if this is an exclusive?

Trying to Stay Old School in a New World

My father was an early adopter of technology. He had a photocopier that used spirit duplicating technology before there was Xerox. He was emailing (on Compuserve) before I understood what that was.

I'm certain that if alive and working today, he'd know you can't have a press event and try to embargo the information.

In recent days both J.K. Rowling and Nokia have bungled such situations. Rowling was announcing the new Pottermore web site. Nokia was giving a preview of a forthcoming product.

As this article points out, Apple, among others, knows that you release the information when you're ready to have it released and you really leverage the immediacy. I disagree with the premise of the headline -- it's not only tech product launches the new principles of p.r. apply to. As the internet has become a key source of fast-breaking information, the rules apply to all news

Below is the Twitter feed of BBC's technology correspondent at the Pottermore presser, and here is his later blog post on the subject.

No Reply

It's happened again.

After moving to a new area, I needed to find snowplowing for my driveway. I searched online and found a few decent looking websites for small business that do this, among other services. Only one offered an email address. I sent a message and got no reply.

A friend in the real estate business who works for a local office of one of the big franchises, had someone send a test inquiry about one of his listed properties. The inquiry didn't come to him as he expected it would. It came to another agent...who replied two months after the inquiry had been sent.

More times than I can remember, I have sent inquiries to local and national businesses, using email addresses on their web sites and sometimes web forms, indicating a desire to do business with them, and have received no reply.

I have left voicemail messages with contractors and others, requesting quotes or information, and received no reply. Some of them have big Yellow Pages ads. Why?

I'm not sure why you would publish an email address or a phone number, or even have a web site, if you don't make it a constant practice to respond to people who are interested in your business.

Even if business is good right now, it may not be tomorrow. The people you insult (and it is an insult) by not responding will not call you the next time they need work done. And they will not tell their friends about you, at least not in the way you would like.

The message is clear:

If you reply to inquiries -- potential customers -- you will stand out from the crowd. Even if you do not win that business, you will be remembered.

Is "Dress for Success" Dead?

This piece is inspired by an article titled The Tragic Decline of Business Casual.

In his work life, my father dressed above his pay grade. He shopped at Wallach's and had "his" salesman. I remember accompanying him there one time. He told the salesman he wanted two summer suits. The salesman knew which suits to propose. Dad put each one on and proceeded to the tailoring platform. While they were being marked, the salesman was pulling shirts and ties to go with them. He knew Dad's style preferences. Over time, he was also able to move Dad up the price ladder. That was salesmanship! But Dad knew that to be successful, you had to look successful.

Times certainly have changed, and I admit to having mixed feelings about it.

I recently worked in an office in Colorado where shorts, sneakers and t-shirts were common. I wore them too, happily. It provided a comfortable work environment in an office where there were few outside visitors.

Before working for that company, I had regular business at their headquarters in Washington DC. Going there in the 90s, a shirt and tie were the minimum requirements for men, and if you were meeting with an executive, you always put on a jacket. A new CEO came in and introduced business casual. Today, you'll see some executives in jeans.

I like being comfortable, and I like not having to invest a lot of my pay in clothing. But I wonder if a lack of standards is a good thing.

In todays world it's so hard to decide what appropriate dress is for a given event. The toughest calls are job interviews. I think there is still truth to the idea the better-dressed people get treated better. But ten years ago I came to a job interview dressed in jacket and tie, and found my interviewers were all 15 years younger than I, and dressed in jeans or business casual. There is no question in my mind that my more formal dress worked against me.

Last week I exhibited at a trade show in San Francisco. My sense of the industry was that a suit or jacket and tie would be appropriate as opposed to the polo shirts I now sometimes wear at trade shows. Indeed, many exhibitors were dressed this way (women wearing the equivalent suits or dresses), although some wore logo shirts. Among the attendees, a sizable minority wore suits, and most of the rest were business casual. However, a fair number were dressed in sneaks, jeans and t-shirts, and some of those were ratty looking shirts and frayed jeans. Sorry, but they looked like bums. And perhaps they don't care -- they're buyers and have money to spend, so there. To me it makes them seem less serious.

I knew the world had changed when I exhibited at a computer trade show in the early 90s and the IBM folks had logo polos instead of the traditional white shirt and dark suit and tie. I think I'm OK with a more casual look in any business environment, but where I draw the line is when you transition from clean and neat, to sloppy and worn-looking.

There must still be a perception among the public that a suit makes you more important or trustworthy. Note that nearly every male news anchor or or talk show host wears a suit (with women wearing the equivalent). Would you deposit your money with a banker dressed in a t-shirt with printing on it, torn jeans and untied sneakers?

