America’s auto industry is not in trouble. There are plenty of domestic plants that are going full steam ahead. The airline industry is not in trouble – just the older airlines that are locked into union contracts and have to maintain outdated fleets. While DHL has stopped its domestic business, companies like FGX are taking over market share and growing. What does all this mean? That Darwin has finally come to the business world. The business dinosaurs are dying. In their place is a new kind of company, running leaner, providing better products at a lower cost, and growing.
On November 17, 2008, Honda officially dedicated its new auto plant that began producing its the fuel-efficient, 4-cylinder Honda Civic Sedan. At a time when U.S. automakers are asking for a bailout, Honda is planning to open yet another plant in 2009 that could eventually reach annual production of 300,000 vehicles and help take Honda’s total North American output close to 1.8 million vehicles a year—roughly the same as Toyota. These are U.S. auto manufacturers, employing U.S. auto workers, and they are growing.
While other airlines continue to struggle, JetBlue has shown an increase same month seats over November 2007 with almost every airport other than JFK. While Delta cut w,000 jobs, and American Airlines and its feeder carrier American Eagle plan to cut capacity 6 percent next year, with an 8.5 reduction in U.S. flying by American itself, Southwest Airlines announced that “October was a bang-up month, almost unexplainably strong,” according to chairman and chief executive Gary Kelly. While DHL announced a pullback from the United States and while UPS announced a price increase to cover its costs, upstart First Global Xpress is expanding its operations and growing as an International shipping company.
It is not that American industry is failing across the board. It is that the older companies that refuse to re-tool, to update their processes, and who refuse to revisit their products and services to make sure they are responding to the changing needs of today’s customers and clients. Take for example, a company like First Global Xpress [FGX]. They entered the shipping industry by looking at how companies like Fedex, UPS and DHL were doing business, and by quickly realizing the Hub & Spoke model these companies employed was a fantastic idea in 1970. However, with new communication platforms, with more airlines carrying cargo to supplement revenues, and with more local messenger services available to work with, the old model was far inferior in providing service and far more expensive than it needed to be.
The result for FGX is growth. Better still, with their less expensive process, they are gaining even greater market share in this down economy. When companies are looking for ways to reduce expenses, FGX is a Godsend. Welcome to the new economy – it may not be as bad in the long term as we all think...
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I Pity The President - or Truth in Advertising
It's election night, and no matter who wins this election, I pity the fool. Why? Because each has made promises that they simply can't keep. I do promise this. Somewhere in the first months of their presidency will come the message "It's much worse that I had thought. That SOB George W. lied to us, and now I can't do everything I wanted to. Even worse, I'm going to need each of you to work even harder in order for us to get back on track."
Why do I say this? Well, let's just look at the larger picture - of what's going on with this country. And no, this isn't a bash on the country. I love it deeply and feel it is still the greatest country on this planet. However, our January 1st is coming up quickly and we are already waking up with one hell of a hangover.
The fact is simple, for the most part our lifestyle is based on a level of consumption we simply cannot continue to maintain. We have larger refridgerators that most of the world can even dream of. We drive larger vehicles than most of us can afford, and that far exceed our fuel resources. We are demanding greater benefits from employers, but we have fewer jobs available to us. The worst part is, none of this is a result of the credit meltdown. It is due to our maintaining a lifestyle that is far out of touch from the rest of the world - and none of us are changing our way of life to fit the resources at hand.
The sad part is, as a nation, we are rapidly finding our horizon point where we will be forced to fall closer in line with the rest of the world. The next President will be the first one that will not have much of a choice but to wake us up to a rather nasty hangover. And no, I don't think he will have a large enough aspirin to ease the sunrise...
Why do I say this? Well, let's just look at the larger picture - of what's going on with this country. And no, this isn't a bash on the country. I love it deeply and feel it is still the greatest country on this planet. However, our January 1st is coming up quickly and we are already waking up with one hell of a hangover.
The fact is simple, for the most part our lifestyle is based on a level of consumption we simply cannot continue to maintain. We have larger refridgerators that most of the world can even dream of. We drive larger vehicles than most of us can afford, and that far exceed our fuel resources. We are demanding greater benefits from employers, but we have fewer jobs available to us. The worst part is, none of this is a result of the credit meltdown. It is due to our maintaining a lifestyle that is far out of touch from the rest of the world - and none of us are changing our way of life to fit the resources at hand.
