Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

 The company that gave us one of the world's most horrific environmental disasters is now serving up another spectacle -- this one colored green rather than muck-black.  Two decades after the Valdez spill, a corporate fight is spilling out of Exxon's boardroom.  

As reported by The New York Times, the Rockefeller family wants to strip Rex W. Tillerson of his position as chairman because of perceived foot-dragging on sustainability issues.

It's encouraging to see business titans battling to determine how to be strategically, effectively, profitably green.  Thomas "The World is Flat" Friedman indicated the green revolution won't have really started until people stop talking happy and start throwing elbows.  At that point we'll know something big is at stake.  Dressing down a a board chairman looks pretty big from here. 

What does Exxon do next?  Probably, the media attention means it has to get more out front on sustainability.  Chalk one up for the Rockefellers and the planet.

On Saturday, I attended a Board of Advisors meeting for the University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication. We got routine updates on various programs. But a subtext for almost every part of the discussion was the future of mainstream journalism.  
 
It seems like every day we get notice of newspapers and TV news operations retrenching in the face of falling advertising revenues.  Heck, we even saw a rumor surface last week that the most venerable broadcast news organization in history – CBS News – was considering outsourcing its news gathering to CNN.  It’s funny how rumors get started, and CBS News was quick to knock it down, but I suggest that it was a notion that did more than just cross someone’s mind.
 
There is no shortage of stuff to read if a reader wants to go online.  About 120,000 new blogs launch every single day.  A few are insightful but most are woefully uninformed and lacking journalistic standards of accuracy.
 
There’s a part of me that is unsympathetic to journalism’s plight.  News organizations are getting their comeuppance for profound arrogance.  Some newsrooms verge on the immoral and corrupt in allowing personal bias to seep into their copy.  As a former journalist, I write this with sorrow
 
I really don’t know how we’re going to get the information we need to govern ourselves if all of mainstream journalism goes belly up.  
 
We have to find a business model in which consumers are willing to pay for professionally produced content.  Today it’s clear that consumers will go to the Web for news, even to traditional sources – MSNBC, NYtimes.com, USAtoday.com.  But we have yet to find a business model that would allow those news organizations to survive financially online.
 
For the good of our democracy, someone needs to figure this out.

I attended a fascinating lecture by CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider last night at UNC’s school of Journalism and Mass Communications.  While the title of the lecture was “The Role of Media in Politics,” the discussion focused more on the role of public opinion and how the mood of the times shapes the political debate and ultimately decides who gets elected.

Schneider opened with a quote from former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. "There are only two things you must know to pursue a career in public life. You must know yourself, and you must know the times."  As someone who analyzes polls for a living, Schneider identifies “knowing the times,” as the key to political punditry.

Public opinion saved Bill Clinton’s political career. When the Monica Lewinski scandal hit, the media declared Clinton finished. A poll was taken, and Clinton’s already high approval ratings went up 10%. Two-thirds of Americans believed he should not be removed from office, even though the same two-thirds agreed he lied under oath. Overnight, conventional wisdom shifted, and the media was now talking about the “comeback kid.”

When it comes to public opinion and presidential elections, Schneider coined a concept he calls the “law of missing imperatives.” It asks the question: what do the voters want that they are not getting from the incumbent? In 1968, American politics, especially the Democratic Party was in turmoil. Violence and unrest were prevalent, and the country seemed to be coming apart. So voters elected Richard Nixon, because they viewed him as a strong man who could bring order. He was also a moderate republican in the middle of the political spectrum.

In 1976 after the Watergate scandal, Americans felt lied to and betrayed by their president.  Polls showed the American public wanted morality. Along came Jimmy Carter who famously stated, “I will never lie to you” and won the election. Four years later in 1980, Carter had earned a reputation for being wishy-washy and indecisive. In response, the country now yearned for a strong decisive leader, and Ronald Reagan fit the bill.

We can apply this logic to each presidential election cycle. In 1992 Americans saw George Bush Sr. as out of touch with regular everyday people. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show and specialized in empathy. His ability to connect won him the White House. Most recently, in 2004, John Kerry ran on the platform of a strong ex-military veteran, someone capable of taking on the role of commander-in-chief. According to Schneider, Kerry read the times wrong. People felt like they had a strong commander-in-chief already and weren’t looking for someone to fill that role. While this type of analysis does oversimplify things and paint very broad strokes, there is some truth to it and it illustrates the importance of public opinion.

