Strategically Communicating

Even though Twitter users choose which microblogs they follow, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University/ MIT/ Georgia Tech found that only a little more than 1/3 of the tweets they receive are worthwhile. (http://www.cmu.edu/news/index.html.)

The researchers suggest nine ways to improve tweets:

• Old news is no news: Twitter emphasizes real-time information, so information rapidly gets stale. Followers quickly get bored of even relatively fresh links seen multiple times.
• Contribute to the story: To keep people interested, add an opinion, a pertinent fact or otherwise add to the conversation before hitting “send” on a link or a retweet.
• Keep it short: Twitter limits tweets to 140 characters, but followers still appreciate conciseness. Using as few characters as possible also leaves room for longer, more satisfying comments on retweets.
• Limit Twitter-specific syntax: Overuse of #hashtags, @mentions and abbreviations makes tweets hard to read. But some syntax is helpful; if posing a question, adding a hashtag helps everyone follow along.
• Keep it to yourself: The clichéd “sandwich” tweets about pedestrian, personal details were largely disliked. Reviewers reserved a special hatred for Foursquare location check-ins.
• Provide context: Tweets that are too short leave readers unable to understand their meaning. Simply linking to a blog or photo, without giving readers a reason to click on it, was described as “lame.”
• Don’t whine: Negative sentiments and complaints were disliked.
• Be a tease: News or professional organizations that want readers to click on their links need to hook the reader, not give away all of the news in the tweet itself.
• For public figures: People often follow you to read professional insights and can be put off by personal gossip or everyday details.

(Article on their findings: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pandre/pubs/whogivesatweet-cscw2012.pdf)

Even though we don’t currently use Twitter at my workplace, I like reading these kinds of tips to keep in mind for future reference.

With social media emerging as an important tool to engage audiences and market products, it is becoming necessary to budget for its management. Corporations and large corporations have dedicated staff and budget line items for social media programs. According to a report from the Altimeter Group posted on Mashable.com, the average budget for “novice” social media programs is $66,000 and the average social team is made of 3.1 people. The monetary and human resources cost goes up from there.

According to the report, organizations should formalize social operations so that responses to the public are consistent and aligned with the organization’s communications plan. The report also recommends investing in online communities and systems to monitor activity on the social networking sites. In addition, the report suggests that organizations get more people involved in the social media world. Formalizing responses becomes even more important with many people using social.

These all seem like fairly standard recommendations, but how does the small organization run a robust social program without the devoted resources? And, how do you quantify resources needed for social if there isn’t a dedicated team?

Facebook may be big news this week with its billion-dollar IPO, but not everyone is liking the social media giant. GM is reportedly nixing its Facebook ad buys because it doesn’t think they are effective. According to the Wall Street Journal (via Mashable), GM spends $40 million annually on Facebook. Of that, about $10 million goes to ads each year with the rest going to developing content for and running the brand pages. To put this in perspective, GM spends about $1.8 billion each year on all its marketing initiatives.

Apparently the issue for GM and other major advertisers is that Facebook is not good at linking paid ads to a marketer’s success. Mobile may be the key to all this. As more and more people surf social media on their iPhones and Droids, they are less likely to run into those pesky ads.

In the scheme of things, $10 million is chump change to both FB and GM… but it could be a worrisome sign of things to come for Facebook’s primary revenue-generator. Meantime, I have another question:  Does it REALLY take $30 million to produce content for FB pages? Granted, GM has a lot of brands, but geez…

http://mashable.com/2012/05/15/general-motors-pulls-facebook-ads/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Target is trying really, really hard with its fresh food campaign. In fact, in doing a few Google searches, I found some really entertaining kinds of PR tactics the company has tried in other markets, including double-decker bus wraps and grocery bag trucks.

These are interesting and somewhat entertaining. They actually make me think about buying my fresh fruit at the same place I buy my kids’ clothes and household cleaning products. But, while the campaign has been running for about two years in other markets, it only recently hit Portland. And by “hit,” I mean with a confusing thud. I just don’t get it.

There are billboards all over town with slogans like “Salads for Cyclists” and “A Mountain of Food for Portland.” Huh?

I get it in a think-through-it-kind of way that this is an example of how Target is trying (trying too hard, if you ask me) to personalize the campaign in each market. Yes, we like the outdoors, and yes, some of us actually take our bikes out and ride them. However, I shouldn’t have to try to figure out the slogans driving 55 miles an hour down the road. Pictures and logo are high quality. Slogans? Not so much.

I really like the Allstate Insurance “Mayhem is Everywhere” ad campaign. The ads depict all kinds of carnage that could be caused by “Mayhem” in our lives. I think this campaign is clever, funny and memorable. All the ads end with the tagline: Dollar for Dollar, Nobody Protects you from mayhem like Allstate.