The sad part is, as a nation, we are rapidly finding our horizon point where we will be forced to fall closer in line with the rest of the world. The next President will be the first one that will not have much of a choice but to wake us up to a rather nasty hangover. And no, I don't think he will have a large enough aspirin to ease the sunrise...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
What Happens When Mavericks Act, Well, Like Mavericks
The news is filled with breaks between Sarah Palin and John McCain. McCain's camp is calling Palin a "Diva." Palin's camp is blaming McCain for botching her coming out party. Both are probably right - although it probably is sexist to call her a diva - even though there were "diva" wars several years ago between celebs wanting to be known as the "only true diva," - but that's another blog entry all together.
Back to the question at heart - which is I'm not sure what the problem is. The RNC decided early on that they would brand McCain as a "Maverick." They then decided to bring in Sarah Palin as "Another Maverick." It's not a bad brand to assign. In fact, it ranks rather well in people's minds. Ms. Palin augmented Mr. McCain's maverick brand and as polls showed, gave a real shot to the campaign. The problem wasn't in the concept of the maverick brand, it was in how to keep the brand alive, without it turning into a flat, two dimensional moniker?
As it turns out, it's not an easy tightrope to walk. Just look at a brand like Sketchers. It was a great, counter-culture brand when it first launched. It was a maverick brand. However, once it became popular, the brand realized it had to give up some of its counter culture status in order to make more money. After all, how counter-culture can you be when you're sold in Kmart?
Back to the question at heart - which is I'm not sure what the problem is. The RNC decided early on that they would brand McCain as a "Maverick." They then decided to bring in Sarah Palin as "Another Maverick." It's not a bad brand to assign. In fact, it ranks rather well in people's minds. Ms. Palin augmented Mr. McCain's maverick brand and as polls showed, gave a real shot to the campaign. The problem wasn't in the concept of the maverick brand, it was in how to keep the brand alive, without it turning into a flat, two dimensional moniker?
As it turns out, it's not an easy tightrope to walk. Just look at a brand like Sketchers. It was a great, counter-culture brand when it first launched. It was a maverick brand. However, once it became popular, the brand realized it had to give up some of its counter culture status in order to make more money. After all, how counter-culture can you be when you're sold in Kmart?
So it made a decision - stay true to its brand, or take a brand shift and make more money. Some brands stay true to themselves and never grow [just walk into any skateboarding store]. Others manage to stay true to the brand and grow to a certain extent [Clif Bars has done an amazing job at keeping a maverick brand alive, while growing well]. Still others, try to keep walking that line, only to realize to late that their market likes the idea of a maverick, but has trouble when that maverick keeps acting, well, like a maverick.
Bottom line, the concept of being a maverick is great on paper. But how do you keep a maverick in line so that they give a consistent message day in and day out? Even more important - how do you keep a maverick on message?
Once you do, they're no longer a maverick.
Again, great on paper - impossible to maintain over the long term...
Friday, October 3, 2008
When The U.S. Government Gives Kickbacks...
Well, I you were ever wondering how Washington really works, this $700 Billion bailout bill is an education in what really goes on to turn a bill into a law.
We start with an innocuous bill that taxpayers will fund to the tune of $700 Billion to pay to keep our economy shored up. It seems to me very simple. However, in order to get the money meant to bail out the Wall Street Wizards to the Wall Street Wizards, our elected officials had to be incentivized to vote for it. Some could call it a bribe, some could call it a kickback, but I think the official term is money being "earmarked" to a specific cause. Hence the reason for all the extras being added to what one would assume is a very simple, straightforward bill.
Imagine if you will a conversation like this:
Senator #1 – “Senator – will you vote for this bill meant to help keep America's financial system afloat and keep us out of another great depression?”
Senator #2 – “I don’t think so.”
Senator #1 – “What if we added on a little something for your home constituents?”
Senator #2 – “Well I’m liking it more and more now. What exactly are we talking about?”
Senator #1 – “Hmmmmmmm, well, would that wooden arrow manufacturer who helped pay for your campaign last year like some money?”
Senator #2 – “Where do I sign Senator?”
Lo and behold, the bill gets passed. How else do you explain what has been added to the bailout bill:
- $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children
- $100 million tax break to benefit auto racetrack owners
- $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican/Virgin Islands rum industry
- $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers
- $49 million tax benefit for plaintiffs who sued over the 1989 tanker Exxon Valdez spill.
