|
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Loose links 
| | Wish I had time to write more about these, but I don't. |
Branding 1.9
| | I hate the term "branding." Same with "consumer," "audience" and "market" when it's modified by "target." |
| | We¹re still moving in directions such as "behavioral targeting", and "contextual advertising" with the assumption that we have the last word on what our market wants or needs. Instead, we need to realize that "marketers" are no longer in charge. It¹s a hard pill to swallow, but the realization of it can be more than liberating, it just may offer the insight to develop the sustainable brands of the future. Look at it this way; today¹s consumer has the choice of personal relevance previously unmatched. They are in the position to sway everything from political topics to fashion to the value of the next version 2.0 upgrade. In our ambition to capture their wallets, we¹ve given them the choice and the tools to distrust, discredit and dismantle any attempt at their attention that is not genuinely in their best interest. We¹re starting to find out what they want, when they want it, and what they are willing to pay for it. |
| | A small quibble: marketers were never in charge. Maybe of "strategy," but never of relationships with customers. That was salespeoples' job. There is a reason Sales & Marketing VPs are nearly always from Sales and not Marketing. It's because Sales has the relationships with customers. Marketing doesn't. So Marketing has to be "strategic." which is another term for uninvolved with customers. So, marketing has always been at a political distance from the action. Huge disadvantage. Now it's marketers' jobs to advocate real involvement with markets. Not easy technically. Almost impossible politically. |
| | And yeah, I do believe that branding matters, only so far as being clear and consistent about your name (or your product's name) and what it means. After that, marketing needs to be about conversations and relationships (which is what markets are all about). I have lots of ideas about how to do that, but none of them involve leveraging anything from traditional marketing. |
| | Still, I applaud guys like Ray, who keep working for change from the inside. |
None for one and all for none
| | One of the things I hate about modern PR and press relations is the "one on one" interview. I can believe that not every company has Dramatic News which requires the hiring of a hall to have a Press Conference; that¹s fine. But I think that one-on-one interviews are dreary, unless I¹ve set them up (which I¹ll do because I want some info from a contact). If the company sets it up, they usually have A Message they want to Tell Me. It¹s face time with suits, and the PR people love it because it¹s the sort of thing they can put in their billing to the client ("achieved 60 minutes exclusive with technology editor of national newspaper"). I hate it because there¹s barely ever a story. Just a Corporate Message. |
| | Amen, brother. I hate that shit. I lampooned the typical one-on-one setup letter a couple months back over at IT Garage. Here's the pitch paragraph: |
| | I'd like to set up an interview for you with Zdb Lrfmstrdl, the co-founder and interim CTO of WiFear, to discuss any of the topics I just listed, or to show you how FearWall can serve as the cornerstone of any company's wireless prevention integration strategy. |
| | The one-on-one interview is default big vendor PR these days. Nearly every effort to get good information through the agency devolves to "I can set up a one-on-one with so-and-so," whether the editor likes it or not. It's like the car rental bait & switch that leaves you with a Chevy Cavalier, even though the rental company said you'd get a Nissan Altima or a Ford Focus ("or equivalent," goes the disclaimer). |
| | So, Charles said, Microsoft baited him with a round table (with three company honchos), then switched him to one-on-ones: |
| | Then, after I¹ve moved various pieces of heaven and earth around to accommodate Edelman on the basis it would be a round table, Edelman calls just now, a week ahead of the event, and says it¹s going to be one-on-ones after all. Well, I¹m furious; and I¹ve told them that I¹m not going and that I think it¹s disgraceful to change things like this. If Martin Taylor¹s time is so limited, how come they found a way to give him all this one-on-one time? It¹s crap, and I¹m calling it. Fellow hacks: hold out for round tables. You know it makes sense.* |
| | * When I make these points about one-on-ones to PRs, they often simper and say ³journalists prefer it". Bull. Nobody gets a different story in the individual setting compared to the multiple one. But people ask better questions at round tables: it¹s closed- vs open-source. And if you¹re going to get an exclusive, it¹ll come out of the extra things you learn, and the contacts you use *outside* the interview. After 20 years in this game, I can tell you: corporate one-on-ones stink in terms of creating the exciting situations that journalism thrives on. |
| | To be fair, there are plenty of good PR people. And agencies, including Edelman (which has, over the years, often been helpful for me). But the one-on-one default is getting mighty old. |
Copyright 2008 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
