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!

They

Recent interactions with customer service people at supermarkets, other stores and on the phone indicates that many companies have not trained their people in what for me is the number one item on my list when I hire a customer service person:

There is no "they." There is only "we."

Make the Calls!

I've been in the publishing business for 30 years. A lot has changed, but at least one thing remains true: If you are selling to independent retailers, no matter how many customers you have, you need to call them.

They may love your company and its products, and perhaps you're not worried about a competitor taking your place on their shelves. But they have a lot of vendors, employees to manager and customers to serve. In this economy many have reduced employee hours, which means the owners and managers are doing more.

My wife and I own a small publishing company, and running it is one of several gigs we each have. Ours is a somewhat seasonal business, Memorial Day was approaching, and we had both been busy with other things. She started calling and the result is May will be our best month to date. A number of dealers thanked her for calling because they just hadn't got around to ordering our product.

"Smiling and dialing" still works.

Press Agents Shining Hour, today 3:15 - 4:15 local time

On this 47th Press Agents Shining Hour, I recall PASH's greatest coverage when my dad hired college students to picket the White House:

On May 5th,1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson's White House observed one of the more unusual "special events" -- Press Agents Shining Hour (PASH).

PASH was the first client of a company called Proxy Pickets, formed by and employing DC college students to picket for hire. The PASH demonstration was picked up by AP and numerous local papers, resulting in more than 100 placements nationally. And we almost made national TV: the founder of Proxy Pickets was later on "To Tell The Truth," and just as Kitty Carlisle asked the real founder who his first client was, Bud Collyer said that time was up!

In Marc Benioff's book, Behind the Cloud, the founder of salesforce.com writes about a similar tactic. From the Business Week review:

Benioff could have written an entire book about marketing. This one is peppered with ideas that once seemed over the top but turned out to work. Early on, for example, Benioff hired actors to pose as protesters outside a user conference held by larger rival Siebel Systems. They chanted that traditional software was "obsolete" while a fake TV crew interviewed passersby. The stunt generated a lot of press—aka, free advertising.

Great minds...

For a New Book Publishing Model

Once upon a time, there was the hardcover.

Then there was the pocket (mass-market) paperback.

Then there was the high-quality "trade" paperback.

Then there was the audiobook.

Then there was the e-book.

Publishers looked for a way to deploy these different formats in order to maximize profits. Not unreasonable. In general, they believed that either paperback format would cannibalize the hardcover. So would e-books, if priced less than the hardcover. Audiobooks not as much of a problem as long as they were priced appropriately.

Also, they found that a paperback release about a year after the hardcover created a new marketing opportunity.

What they did not realize is that by postponing release of paperbacks, and in some cases e-books, they were squandering their best marketing opportunity. The one that comes when the book is new.

A consumer who hears or reads about a new title and gets excited, but is among the majority of readers who will not pay $25 for a book, is unlikely to remember that interest a year later, and unlikely to be reminded by a renewed marketing effort which in nearly all cases will have weaker results than the original campaign.

The most consumer-oriented and profitable approach in today's world of insta-demand is to publish every format simultaneously (including the decision on whether to even have a hardcover edition).

Kevin Smokler has a great piece in this week's Publishers Weekly on this subject. More than ever before, making consumers wait is a losing strategy.

Challenges of Selling to the Retail Channel

I started selling to retailers thirty years ago. Then, most retail segments were not controlled by national chains. You could have a successful product by selling to regional chains and independents. As such, even the national chains were not horribly demanding as long as your terms met industry standards.

As retail has become dominated by national chains, they have gained leverage over suppliers and demanding deeper discounts, longer payment terms, and instituted a variety of fees, fines and discounts they will simply deduct from your payment when they feel justified. As a supplier, it's very frustrating. There is little if any opportunity for a supplier to negotiate.

Some suppliers react by choosing not to accept these terms of business, and that's their prerogative. My suggestion is that they not do so emotionally, but rationally consider their choice.

In my experience I have always found that more distribution is better. You'll make more on some transactions than others. But unless the smaller margin transaction is literally taking away larger margin potential sales, I'll still go after it as long as the revenue justifies whatever sales effort I have to put into it. It may not be true for every product, but often, the more places a consumer can run into your product, the more you will sell.

While there are certainly cases where the pricing and other challenging policies demanded by a retailer makes selling to them less attractive, I have yet to find a situation where I lost money instead of making profit by increasing my retail distribution.

Although sometimes I scream at retailers in my head, I try not to let my annoyance at their demands cloud my judgment on whether I am better off making the sale or not. To the "small guy" it may seem predatory, but they're just trying to get the best deal they can, and in today's world they are in a position to do so.

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.