All of which you are paying for.
It’s a little different than how School House Rock explained it when I was a kid, but welcome to Washington…
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Expense or Investment
Same cost, same dollar amount, but how someone views a particular expenditure can make all the difference when you're selling it. Whether you're talking to a company about spending on a particular project, or talking to a spouse about buying a shirt, dress, or a particular item for the home, determining if it an expense or an investment will make the difference as to whether the check will be signed and approved.
Let's start from the beginning. An expense is a sacrifice. Once an expense is paid, the money is gone forever. There is nothing coming back. The purchase of a suit for a special event could be an example of an expense. It makes the wearer happy, but wouln't return any real value other than the happiness of the wearer. On the other hand, an investment is spent in the hopes of getting a return - i.e., a Return on the Investment [ROI]. The purchase of a business suit could pay for itself by improving the wearer's appearance, helping them look more professional, and helping him or her close more deals.
For the most part, people don't mind investing if they are fairly confident they will see a return. In today's market they are more cautious and less willing to take risks, but they are still willing to make an investment where they are not so willing to incur an expense.
So, how you describe a specific cost, and how it is presented to the person writing the check is as important, if not more so, than the actual cost itself. How you present yourself is a huge factor in that mix. Are you trustworthy? Are you someone who is responsible enough to manage the money and provide a return on the investment? Or are you someone who's just going to take the money and throw a huge party? Either way, it all comes back to what kind of a return the person writing the checks expect.
$700 billion in bailout? I originally thought of it as an investment in America's future. Something that would help the homeowners stablize their finances and the banks support them. Until I started hearing about $2 million going to an arrow company in the Pacific Northwest, or how the banks were really just hording the money and not using it to open up more loans. Now, it's just an expense. Why? Because the people managing the money are either uneducated in basic finance, idiots or dishonest. Or possible, a mix of all three.
So the next time you're asking for money, either from a partner, spouse or business associate, think ahead in terms of what can be delivered and what ROI you can carry through on. The results will brand you forever....
If that's not clear enough, just think of how the original investments given to B. Madoff quickly turned into a hugh expense. Also think about what kind of new investors he'll be able to attract on his next time around....
Let's start from the beginning. An expense is a sacrifice. Once an expense is paid, the money is gone forever. There is nothing coming back. The purchase of a suit for a special event could be an example of an expense. It makes the wearer happy, but wouln't return any real value other than the happiness of the wearer. On the other hand, an investment is spent in the hopes of getting a return - i.e., a Return on the Investment [ROI]. The purchase of a business suit could pay for itself by improving the wearer's appearance, helping them look more professional, and helping him or her close more deals.
For the most part, people don't mind investing if they are fairly confident they will see a return. In today's market they are more cautious and less willing to take risks, but they are still willing to make an investment where they are not so willing to incur an expense.
So, how you describe a specific cost, and how it is presented to the person writing the check is as important, if not more so, than the actual cost itself. How you present yourself is a huge factor in that mix. Are you trustworthy? Are you someone who is responsible enough to manage the money and provide a return on the investment? Or are you someone who's just going to take the money and throw a huge party? Either way, it all comes back to what kind of a return the person writing the checks expect.
$700 billion in bailout? I originally thought of it as an investment in America's future. Something that would help the homeowners stablize their finances and the banks support them. Until I started hearing about $2 million going to an arrow company in the Pacific Northwest, or how the banks were really just hording the money and not using it to open up more loans. Now, it's just an expense. Why? Because the people managing the money are either uneducated in basic finance, idiots or dishonest. Or possible, a mix of all three.
So the next time you're asking for money, either from a partner, spouse or business associate, think ahead in terms of what can be delivered and what ROI you can carry through on. The results will brand you forever....
If that's not clear enough, just think of how the original investments given to B. Madoff quickly turned into a hugh expense. Also think about what kind of new investors he'll be able to attract on his next time around....
Friday, September 19, 2008
Recession and Global Financial Meltdown Isn't Necessarily A Bad Thing
Yes, the financial sky is falling. But don't go all chicken little on me just yet yelling "global financial meltdown." There is a silver lining to the blackened skies. Well, at least for those brands and companies that can think fast and move quickly.