The Price Is Right

Seth Godin has a wonderful post on pricing your products or services to reward your customers and partners for their loyalty.

Two personal stories, both of which relate to services whose prices have gone down radically over the past decade:

I used to use register.com for my domain registrations. A few years ago I switched to godaddy, despite their awful commercials, because they had the best price. After using godaddy, I found I also like their web site and domain management tools. So I decided to switch the domains that were still at register.com to godaddy. This required actually calling register.com. In an effort to keep my business, they offered to match godaddy's price. I told them that if they had offered that price in the first place I wouldn't have switched, but now it was too late.

For more than ten years, I have used intermedia.net for my domain hosting. They have a great service, a useful online knowledgebase, and when I do need support they are responsive. However, as more competitors have entered the field, they have remained the high-priced supplier. I am willing to pay something more to retain their excellent service and avoid the hassle of moving all my files and learning new procedures at another supplier. About five years ago, I was considering a switch, but they lowered their prices enough to keep me. But now, I am paying $35 a month for services I could get from highly rated companies for well under $10. So I wrote to intermedia on their customer service web form, giving them an opportunity to keep my business. No response. This may not be my highest priority, but I will be switching.

Do you hear what I hear?

The Shirley Sherrod travesty points up how far journalism has fallen in this country. One incorrect piece of "media" posted on the internet is multiplied and amplified a thousand times by so-called news media before anyone in the business does their homework to learn whether there is anything truthful or accurate about it.

The fact that our government acted in the same fashion is disappointing at best, and not the fault of the media that led them there.

But among all the major media, none is as adept at legitimizing hearsay as Fox News. And the epitome of hearsay "journalism" at Fox News is Fox & Friends.

My favorite Fox & Friends phrase is "some say." As in, "Some say that Obama killed and ate his mother," never explaining who those "some" people saying that are, but imbuing the statement with legitimacy.

I imagine Steve Doocy in kindergarten, wanting to grow up to be a reporter. He sees some kids taunting Brian during recess, calling him a bed-wetter, when in fact they have no evidence of that being true. Steve picks up his toy microphone and says "Some say Brian is a bed-wetter."

That's journalism a la Fox News.

Not "Sort Of"..."Definitely!"

I'll admit to picking up some of the verbal tics that circulate in our culture. I say "you know" when I should simply pause as I form my words.

But there is one tic that has become prevalent which bothers me much more: "Sort of." This is different than "you know" "like" or "ummm."

"Sort of" or "kind of" softens and qualifies whatever it is we are saying. It's as if we're not confident to just state what it is we wish to communicate.

Example from this morning's New York Times:

Phil Mickelson played through tough conditions, finishing at one-over 73. "It kind of affected my attitude a little bit," he said.

Kind of? A little bit? The guy finished ten strokes off the lead!

Working on Spec

MediaBistro's PR Newser has a poll today on "What Would You Do When A Prospective Client Or Employer Asks Your For A Tactical Plan Before Making A Decision?"

I still find it astounding that p.r. and ad folks, designers and perhaps others, are asked to do actual client work on spec as part of the sales process. If a client can't judge you by your past work and a sense of "fit" from the interview process, they aren't competent.

When I sold local radio ads a few decades ago, I would make spec spots because many store owners would buy based on liking a spot rather than whether the medium was effective for them.

Are businesses large enough to hire ad and p.r. firms no more sophisticated than the pizza or auto repair shop guys I used to sell to?

Check out no-spec.com

Incompetent Talking Heads

It's stunning how much of 24-hour news channel and Sunday morning network news time is given to people who have shown no competence for the subjects they expound on, and politicians who make provably false and misleading statements that go unchallenged (except by the "fake" news shows on Comedy Central).

For instance, Rudy Guiliani.

Now, if you want to ask him about crime reduction, I think he has valid experience and success. And he did make Times Square safe for people from small town America who want to come to the greatest restaurant city on the continent and eat at Red Lobster.

But national security and national politics?

Let's take politics first. Yes, he certainly was successful in becoming mayor of our largest city. However, that is less a partisan contest than a personality based one. On the national scene, he was the accepted frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination and lost due to the worst strategic decision of modern politics, not competing in Iowa and New Hampshire.

