Is Facebook Really a Business Tool?
There was a time when Facebook was for college kids. Without a .edu e-mail address, you were fresh out of social media luck. But now that the popular site has more than 250 million active users and the fastest-growing demographic is over 35, we all have dollar signs in our eyes and cash register ch-chings in our ears.
Facebook sells ad space and encourages biz owners to use those ads to increase their “fans,” who in turn, willingly receive your company’s messages. But beyond the cost of an ad, is it worth the time? No matter what people say, social media isn’t “free.” Just because you aren’t buying a widget doesn’t mean there’s no cost involved.
I recently met with a prospect who was looking for assitance maintaining his Facebook and other social media sites. At the risk of turning away business, I wanted to know: Why do you think you need a Facebook page? His target audience was one I doubt he’s going to reach on Facebook. He can start building a page and a presence now, but in my estimation, his time, energy and money will be better spent on reaching these targeted high-level professionals more directly — going where they are.
Facebook has its place, and it’s largely a social — and personal — medium. I enjoy following my favorite local band, and I appreciate knowing who Jon Stewart’s guest is going to be tonight, but how many small businesses are generating business (not just fan-dom) from Facebook? Most of us start our fan pages by getting our friends to endorse us. But until that circle grows, that means few business associates that you’re strengthening relationships with and no new consumers receiving your messages. A small-business owner has to decide where his or her social media resources go, and despite having a fanpage myself, I’m not sure Facebook is the place.
I have had indirect and direct business success with Twitter. So, I’m not anti-social-media; I recognize its potential, and I advocate its use — when appropriate — to my clients. But if your target audience isn’t on the medium, how much does it matter if you are? At some point, you’re likely just trying to compete with other small businesses over who has the most fans. And that is not exactly a strategy that wins you business. I welcome any thoughts … and fans on the AVC Facebook page!
The Health Care Debate: Clear Communication Matters
NOTE: I encourage people to comment on this blog. It’s about dialog. However, this is not an opportunity to espouse political views on health care (or any other topic). Comment on the discourse. Comment on the media. Deliver your insights on misinformation campaigns or marketing ploys. But please leave political diatribes at the door. Thank you.
I make it a point not to discuss politics in this blog. For one thing, it’s a measure of self-preservation — I don’t want to miss out on opportunities to do good work because a client dislikes my politics. For another, I want to stay on-message. The AVC blog relates to communications, media, marketing, PR, language.
But these days, I can’t help but be reminded of the various points where politics and communication collide. Staying on-message has never been so important. And in a time when newspapers are folding and reporters are seeking new careers, never before has good journalism really mattered.
I’m wrapped up in the health care debate. How can you not be to some extent? It’s everywhere. There’s White House messaging, congressional messaging from both sides of the aisle, various news reports, third-party analyses of the arguments. And yet, with all this information, very few of us can grasp what will be in any measure of a bill. We are trying to understand the issue and reach an informed conclusion, but it’s increasingly hard to find civil debate — anywhere. For me, there are just too many messages. And it seems that instead of talking about the issue and really delving into it, pundits and politicians and media figures are talking AT us — telling us the world might end if we do it … or if we don’t. But truly informed, fact-based debates are lacking. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough …?)
I recently posted a commentary about health care on my personal Facebook page. I added no commentary of my own. A handful of friends “liked” it or commented. Three friends in particular kept the conversation going. The thread now stands at a hearty 35 comments. Aside from being my most successful FB post (when measured by the activity that follows), the discussion that ensued was controlled. Passionate, but controlled. Participants’ political views ranged from libertarian to near-socialist. But questions were being asked and answered. Ideas were being heard and considered. Experiences were shared. We are nowhere near being able to solve the health care issue in this contrary, but I think there’s something to be said for the nature of the conversation. It has — to some extent — given me faith that such a conversation is possible. If you have the right people in the room.
We all have a stake in what happens — and from where I sit, the first obligation our news media and our leaders have is an obligation to civil, informed discourse. Don’t market to us. Don’t play PR tricks. Don’t fling incendiary catchprases at each other. Don’t mislead us. Persuade us with facts. Yes, actual facts. This is not a light beer you’re selling. It’s a critical change in policy. I crave civil and clear communication about this issue … and other issues, too. And I’m left to wonder if I’ll ever get it.
Does Marketing Have Limitations?
I believe in marketing. I believe in PR. I believe that solid strategic communications efforts can drive consumer behavior. But I also believe that if you don’t have a good product or service, marketing and PR cannot be the lone fuel of your business.
I was reminded of this recently when visiting a family member in the hospital. The hospital grounds were immaculate. The doctors were skilled and personable. The nurses and other staff were efficient and kind. Customer service was outstanding. No amount of marketing could have influenced my family’s opinion of this hospital as much as our experience. This hospital has a good product.