For those of you not old enough to remember the 80s, you need to keep something in mind - even through the economy may have stalled, life hasn't. People still age, families still grow and consumers still buy. As a brand, your ability to grow in a down economy rests on your ability to refine your message to best respond the the market's newfound concerns. And no, it's not just about pricing. It's about delivering value - value on your brand, value on your product or service. That's true whether you have a consumer product, a business product, or a service.
Have you ever met anyone who's unwilling to spend a dollar in order to get $1.50 in value? Well, that's the way to think. No, value isn't just found in discounting. In fact, that's the worst thing anyone can do - because you're decreasing the perceived value when you do it. Instead, it's about finding added benefit within a product. Baking Soda - not just for cookies, it helps keep a refridgerator fresh. Chanel - it's not just iconic fashion, it has cache that will endure. It's there in every product. You just have to remain open minded and find it.
This remains true across the board, and opens up even more opportunities for new businesses, for new products, and for new services. Well, true for those who can come in under the radar and move quickly to reposition their products while the old IBMs and Unilevers sit frozen trying to build powerpoints about what steps to take.
So now is not the time to hesitate. Now is the time to start running. The more you push now, the better you will be positioned when the economy rebounds.
If you're wondering if I'm crazy, just look what two guys created in a garage during the last big recession - a company called Microsoft....
For those of you not old enough to remember the 80s, you need to keep something in mind - even through the economy may have stalled, life hasn't. People still age, families still grow and consumers still buy. As a brand, your ability to grow in a down economy rests on your ability to refine your message to best respond the the market's newfound concerns. And no, it's not just about pricing. It's about delivering value - value on your brand, value on your product or service. That's true whether you have a consumer product, a business product, or a service.
Have you ever met anyone who's unwilling to spend a dollar in order to get $1.50 in value? Well, that's the way to think. No, value isn't just found in discounting. In fact, that's the worst thing anyone can do - because you're decreasing the perceived value when you do it. Instead, it's about finding added benefit within a product. Baking Soda - not just for cookies, it helps keep a refridgerator fresh. Chanel - it's not just iconic fashion, it has cache that will endure. It's there in every product. You just have to remain open minded and find it.
This remains true across the board, and opens up even more opportunities for new businesses, for new products, and for new services. Well, true for those who can come in under the radar and move quickly to reposition their products while the old IBMs and Unilevers sit frozen trying to build powerpoints about what steps to take.
So now is not the time to hesitate. Now is the time to start running. The more you push now, the better you will be positioned when the economy rebounds.
If you're wondering if I'm crazy, just look what two guys created in a garage during the last big recession - a company called Microsoft....
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
AIG, Sherson Lehmann, Merrill Lynch - PR Spin Can Only Go So Far...
If there has ever been proof that a good publicist can only spin the truth so far, and for so long, this is it. For the past several years, the C-level executives and the boards of financial insitutions like AIG, Merrill Lynch and Lehmann have spun their balance sheets to appear rock solid. Yet, little by little, the tides of time and finance have eroded their image, until finally the entire wall of deception has come crashing down. Yes, in the end performance does count, but did the truth come early enough? Or did the spin-meisters do such a good job that the damage is irreparable.
In actuality AIG, Sherson Lehmann, and Merrill Lynch all dropped the balls on their businesses while taking self-voted bonuses, pay increases and who knows what else. They took on too much risk and made the same assumptions that the rest of the financial world made. It's not just about balance sheets and numbers, it's about a mindset. Namely, that if they just kept their heads down long enough, and gained enough fact-dodging press, the financial storm that was building would blow over and everything would be fine as day.
The sad part is not that for most executives at these institutions, the packages they created enabled them to walk away with a nice bundle and live out their lives in comfort. The sad part is that the issues these financial institutions are having is indicative of a much larger problems. They are run by people that have the same mindset as those running this country. It's a mindset that is short term at best, and at worst borderline criminal, with absolutely no interest for the public trust, just their own greed.
It's no wonder we have lobbyists running Washington, lobbyists who are in bed with the failing companies, and with our elected officials of both parties. Ever wonder why irate Congressmen and Congresswomen railed for years about "why weren't we helping more American's buy their homes?" Well, they got us to buy!
So kiddies, the lesson here is a simple one. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Work hard and do your work well, and good things will happen. Oh no, wait. That was the attitude that made this country great. Hmmmm, now I wonder where the attitude of "work hard, make a good buck at any cost and run like the wind when things go bad" will get us...