Mr. Schneider went on to talk about this year’s crop of candidates. One of the most unique things about Barack Obama is that he is an African-American politician who does not come from the civil rights movement. His perspective isn’t one of racial grievance, as others have had, and he’s not making it a part of his campaign. Obama is also running as an outsider, someone not tied to special interests or “politics as usual” in Washington. Schneider believes that Obama is in tune with the times and is aware that people want to be united. They are tired of the rampant partisan politics perpetrated by the Bush administration and are looking specifically for someone to bring them together. (Ironically, before being elected president George W. Bush said, “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and then spent the next eight years doing the exact opposite.) Hillary Clinton is running on her experience. She delivers, Obama inspires. That is why the race for the Democratic nomination is so close. Both options are attractive.   

Mr. Schneider pointed out that while this election should be a sure thing for the Democratic Party, it is not. John McCain also offers a uniting policy. He is viewed as outside the Bush administration and has acted bi-partisan in the past. In order for the Democrats to win, they must paint a McCain presidency as if it would be Bush’s third term.

A dynamic speaker, Mr. Schneider was insightful and confident about his topic. If there was one take-away from his lecture it is that politicians must know their times and ignoring public opinion will cost them.

Below you will find notes from a session attended. This will be interesting for anyone that needs to sell social media to a CXO. It lightly touches on metrics (which is what I was interested in learning more about).

• Why are CMO's afraid of social media and social networking?
  
• How can they leverage social media for marketing success?

This panel will be a combination of forward vision and practical advice from vendors and enterprises that are successfully leveraging social media today for business results. We'll discuss the pros and cons of growing a social media effort from within or hire a "ringer" to be part of the team. This is a new area for marketing manegement so the panelist will give their best advice on how to work with a manager who has no social media experience.

Other questions to discuss will be:

• How do you deal with the essential truth that in social media sometimes everyone won't love you and say positive stuff about you?
• What is the best metric to focus on to gauge success of a social media effort?
• Does social media contribute to lead and revenue generation directly or indirectly?

• Tom Parish CEO, Tom Parish Inc
• Brian Magierski Chief Dev Officer, BSG Alliance Corporation
• Michael Smith Exec Dir, USAA
• Ynema Mangum Exec Producer, BMC Software Inc
• Rohit Bhargava SVP, Digital Marketing, Ogilvy

Getting approval from the C-level people. Why are they afraid of social marketing - how do you approach them on metrics - knowing there is not a clear answer on it?

Focus:

1. Loss of control (CXO question) how do you deal with it and still control it (you can't)
   
2. Measurement impressions versus engagement. Time spent, commenting, etc. Getting the right 10,000 people has a much higher lift.

CXO types: each one has a different perspective and observes different risks.

• CMO looking at brand control.
• Senior Leadership for HR is worried about losing people. You are putting people in a social context and he has to retain talent.
• PR guy - knows exposure can be the biggest friend or largest nightmare - damage control
• Chief Sales guy - only cares if it brings in sales
• CEO - if I dont do anything is it going to hurt me. They are looking at it from the company standpoint. Dont get to talking about metrics. Is it in the company or share holders best interest.

Seth Godin - metrics - gives you a lot of good stuff to think about.

Most companies don't know how to deliver a good customer experience.

People driving social media from the bottom up and the top-down. Excited manager does not mean action. Peer pressure as a last resort will work.

Use a phased approach to determine readiness:

1. start listening
2. start participating and continue listening
3. start leading

Demonstrate metrics internally before demonstrating externally. Show productivity gains. (you can do this through corporate intranets, etc)

If you have problems with your products, fix the product and then dive into conversation marketing.

METRICS - without the right strategy, you don't have anything.

• looking at news articles
  
• community participation metrics
  
• blog metrics
  
• metrics for executive staff that show the value that is being communicated.
  
• evaluate the number of bad comments to good comments

Multiple opens and forwards are better than clicks and opens, but everyone looks at clicks and opens. Clicks and opens don't measure the viral aspect of it. It is not that we have the wrong metrics - it is that we are looking at the wrong thing

Focus on sentiment marketing; pro, negative or neutral. Aim these tools at the watering holes to see if the message gets accross.

Start with traditional metrics and then move on. Traffic to blogs generally supercede traffic to the regular site. How many people are visiting a blog? A blog can easily have a listening audience of 15,000 people because new messages are broadcast every day.