Fast forward to a different hospital experience. The staff provided poor customer service. My family felt uncomfortable. The nurses put the IV in the wrong arm. We will never return to that hospital — no matter how nice their billboards are or how fancy their Web site is. Of course, when you’re talking about your health, you have less patience for giving an organization another chance.
I think about this with the re-branding of American car companies. They can change their messaging. They can educate us on the vast improvements in American vehicles over the past 20 years that we may not be aware of. But if they cannot demonstrate that their product is a good one, marketing and PR can only do so much. Communications can get consumers to the dealership. It can encourage test drives. It can drive them to the Web site to look at financing. But in my view, it can’t close the deal.
So, yes, I believe strongly in the value of PR and marketing. And I believe it should be thoughtful, strategic, creative. But I also know it has to be supported by a stellar product or service to be successful.
When an Angry Employee Rants, Whose Brand Is Hurt More?
We’ve all been there. Maybe that internship when you were younger didn’t measure up to the job description, and to add insult to injury, you \had to work for free. Or your first job out of school didn’t give you much brain food. Or as an experienced pro, you were treated like a newbie. Not all jobs are dream jobs. We know this. I’ve had the pleasure of working for a couple of stellar companies. The kinds of companies I would tell anyone are great employers. But sure, I’ve had a bum experience, and if asked specifically, I’d happily offer a friend some words of wisdom so that she may avoid the same fate of short-term employment.
But here’s what I haven’t done — broadcast tales of my terrible boss and the company’s awful policies
Most marketers fully understand the value of working with HR in communication efforts. That’s because your employees are an extension of your brand. And when they’re dissatisfied — or worse, disgruntled — and they badmouth the company, it’s the company’s brand that falters. But it seems to me that there’s a point where the damaged brand is no longer the company — but rather, the employee himself. He is branded a whiner, a know-it-all, a malcontent.
Case in point — This week, I was sent a link to Dennis Romero’s blog. In a lengthy (but captivating) post, he detailed his misery working for Entrepreneur. It appears his editor in chief failed to live up to her role and that he was the only qualified journalist in the place — and one who filed more and better pieces than any other writer there. (At least he says so.) Power struggles abounded, and ultimately, he was let go. Now, he’s airing the magazine’s dirty laundry. Comments on the post reveal some other disgruntled staff members as well as those in the biz who think they finally know why the magazine has been going downhill. Still others note that maybe it’s Romero himself who is the problem.
While it seems he’s a talented journalist who has since picked up new projects, this public grievance-airing may have done more to damage Romero’s brand than that of the magazine or its editor in chief.
In Phoenix, a young intern recently got caught in the same trap. Read her story here. Hers was certainly a less hateful diatribe, but led to the same questions and comments. Who’s really hurt here — the intern who thinks she was capable of more and quit after three weeks or the agency that will easily maintain its popular reputation and can fill her spot in no time?
Online tools and social media make it easier for us to get our messages out, but that doesn’t mean every message should be communicated.
A Strategy to Save Newspapers?
The first few hours of my day are typically predictable — breakfast, e-mails, small work tasks, exercise and scan the news. I listen to NPR and peruse MSNBC.com. Occasionally, I check out a few local sites and review my Google Reader for anything else of interest. But a newspaper hasn’t come to my house in years — why pay for something you can get for free, right?
And herein lies the problem. At some point, newspapers decided that CONTENT didn’t have value. Newsprint, ink, running the presses, delivering the paper — these had value because they had hard costs. The content’s value, though, was demeaned when news organizations began posting it online for free. And as newspapers begin to shut down, they absolutely must review their business model. Advertising alone isn’t enough to sustain. If you have a nonprofit, a la NPR, you have different options available to you. (I personally contribute to NPR because I value its content.)
A Harlingen, Texas newspaper, the Valley Morning Star (a Freedom Communications paper), has recognized this. Subscribers to the print edition will have free access to the online edition, but there is no more free online access. In a story in the paper explaining the changes, the paper’s publisher, Tyler Patton, said this: “The days of giving content away, which costs money to create and for which we charge our print subscribers, I think, are just over.”
Finally. But it’s not like online readers are getting ripped off. Online access will cost a mere 3.95/month.
Perhaps this is a shift in the way newspapers will be run — you can’t give away your product and expect to run a viable business for long. And the bottom line is this: If your content is good, people will pay for it. People will pay a premium for premium news products like the NYTimes or the Wall Street Journal. And if the product is poor, the same thing will happen as happens with any bad product — it will fail in the marketplace. And that’s OK.
Content has a value. And it’s exciting to see this recognized.
Our Long National Nightmare Is Over
Our long national nightmare is over.
I am, of course, referring to the media’s coverage of Michael Jackson’s death and funeral. OK, I know, I know. It’s not over. There are still reports to be filed, estates to be litigated and doctors who might get sued.
For the record, I was never a big fan of the King of Pop. I can’t deny he had talent, but it wasn’t talent that spoke to me like it spoke to the masses who have been over-exaggerating their love for him in the past week. Hence, I don’t have the same emotional reaction to his death. Death is tragic, yes. But MJ and I just weren’t tight enough for me to react with such deep sorrow.