The storm, she is a comin....
In actuality AIG, Sherson Lehmann, and Merrill Lynch all dropped the balls on their businesses while taking self-voted bonuses, pay increases and who knows what else. They took on too much risk and made the same assumptions that the rest of the financial world made. It's not just about balance sheets and numbers, it's about a mindset. Namely, that if they just kept their heads down long enough, and gained enough fact-dodging press, the financial storm that was building would blow over and everything would be fine as day.
Hello Katrina?
The sad part is not that for most executives at these institutions, the packages they created enabled them to walk away with a nice bundle and live out their lives in comfort. The sad part is that the issues these financial institutions are having is indicative of a much larger problems. They are run by people that have the same mindset as those running this country. It's a mindset that is short term at best, and at worst borderline criminal, with absolutely no interest for the public trust, just their own greed.
It's no wonder we have lobbyists running Washington, lobbyists who are in bed with the failing companies, and with our elected officials of both parties. Ever wonder why irate Congressmen and Congresswomen railed for years about "why weren't we helping more American's buy their homes?" Well, they got us to buy!
So kiddies, the lesson here is a simple one. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Work hard and do your work well, and good things will happen. Oh no, wait. That was the attitude that made this country great. Hmmmm, now I wonder where the attitude of "work hard, make a good buck at any cost and run like the wind when things go bad" will get us...
The storm, she is a comin....
Friday, September 12, 2008
Websites Who Get It - umbrellatoday.com
Okay, enough useless talk about candidates, governments, spin doctors, and brands. It's time to jump in and talk about real products and real branding from people who understand their audience and have the guts to cut out all the fluff to give them what they want.
http://umbrellatoday.com/
It just doesn't get simpler. It just doesn't get better. It just makes you kneel down and thank the powers that be that yes - there is hope for all of this.
Consumer brands, B2B brands, political pundits, news organizations - THIS IS WHAT WE WANT!!!!!!
http://umbrellatoday.com/
It just doesn't get simpler. It just doesn't get better. It just makes you kneel down and thank the powers that be that yes - there is hope for all of this.
Consumer brands, B2B brands, political pundits, news organizations - THIS IS WHAT WE WANT!!!!!!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Palin & Coca Cola
I got into a conversation last night over a few martinis, that is relevant to this. The conversation led us into talking about brands versus ingredients, academic positioning verson real product benefits, and which was more important. So with the political pundits chattering away, and with us PR folk talking about brands, we compared Sarah Palin with another well known American brand - Coca Cola. Watch, they do have some similarities...
In one night, Sarah defined a strong position for herself when she took the podium at the DNC. She did a great job doing os, and a great many people jumped on board. Trusting her ingredients matched her brand. Now, while many may think Sarah Palin's record is a risk, we all know records can be tweaked, shifted, and distorted by the politicos and spin doctors. So while her resume includes a long list of questionable acts that include attempts at ousting an in-law from the police force, book banning, even using lobbyists for fundraising [Time Magazine 9/2/8], her position and brand is extremely strong.
Now, here's the leap that's far easier to make over martinis than on a blog, but resumes are a lot like ingredients. They are the real benefits a politician brings to the table. And like any product, the formula that has made up her past is only half the equation of what makes her a true presence in the market. The image of her being a pit bull berating her opponents carries just as strong a message as what she actually did, or did not do.
So, here is the question. In today's politics, which is more important - brand or ingredients? And before you answer, just remember what happened when Coca Cola introduced New Coke in the 80s. It thought the public's love for its brand was so strong, they could change a tried and true formula however they wished, and the public would still love it.
So, can America overlook the ingredients that make up Sarah Palin's resume in favor of her image? Is her brand and that of the GOP strong enough to overcome the product's formula?
- cannon-brandcommunication.blogspot.com -
In one night, Sarah defined a strong position for herself when she took the podium at the DNC. She did a great job doing os, and a great many people jumped on board. Trusting her ingredients matched her brand. Now, while many may think Sarah Palin's record is a risk, we all know records can be tweaked, shifted, and distorted by the politicos and spin doctors. So while her resume includes a long list of questionable acts that include attempts at ousting an in-law from the police force, book banning, even using lobbyists for fundraising [Time Magazine 9/2/8], her position and brand is extremely strong.