Of note: This panel ended up opening the session up to the twitter crowd because everyone was complaining (on twitter) so much that the session was not focusing on what they wanted it to focus.

Charles McGrath, in his Feb 17 New York Times article, points out that while National Public Radio's listenership is growing, PBS television, he believes, has seen it's best days, and may perhaps be no longer relevant or necessary.

I couldn't disagree more.

We now live in a climate where local printed newspapers are in sharp decline, and where the cynical irony in Fox News Channel's name and slogan goes unchallenged. Even my parent's nightly network news broadcasts have devolved into 15 minutes of entertainment interspersed between 15 minutes of drug company commercials. In this climate where journalistic integrity and high standards are the exception rather than the rule, it seems to me that shows like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, NC Now, and Frontline are now more important than ever - certainly not less.

Despite years of siege by politicians who seem to prefer the tractibility and journalistic abdication prevalent on Britney-obsessed cable news outlets - and make no mistake, their issue with PBS is the news - PBS television remains one of the only places to get trustworthy news on television.

As McGrath points out in his article (the title is sharper than the content of the piece itself), the answer to whatever woes PBS television may be facing is more public funding, not less. It seems miraculous to me that PBS can, on pennies, continue to do what Big Corporate Media seems unable to do with all it's billions of dollars. In truth, perhaps the absence of billions is the secret of PBS' success. But while we wait for more public funding for PBS television, that miracle has an earthly foundation.

I have decided to raise a point of order with the English language, based on evidence which has recently come to bear. I would like to formally request the immediate and unconditional abolishment of the word 'podcast.'

I have a mondo affinity for words, don't get me wrong. I can write 'mondo' and 'affinity' next to one another in a sentence, and most of you get my meaning. But sometimes, certain junk words can be gummy enough to stick to our regular-usage muscle. Once Merriam-Webster writes them into law, such words can wreak havoc in contexts worldwide for generations.

Sitting around Innovation Station this morning, I was privy to an internal discussion of a client's expectations, as they pertained to a podcast. After several minutes of furious debate, it became clear that 'podcast' brought absolutely no clarity to the scope of the project. In fact, I contend that attaching that handle muddied the waters.

The term podcast was coined in 2004 with the splash of Apple's iPod. The ensuing cultural revolution of handheld entertainment and communication solidified the 'i-' prefix, and '-pod' as the suffix of the compartmentally-hip. At it's inception, the iPod was an mp3 player, designed for portable audio. The term became synonymous with portable, streamable audio cross-media, and soon the podcast was born, a portmanteau of 'iPod' and 'broadcast.' Used to describe organized audio presented over the Web, the podcast separated itself in that one could subscribe to a podcast feed and have installments pulled down to their device automatically. Well that was all great, but in just a couple of rabbit-speed gestational periods, the iPod gave birth to the video iPod, which gave birth to the iPhone...and now you have rich media for nearly all of the senses at your fingertips. And who hasn't heard of RSS by now? You can practically get your groceries via RSS these days. Bloggers everywhere found themselves stumbling over the clunkiness of describing the New Hotness as video podcasts, or rich media podcasts, or vlogs, or...or...

Merriam-Webster gleans the list of words we use every 10 years or so, adding and striking thousands upon thousands of words based on their popularity or obsolescence. The last major revision came in 2003. So you see, folks...WE STILL HAVE TIME. According to M-W (we're tight like that), they receive thousands of letters every year formally petitioning the addition or deletion of all types of words - but they are quick to add that there is no tangible way to directly sway the jury. I would very much like to meet one of these verbal illuminati and invite them to dinner, but that is beside the point. As frustrating as democracy itself, the only way to truly affect change is to encourage others to support you. So today, I implore you. Walk with me. Help our clients understand the Beast. Help us understand our clients. There just is no podcast anymore. There is only the webcast. There is only the blog. Both are the gryphons of our wired world, and no content is off limits. Just add adjectives to describe the nature of your content, and we will build it to perfection.

The rise of social media, user-generated content, instant pop culture icons and hefty licensing deals are blurring the lines of intellectual property and public domain issues. Understanding copyright laws and their intention is becoming increasing difficult to navigate.

Copyright issues are complex and exhausting but I admit I really dig it. At Capstrat we don’t attempt to know all the details. We seek legal advice. There are pounds and pounds of material written on copyrights. Even the brief from the patent web site is 277 pages! That’s impossible to reference on a daily basis. Below are a few frequently asked questions that assist us in making the right decisions.

