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.

Getting Past Your Worst P.R. Nightmare

Remember Michael Richards' blow-up at a comedy club several years ago when he called out black hecklers using racist slurs? It was captured on a cell phone camera and seriously hurt his reputation despite an unusual apology that came several days later. He retired from stand-up and had been out of the public eye until the recent season of Curb Your Enthusiasm that centered on a Seinfeld reunion show.

Larry David said Richards "is like a new man. He really went through something (with that incident). He used to be very angry and bitter. He's completely different now. You can see it, and he can feel it. I'm very happy for him."

To prove it, Richards bravely parodied the incident on Curb:

A comment on the Extra web piece about this show:

That Michael Richards club blowup turned me off to him (Kramer was my fav Seinfeld cast member) and you know what? This past episode had me roaring with laughter both when he answered the door and his last scene. The show addressed it head on rather than ignored it, he admitted his mistake, and I’m more mellowed towards him now. For those who are protesting the show, I’m also Black and have a more forgiving viewpoint.

Tiger's Tale

I will admit to being one of the many who have been curious about Tiger Woods' personal situation and what really went on around the recent accident; whether his wife was really chasing after him with that golf club rather than trying to rescue him. Nonetheless, I think the statement below, placed on his web site yesterday, is eloquent.

While it will not stop the speculation nor keep reporters from trying to ask him about the incident, perhaps it should. Without specificity, he indicates he did something/some things that were wrong and implies this was related to the accident. The language leads one to believe he had an affair, and the reason for being even this explicit probably has to do with revelations in US Magazine (I've always thought that name is strange, it's about THEM, not US). I expect he'll have nothing more to say on this subject unless forced to in a court of law (as Rachel Uchitel may take legal action against the National Enquirer and/or its source).

I do think it's time for the p.r. pundits to shut up. They have been all over television, mostly claiming that Woods has reacted poorly to the event from a p.r. point of view. They have been critical of his decision not to talk to the police, but he was under no obligation to, and the opportunity for his police interview to be leaked was great. While his first statement could have come a bit sooner, I think he has handled it as well as he can. Yes, maintaining his position as a great athlete and effective endorser is important, but he is a person who has had to deal with the emotional and family implications of the event along with his injuries.

The real issue for his public is that it has been clear since his return to the game that something was amiss. There have been numerous occasions of bad behavior on the course. Whether related to his personal situation or athletic frustrations, if being admired and being paid as an endorser are important to him, he needs to find a resolution to this problem.

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.

Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week, my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect.

But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.

Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it's difficult.

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post has a very different view that's worth reading.

Christine Brennan in USA Today also would not agree with me as her thoughtful piece demonstrates.

Here's Jon Stewart's take on the coverage:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tiger Woods Newzak
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

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

Relationships & Targeting

Relationships & Targeting are where the new rules of publicity equal the old rules.

I was amused by this post on a book pitch gone bad. The p.r. guy is arguing to an unhappy pitch recipient that he couldn't possibly personalize his pitch because he has so many thousands of targets.

Even in my father's day's in p.r. (1950s-80s), it didn't make sense to scattershot a pitch and it was critical to have relationships with writers, editors and producers.

In my youth I helped him select recipients of press releases, cut stencils and run the mimeograph, and stuffed, sealed and stamped the envelopes. I also listened to him on the phone. So I know his release list was always selective, and that he knew to some degree many of those on the list.

Now, with so many more media outlets than there were those decades ago, you need to be more selective, not less. Tailoring your approach will bring better initial results. And now, you have a chance to get "seconds" and "thirds" as your message is retweeted and reblogged.

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.