Now, here's the leap that's far easier to make over martinis than on a blog, but resumes are a lot like ingredients. They are the real benefits a politician brings to the table. And like any product, the formula that has made up her past is only half the equation of what makes her a true presence in the market. The image of her being a pit bull berating her opponents carries just as strong a message as what she actually did, or did not do.
So, here is the question. In today's politics, which is more important - brand or ingredients? And before you answer, just remember what happened when Coca Cola introduced New Coke in the 80s. It thought the public's love for its brand was so strong, they could change a tried and true formula however they wished, and the public would still love it.
So, can America overlook the ingredients that make up Sarah Palin's resume in favor of her image? Is her brand and that of the GOP strong enough to overcome the product's formula?
- cannon-brandcommunication.blogspot.com -
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah Palin/Barack Obama - Brand USA
Okay, so after seeing the Democratic National Convention [DNC] and the Republican National Convention [RNC], I guess it has all come to this. No matter who runs, we inevitably fall into the same thing - a popularity contest where the presidential candidates try their best to stay above the fray, while hiring Vice President's who, as Sarah Palin hinted at, act more like pitbulls than humans.
So much for the issues of the Iraq war, so much for drilling and oil consumption, so much for wiretapping becoming legal, abortion, alternative fuels, global warming, half truths and mis-truths. So much for presenting a sound foriegn policy and having the chops to back it up. So much for running a campaign about what each candidate can do or can't do.
How quickly has it dropped to the same politics I saw in highschool when elected the King and Queen of the prom. Only now it's about Sarah Palin in a bikini [yes, it's a photoshop job]. But hey, that's about as real as it's going to get for us from here on out. Or so it seems from the fallout I've been reading online. While all this goes on, so much for brand USA. Instead of being a beacon for how a free election is handled, we end up being no better off than the elections we laugh at from third world nations. Chads, election fraud, uncounted primaries - what must our founding fathers think.
So let's just cut to the chase and take a look at what really matters for voters of both candidates. To heck with politics and issues, let's talk about brand USA. Better yet, let's do what everyone else is doing and forget about trying to answer a higher calling and find a way to leverage the whole mess to our own benefit.
As my brother once said about politics "Now Jeff, why would you want to go wrestle with the pig? You're not going to win. You're only going to get dirty. And frankly, I think the pig kind of likes it."
So to heck with trying to respect our candidates. Instead, I'll post it to google, and see what it does for my ranking.
After all, this blog is about branding and marketing.
So much for the issues of the Iraq war, so much for drilling and oil consumption, so much for wiretapping becoming legal, abortion, alternative fuels, global warming, half truths and mis-truths. So much for presenting a sound foriegn policy and having the chops to back it up. So much for running a campaign about what each candidate can do or can't do.
How quickly has it dropped to the same politics I saw in highschool when elected the King and Queen of the prom. Only now it's about Sarah Palin in a bikini [yes, it's a photoshop job]. But hey, that's about as real as it's going to get for us from here on out. Or so it seems from the fallout I've been reading online. While all this goes on, so much for brand USA. Instead of being a beacon for how a free election is handled, we end up being no better off than the elections we laugh at from third world nations. Chads, election fraud, uncounted primaries - what must our founding fathers think.
So let's just cut to the chase and take a look at what really matters for voters of both candidates. To heck with politics and issues, let's talk about brand USA. Better yet, let's do what everyone else is doing and forget about trying to answer a higher calling and find a way to leverage the whole mess to our own benefit.
As my brother once said about politics "Now Jeff, why would you want to go wrestle with the pig? You're not going to win. You're only going to get dirty. And frankly, I think the pig kind of likes it."
So to heck with trying to respect our candidates. Instead, I'll post it to google, and see what it does for my ranking.
After all, this blog is about branding and marketing.
Online Video Growth - Recognition At Last
The news that has been popping up lately in advertising trade publications is that online videos are a very real entertainment outlet of future. Hello? Next I expect to hear a climate expert tell me some breaking news like a global warming is going to take place.
With such stellar news from In-Stat analysts Gerry Kaughold as "The future of television is slowly being defined online..."
What "experts" like this still don't understand is that the medium will eternally change. It's the message that's important. Print gave way to radio, radio to television, television to online. But throughout it all, consumers find a way to reach out and grab the messages the want to hear.