Mayhem is played by a male actor who personifies the possible pitfalls that could happen to us, like car collisions, trees falling, the roof of the house caving in from heavy snow, racoons in the attic, a deer jumping in front of the car, an upset teenager driving while texting, and many more. They use the bad guy character, Mayhem, to cause problems that the product being advertised solves. The ads are meant to make you think twice about your possible cut-rate insurance–are you really protected?

I think this campaign does a good job of making Allstate stand out in the competitive insurance field.

Here’s a few spots if you’d like to see:

Teenage Driver Mayhem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Sjld5yy3Q

Jogger Mayhem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFVpaQGltrI&feature=relmfu

Motorcycle Test Driver Mayhem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0geG9i1N9M&feature=relmfu

In February 2012, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) launched an investigation into the Obama administration’s public relations and advertising spending siting acts of wasteful federal spending on PR contracts to support the administration’s unfavorable policies. Republicans see this move as a political attack on the administration in an election year. McCaskill, who is in a difficult reelection race and has attempted to distance herself from the Democratic Party, views this move as part of a commitment to good government and responsibility to ensure that funds are being used effectively.

In a special op-ed to Roll Call, the Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Chairman and CEO Gerry Corbett expressed the investigation as “missing the proverbial boat” and urged Congress to reconsider “using the PR industry as a punching bag for America’s dysfunctional political system” (Corbett, 2012). Corbett argues that PR has a central value to government: “its ability to engender a more informed society through ethical, transparent and honest communications between the Government and its citizens, and its role as an economic contributor to the American economy”.

Killing the messenger won’t improve public trust in government. In my opinion, it will only obstruct transparency and result in a decrease in government trust. If the Senate were to take action as a result of this investigation, would limiting the government’s use of public relations contractors have an impact on the transparency and trust of the public? If so, is this good or bad?

Visit the following link for more information on PRSA’s position on this issue and actions to directly address the Senate, http://www.prsa.org/Advocacy/Advocacy_in_Action/SenateInvestigation

To read Corbett’s full op-ed, visit http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_110/gerard-corbett-dont-kill-public-relations-messenger-213118-1.html?pos=oopih

Personally, I love the “End Petlessness” campaign by the Oregon Humane Society.  This has been one of my favorites.  Largely because, as we all know, I don’t have a TV, it is one of the ads that has consistently made “impressions” on me through billboards and radio spots.  

http://www.oregonhumane.org/adopt/OHS_PrintAds.asp

I am currently skimming (really, when do we have the time to actually read something in graduate school?) a book called “Made to Stick”and it promotes a method for getting ideas to stick in the heads of an audience.  It recommends 6 principles: Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness (clarity), Credibility, Emotions, and Stories.  The Heath brothers suggest using these principles to get your ideas to stick, and I think it’s perfectly applicable to the “End Petlessness” campaign!

First it’s a simple slogan.  The pictures are simply done…not too much information.  Then it’s unexpected!  It always made me stop and think, “end homelessness”, no “end petlessness”, that’s creative.  It’s also very clear in text and with the images.  In addition, it is credibile.  We all know that studies have proven that pet’s can have a profound impact on our emotional health.  It certainly has an emotional appeal.  And last, every image in this campaign tells a story.  

I also like the new Paraguard campaign.  I think it’s to the point, visually appealing, targeted, informative, and tells a story!  I like it!

Personally, I love the “End Petlessness” campaign by the Oregon Humane Society.  This has been one of my favorites.  Largely because, as we all know, I don’t have a TV, it is one of the ads that has consistently made “impressions” on me through billboards and radio spots.  

http://www.oregonhumane.org/adopt/OHS_PrintAds.asp

I am currently skimming (really, when do we have the time to actually read something in graduate school?) a book called “Made to Stick”and it promotes a method for getting ideas to stick in the heads of an audience.  It recommends 6 principles: Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness (clarity), Credibility, Emotions, and Stories.  The Heath brothers suggest using these principles to get your ideas to stick, and I think it’s perfectly applicable to the “End Petlessness” campaign!

First it’s a simple slogan.  The pictures are simply done…not too much information.  Then it’s unexpected!  It always made me stop and think, “end homelessness”, no “end petlessness”, that’s creative.  It’s also very clear in text and with the images.  In addition, it is credibile.  We all know that studies have proven that pet’s can have a profound impact on our emotional health.  It certainly has an emotional appeal.  And last, every image in this campaign tells a story.  

I also like the new Paraguard campaign.  I think it’s to the point, visually appealing, targeted, informative, and tells a story!  I like it!