What’s the benefit of using copyright-protected work? It often adds instant value or credibility to the message. These references are often the golden threads that tie cultures together. Companies spend millions to develop their property by creating awareness and affinity.

What options do I have for using others’ material in my work? If copyright-protected, you must gain permission from the owner. That often involves compensation. Obviously the more popular the material, the heftier the fee. If in the public domain, the work is available for use.

What happens if I do not gain permission? You risk lawsuit. Companies (and courts) place a high value on intellectual property. Infringement means loss of revenue to these companies. They protect against infringement vigilantly.

It’s only for internal use, isn’t that okay? No. When you infringe on someone’s copyright you break the law. The risk may be lowered with a limited audience, but there is still risk.

Imagine speeding through a stoplight at 85 mph. You’re breaking the law whether an officer is there to catch you or not.  In addition, today’s instant message world means nothing truly stays exclusively internal. Fact is, some of the recent lawsuits were initiated by an internal whistle blower. Large, deep-pocketed companies are increasingly sensitive to this.

What about if I buy the movie or CD, can I use it then? No. The price you pay does not mean you own the rights any more than buying a copy of “Bonfire of the Vanities” makes you Tom Wolfe.

Can’t I simply change it a little, so it is not exact? The purpose of using valuable copyright-protected materials means utilizing the equity in that material. To be safe from infringement your work would need to change so it is not recognizable by the average person.

If your work is still recognizable, then it’s infringement. Confusion comes from parodies happening before 1982 law changes. We’ve all seen fake products that rip off well-known brands (like Beerwiser). Big brand names believe this causes marketplace confusion resulting in lost revenue.

How about just a snippet, like a sample? Again, without permission and recognizable, it is risky. Obviously, the more recognizable the more the risk of infringement.

So, how do rappers get away with it? They either gain permission from the owner, are forgiven because of their artistic merit or pay huge settlements. Two words: Vanilla Ice.

Are there legal ways to use protected material without permission? Yes. Certain uses of copyrighted materials are protected under law. Artistic expression, including satire and parody, editorial, critique or educational purposes are common. The important distinction is that although businesses educate their employees or produce editorial content, their mission is primarily to make money. That is not protected by copyright law.

So, if I shoot a photo of Madonna then it’s mine to use, right? Yes and no. You own the copyright to the photograph. However, due to the “Right of Celebrity” clause, you do not have the right to use a celebrity’s likeness without permission. It’s important to realize that “likeness” covers not just image but also name, nickname, voice characterization, catch phrases and identifying elements such clothing or hairstyle. Basically anything that can be related to a particular celebrity is protected. Bette Midler was awarded $400,000 from Ford Motor Company because they used a look alike.

How do TV shows, like SNL get away with parody? A Saturday Night Live parody is theatre and considered artistic expression. The network buys episodes from the production company. The network then sells airtime to advertisers to help fund its shows.

Some of my favorite copyright stories:

Basketball bad boy Dennis Rodman filed for copyright protection for his tattoos.

Carlos Santana and George Benson filed to protect their guitar “sound.”

Johnny Carson once filed suit against a company called “Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets.”

Harley-Davidson filed to trademark their distinctive sound. Nine competitors filed opposition arguing their engines sound similar. After six years of litigation, Harley-Davidson withdrew the application.

Experience is proving to be a key issue on both sides of the aisle in the '08 presidential elections.  I've noticed throughout the pre-caucus melee that experience has been talked about far more amongst the candidates themselves than in my supermarket or my local watering hole. Those with have attacked relentlessly those without, and those without (or with less) have set their jaw and refused to be shaken. Wednesday's events in Pakistan have thrown a curve ball to the candidates, putting their foreign policy credentials under the microscope with little time for them to prepare their statements.

Clever strategists have armed their people with back doors and sidesteps and comebacks and Ooooooooh no he DIDN'T! answers for every attack. Noone wants to take a stance on anything! It's all about who's experienced enough to make the best decision, should that decision need to be made anytime in the next four years. Consequently, we are getting a bounty of absolutely riveting political drama. CNN has turned SportsCenter; I can tune in on the half-hour to get a fresh highlight montage of one-liners, sound bytes and eloquent-yet-completely-bewildering-and-incomprehensible question dodges. Taking advantage of the free press, this week the presidential candidates have offered more of the same.