So stop thinking in terms of medium. Stop talking to media buyers who know it's easier to fit a client into a templated media buy [1 part television, two parts print, and a dash of online just to kick things up a bit]. Think instead about your audience and what they read, watch, and listen to. Get into their heads so that you understand what their habits are. Then figure out how to create a message that looks and sounds like the popular shows in that medium.
Above all, remember, it's the message - not the medium that's important.
With such stellar news from In-Stat analysts Gerry Kaughold as "The future of television is slowly being defined online..."
What "experts" like this still don't understand is that the medium will eternally change. It's the message that's important. Print gave way to radio, radio to television, television to online. But throughout it all, consumers find a way to reach out and grab the messages the want to hear.
So stop thinking in terms of medium. Stop talking to media buyers who know it's easier to fit a client into a templated media buy [1 part television, two parts print, and a dash of online just to kick things up a bit]. Think instead about your audience and what they read, watch, and listen to. Get into their heads so that you understand what their habits are. Then figure out how to create a message that looks and sounds like the popular shows in that medium.
Above all, remember, it's the message - not the medium that's important.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Importance Of Research
From a brand perspective, there is nothing, absolutely nothing more important than research. Research to understand your customer, research to understand your client, and research to understand the market you're going into, and of course research to truly understand the product itself as well as the experience it promises to provide. Most important though, is the need to jump in and try out the product with hands on research the way the legendary ad-men and women of the 60s and 70s did.
There are stories about how account teams would spend weeks in Betty Crocker's kitchens, baking cakes and pies and cookies to get a real understanding for what the customer's experience. From weeks to baking, they were able to understand the beauty and the foibles of a particular product. They learned the ins and outs that their customers would learn sooner or later. Because of this, not only could they get inside the customer's head and write the kind of copy that people responded to. They could speak to their clients knowledgeably about what was good and what was bad about a particular product. The result from that research? The ability to turn consumers into customers and customers into brand enthusiasts like never before. They were no longer ad-men and women, they were knowledgeable customers. That is something that goes beyond pocket books, but lies deeply in the hearts, minds and souls of any successful product or campaign.
Political parties not withstanding, for any brand, be it political, consumer, or B2B to think they can skip over the time it takes to undertake research in order to understand their own product I sheer folly. If anyone thinks about rushing their product to market without doing the proper research, well, let's just watch how the cards deal out from the news that hit on September 1st, when it should have really been about a convention...
There are stories about how account teams would spend weeks in Betty Crocker's kitchens, baking cakes and pies and cookies to get a real understanding for what the customer's experience. From weeks to baking, they were able to understand the beauty and the foibles of a particular product. They learned the ins and outs that their customers would learn sooner or later. Because of this, not only could they get inside the customer's head and write the kind of copy that people responded to. They could speak to their clients knowledgeably about what was good and what was bad about a particular product. The result from that research? The ability to turn consumers into customers and customers into brand enthusiasts like never before. They were no longer ad-men and women, they were knowledgeable customers. That is something that goes beyond pocket books, but lies deeply in the hearts, minds and souls of any successful product or campaign.
Political parties not withstanding, for any brand, be it political, consumer, or B2B to think they can skip over the time it takes to undertake research in order to understand their own product I sheer folly. If anyone thinks about rushing their product to market without doing the proper research, well, let's just watch how the cards deal out from the news that hit on September 1st, when it should have really been about a convention...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
John Varvatos - Finally Someone Does It Right!!!
Okay, I'm not sure how many of you ever went to CBGB's when it was around. It wasn't a Danceteria or Area in the 80s, but let's just say from a marketing perspective, it definitely had a very strong brand and a well defined position in the market [read - more than just a few very late nights, and more than just a few very shaggy mornings at Burson Marsteller as a young AAE in the 80s]. In fact, CBGB's created such a strong brand for itself, that its cache remains to this day - call it Graceland for a non-Elvis crowd.
Which makes John Varvatos' move into the old space even more brilliant than just cool. You see, Varvatos did it for all the right reasons. He did it to preserve the space. He did it to keep the CBGB name alive. He did it for the same reason he had Alice Cooper appear in his print campaign. Because it was the physicalization of his brand image, and because it was real.