What did sadden me, however, was the media coverage surrounding his death. Let’s start with the CNN text alerts that I’ll soon be canceling. On the day of his death, I received four — one to announce he had suffered cardiac arrest, the second to say he was in a coma, the third declaring he had died (according to other sources) and a fourth to confirm that yes, he had in fact died, CNN confirmed. In the days since, there have been various “breaking news” alerts regarding Jackson. Yesterday, there were two — one to say his golden coffin was in front of the stage as his memorial was under way. The start of his service was breaking news? Really? The second was to let me know this breaking gem: that his daughter says he was the best dad ever. I say again. Really, CNN? That’s breaking news?
I have often questioned the value of my CNN text messages as breaking news. A funeral that was so widely publicized? Not so much breaking, I’d say.
Matt Lauer took Today Show viewers on an absurd tour of the empty Jackson home, telling them where items once were. Jon Stewart dedicated part of his show to all the bad celebrity death coverage of late. Even MSNBC’s tech blogger got in on the action yesterday — declaring that the Internet was working just fine despite increased traffic from those trying to watch the service online. OK, that’s not entirely fair. That was his lead — that things were fine, but he followed up with some interesting stats about which celebrities were demanding the most traffic during the service. Interesting, yes. Newsworthy? Questionable. But it’s a blog targeted to a demo who cares about such things. So, fine.
Still, at the end of the day, Michael Jackson was a great entertainer. But an entertainer nonetheless. One with a controversial and storied past. With his passing, the sudden renewed interest in his life is just short of embarrassing. Sure, “news” editors and producers have seen public interest and catered to it, but to what extent? Will we ever see a time when these gatekeepers once again — I dunno — gate-keep? Is the death of Michael Jackson really a 10-day story? At what point does it become an obsession rather than news?
I’d say we’re well past that point.
When Do YOU Care About Grammar?
Today, I’d love to have a conversation with you about the way you view copy. Even without such a conversation, I ask you to consider a question you may or may not have considered before.
As copywriters, we’re taught that words matter. Then, we tell our clients, our bosses and our friends that words matter. Sure, we each have a style, and some of us break more rules than others. But on the aggregate, we’re sticklers for the ways words are used.
However, with more mediums to transmit your content and inherently more content to create, we’ve started to relax our rules a bit. We’re generally OK that you misspell or abbreviate for the sake of Twitter’s 140 characters. And we even — GASP! — do it ourselves from time to time. (Though we claim to have winced when we did it.) And Facebook is an informal medium, so who’s gonna get too judgmental there? Heck, blogs are intended to be casual conversations — who has time to craft and re-craft a blog, right? So, I’ll say for the record that yes, you might catch an error here.
But at what point do we really care? A daily one-page calendar from a resort on its events and activities? A company’s Web site? A short press announcement? What about a brochure? As a reader and writer, I don’t classify myself as a technical stickler, but I do pay attention. And I do notice when an organization’s content is full of typographical or grammatical errors.
Here’s the question I cited earlier: Do you? And at what point does sloppy copy affect your trust in or opinion of that organization?
Governor Sanford: Honesty & Good PR
One person whose job I don’t want today: Gov. Mark Sanford’s press secretary. I’m sure that job has more than its fair share of hard, stressful and just plain bad days, but on a day when your client/boss destroys his political and personal reputation in one press conference, that’s gotta be a tough day. Let’s face it: There are few things uglier than an extramarital affair — except a public extramarital affair.
Lies and deception are hard to walk back — no matter how good a PR strategist and speech writer you are. And when the offense is so grave as to betray a marriage vow, many of us can’t help but wonder if there’s any promise this guy might honor. If he’s willing to cheat on his wife, what lie won’t he tell? How do you convince people you’re worth trusting in office … even if your wife can’t at home?
But perhaps worse than his affair was the way he got caught. Really, Gov. Sanford? Disappearing to Argentina for five days? Having your staff say you were hiking? Really? How long can that last? I know you’re not the president. I know you’re no Jon or Kate. But you’re a public official. Reporters watch you. People know you.
Now, there’s the aftermath. It appears there’s something of a tidal shift. Rather than thinking him a dishonorable, fallen future presidential candidate, pundits, politicians and the public alike are starting to think he’s not so bad. He was honest and straightforward. He took accountability — and he’ll take his lumps. There’s even sympathy for the public way in which he has to take his lumps.
It’s hard for me to personally sympathize for anyone other than his wife and children, but I can appreciate those whose opinions of him changed just by observing his sincerity and honesty (albeit, a bit too late for me).
So, I turn it to you … Honesty may always be the best policy. Was Sanford’s too late? Will this just be a blip in his political career? Does anyone even CARE about politicians and their extramarital affairs? After all, we seem to expect them to lie and deceive — so, are we maybe even relieved when their lies aren’t about their jobs? Comment, discuss, pontificate.