On security, here's his record:

1. Located his command and control center in a complex that had already been attacked by terrorists.

2. Did not assure his fire and police communications systems were compatible.

3. After September 11th, proposed his corrupt and incompetent police commissioner to be the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

Poor, Misunderstood ®

Every now and then I read or hear a story, like this one, about a small business that is threatened by a larger business with a trademark violation lawsuit and capitulates. Most often, they do so because they do not understand trademark law. As in this case, they even confuse trademark with copyright. These people are not forced to change their names, they are cowed, understandably so. The trademark owner's claim might be supportable, but often it is not.

Noone can own a word or phrase for every use. Trademarks are issued for specific goods and services. Search any product or company name here and you'll see the details. Often there will be multiple trademarks for a name as the breadth of products or services it is used for expands. What are trademarks for? A good explanation from the Thomas Law Firm:

The purpose of trademark law is twofold: first, it is to aid the consumer in differentiating among competing products and second, it is to protect the producer's investment in reputation. The U.S. Supreme Court summed up this purpose nicely in 1995 in the case of Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.:

"[T]rademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, 'reduce[s] the customer's cost's of shopping and making purchasing decisions,' for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that … the item with this mark … is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation related rewards associated with a desirable product."

Since foreclosure sales or carwashes (another case I recall) are not competitive with Toys "R" Us, the question is whether someone using "R Us" in a name is infringing on the reputation of Toys "R" Us. They are certainly playing off it, but are they doing harm? Similarly with any product or company called "Mc"something.

Manufacturers Selling Direct

It's been a tradition that manufacturers of products sold through the retail channel do not sell direct to consumers. Since the advent of the internet, this has changed. While many companies have not chosen to sell direct, it is past the point where the practice is controversial or likely to result in retailers refusing to carry the product as once was common.

Still, there are issues. Is it OK for the manufacturer to offer lower prices or other incentives not available to retailers? What if the product is one that is typically sold at less than suggested retail price - should the manufacturer offer it at "street price."

Since I entered publishing in 1980, I have always sold direct to consumers, but been reluctant to offer consumer incentives that would seem unfair to my dealers.

It's one thing to sell direct, but another as to how and where you promote your direct channel. A curious case appears today where Penguin Books is promoting their online store on Shelf Awareness, an email newsletter sent to people in the publishing trade (ad below).

You might say that individuals at other publishing houses, agents and publicists are good prospects for a well-loved publisher such as Penguin. And "reader/booklover" is an accepted category of subscribers, so there are definitely consumers reading the newsletter. But one of the main readerships -- the one to whom most ads on Shelf Awareness are aimed -- is booksellers. It seems to me dangerous to rub your direct sales effort in the face of your primary distribution channel, especially since Penguin is offering gift packs and personalized editions that likely are not available to retailers (though make absolute sense in a web store) and promoting staff recommendations, just as a book store does.

Does good writing matter in publicity ?

Statement from Tareq and Michaele Salahi's publicist Mahogany Jones:

The Salahis are not 'shopping' any interviews or demanding money from any media networks to tell their story. We repute these false allegations and demand that this adverse, in accurate information cease immediately. At this time, The Salahis are not making any formal comments and are not making any arrangements to speak with press/media. The Salahis are not appearing on Larry King tonight as they are not talking to any media forms at this time.

Walk Off Home Run

Wherein a Scientology spokesman leaves the set of Nightline when asked about common public perceptions of Scientology.

Why did he agree to an interview?
What was he expecting to be asked?
Why not simply refute the "misinformation"?

The interview begins at 3:40

Who does Microsoft think they are?

Apple? Or some other company whose customers care about it?

While hundreds of millions of people use Microsoft products, and many are happy with those products, few if any relate to Microsoft as an institution they are fond of or care about, or whose products they are excited about.

Microsoft's ineptitude at garnering that kind of relationship with its users is laid out plain in the forced premise and execution of this video.

Why would anyone have a party around the launch of a new Microsoft O/S? I guess it demonstrates Microsoft's confidence that Windows 7 will actually work well out of the box. That would be something to celebrate.

Lawyers May Win, Client Already Lost

A woman is raped at gunpoint in the garage of the Stamford, CT Marriott hotel, in front of her children, and sues the hotel for "more than $15,000."

The hotel's response is that in effect, it's the victim's fault, and not theirs:

"(The victim) failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."

As incendiary as that statement is, it's also possible the hotel is not at fault. The victim claims the attacker had been seen lurking around the hotel. Whether she can prove negligence is an open matter.

However, the legal response to her suit has likely caused this Marriott and the Marriott chain more in lost business than a settlement would have, both because the response will offend many customers, and it caused the unsettling incident itself to be retold in newspapers and online.

There are good reasons why Marriott might not want to settle, but from a public relations POV they should have defended only on the point that the victim can't prove negligence.