Huckabee apologized to Pakistan for the assassination. A small misstatement; his good intentions were obvious and sincere. But the blogosphere is sparkling with questions of his ability to manage policy issues. Zoinks! It's common knowledge that he has little foreign policy experience. But if you heart Huckabee...it's probably not going to rock your opinion of the man. It's fun to laugh and point, but honestly, in a few days it'll be forgotten, and his charismatic thing that he's working will shine through again, and it's back to the races. You can't not like the guy, you know?

Clinton...okay, touché, Hillary. She's hit a little smooth patch with this one. She's mostly letting the experience she gained with Bhutto during the nineties speak for itself.

Giuliani had what seemed to me a small, muted Howard Dean moment, blurting out that blame was with 'the Islamic terrorists' and soothsaying ominously that the same could happen in OUR cities unless...

Obama did his thing, too. I don't even remember what he said, but it was beautiful. And he really, really meant it. 

All of the candidates released statements of sadness and concern for the family and loved ones of Bhutto, and concern for the region in general. It is indeed sad, and we should be concerned. Benazir Bhutto was a [re-]rising star in Pakistan, with a promise of diplomacy and moderation that has left a void in it's absence. The candidates were correct and responsible in offering their condolences. But beyond that? Pure opportunistic theater. Those with direct or indirect foreign policy experience with Pakistan positively wiggled with excitement (I am imagining my little dog Maddie being wagged by her spastic tail after seeing me for the first time in 8 hours) at the opportunity to show it off. Those without barely broke stride in falling back on their individual strengths, lulling me into tranquil assuredness that their lack of experience won't be a problem.

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I am trying to really get a sense of who all of these people are, and how they are. Voting records are important to me, but not nearly as important as the character of the candidates. A person with strength of character will vote to make the right decision, and it may not always follow party lines. I see right through all the finger-pointing. I'm barely paying attention to the watered-down droll anymore - talk to me in six months. But you better believe I'm tuning in for my highlights. Da da da. Da da da...

Enter Adobe Media Player.

Let me paint the picture that Adobe is dreaming. Imagine software as fast as a desktop application, but as Internet capable as a browser. Imagine getting your favorite TV shows on demand.

Not enough you say? TIVO does that?

OK. Now imagine if it's as open and social as YouTube. Imagine CBS programming next to the most local, niche, weird, or highly specialized show. Or your show! Not only can you post your videos, now you can have your very own TV channel.

Of course you can subscribe and get the newest episodes as soon as they are released. And once you download them, shows are local to you computer. Take them with you. Watch them on the train or on the way to the beach.

Now, hitch all this up to a next generation advertising and sales model. Shows can be free, ad-based, or subscription based. Not only can ads can be live and contextual, they can be based on timecode in the show. You can actually advertise things that people see in context of the show, in real time. Oh yea, and ads aren't restricted to a banner, they can overlay the show and can be contain video of their own.

Now if you are in the communications business, image helping your clients harness all this potential. Imagine working with them to develop a TV show concept that will extend their brand into this new, decentralized TV world. Image the research, design, and execution effort that it will take.

You can see Adobe positioning itself in the center of the Internet video universe. It released the Flash video format, now used by YouTube and Google. It upgraded the Adobe Flash player to support high def video, it created tools to extend Flash as an application development platform . Now it's partnering with online video companies and Internet ad networks.

Now that all the pieces are in place, Adobe has finally begun an earnest development of the Adobe Media Player.

So what are you doing to align your self with this new world of TV? 

 

While our friends and family members gripe at the possibility of not having their weekly fix of shiny new programming, the writers strike may have greater implications on our line of work. Although still in the beginning stages of the strike, it is important that we monitor the livelihood of North Carolinian's favorite programming. Currently it appears that the only casualty of the strike is late night programming, which fortunately for our clients, is not currently something we typically buy. The continuation of the strike, however, could have negative repercussions in the number of viewers who regularly tune in to see their favorite prime time scripted dramas.

Only time will tell what happens with this strike. Possibly we will see a further increase in cable ratings as viewers attempt to fill the void with different programming, or maybe more people will turn to online sources to view shows. Regardless of how this story plays out, the important thing to remember is there are always other ways to gain viewers even with declining TV ratings. Possibly we will find lower rates offered in 1Q 2008 for big-ticket items like Desperate Housewives. Either way it is more important than ever that we continue to explore other opportunities in media placement as we watch the changing face of broadcast television.

And then there is always American Idol...