The only thing that is better than John Varvatos taking the old CBGB space, is the way he has kept it true to itself and true to himself. When I went in on a recent walk-by, I was greeted by this hip [read, not overly hip to be nauseating, nor some faux shop-person trying to appear hip], young, stylish guy that looked like he'll be rocking out in whatever club they go to these days. The guy was knowledgeable, got me to try on this leather and shearling jacket that was just the right blend of rocker, without being over board - call it the perfect edge for a 40 year old PR guy who's not into suits.
When I finally left, it dawned on me, from his product to his advertising, from this store design to his sales staff, it all says exactly the same thing - John Varvatos. There is no guessing as to what he's about. There is no question as to who he is or who his customer is. It is branding at its very best - clear, clean, consistent, and powerful.
John Varvatos does what so many people and companies try to do - communicate a consistent brand with one voice, one look and one feel - across every consumer touch-point in a way that feels so natural, you don't even know it's being done. Why? Because it's real!
So if you want to see killer branding. If you want to see a company who has truly taken their brand off the drawing board and brought it to life in a very real way - check out John Varvatos.
What's the worst that can happen? You walk away actually looking great?
Which makes John Varvatos' move into the old space even more brilliant than just cool. You see, Varvatos did it for all the right reasons. He did it to preserve the space. He did it to keep the CBGB name alive. He did it for the same reason he had Alice Cooper appear in his print campaign. Because it was the physicalization of his brand image, and because it was real.
The only thing that is better than John Varvatos taking the old CBGB space, is the way he has kept it true to itself and true to himself. When I went in on a recent walk-by, I was greeted by this hip [read, not overly hip to be nauseating, nor some faux shop-person trying to appear hip], young, stylish guy that looked like he'll be rocking out in whatever club they go to these days. The guy was knowledgeable, got me to try on this leather and shearling jacket that was just the right blend of rocker, without being over board - call it the perfect edge for a 40 year old PR guy who's not into suits.
When I finally left, it dawned on me, from his product to his advertising, from this store design to his sales staff, it all says exactly the same thing - John Varvatos. There is no guessing as to what he's about. There is no question as to who he is or who his customer is. It is branding at its very best - clear, clean, consistent, and powerful.
John Varvatos does what so many people and companies try to do - communicate a consistent brand with one voice, one look and one feel - across every consumer touch-point in a way that feels so natural, you don't even know it's being done. Why? Because it's real!
So if you want to see killer branding. If you want to see a company who has truly taken their brand off the drawing board and brought it to life in a very real way - check out John Varvatos.
What's the worst that can happen? You walk away actually looking great?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
CNN - The Un-News
Did I miss something? When did CNN change from reporting the news to thinking they are the news? While watching the Democratic Convention last night, I kept changing channels back and forth between CNN and the McNeil Leherer Report - that's right good old PBS. While PBS showed the entire convention and let us make our own decisions on how well or how badly it went, I noticed CNN avoided showing any of the speeches until Hillary came close to appearing that is.
While Wolf Blitzer was trying to stir up coverage for an alleged plot against Barack Obama - something that even the reporter on the ground sounded confused about - former Denver Mayor and Obama Campaign Co-Chair Federico Peña wasa giving one of the more insightful speeches about his energy policy. While CNN ran endless "what if" scenarios, Lilly Ledbetter gave a speech that was one of the most compelling insights into women's rights and inequal pay. While Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, shared his American story to an astounded audience, CNN ran commercials.
While Wolf Blitzer was trying to stir up coverage for an alleged plot against Barack Obama - something that even the reporter on the ground sounded confused about - former Denver Mayor and Obama Campaign Co-Chair Federico Peña wasa giving one of the more insightful speeches about his energy policy. While CNN ran endless "what if" scenarios, Lilly Ledbetter gave a speech that was one of the most compelling insights into women's rights and inequal pay. While Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, shared his American story to an astounded audience, CNN ran commercials.
Now, I'm not saying the Democrats know how to put on a great show, but shouldn't a new organization report the news? I mean, it was truly astounding to see how CNN failed to cover the speakers and the event, when they touted themselves as the "best coverage available." Instead, they opted to fill the screen with a badly operated red/blue map, and with endless scenarios of how the final election could go. So many in fact, that it became more confusing than insightful.
Which is where CNN's brand is beginning to suffer. It's a great brand if you only watch the placards that swing up between commercial breaks. But when it times to turn all that brand messaging into something real, they are failing miserably - Lou Dobbs excepting.
When will they realize, the more the reporters think that "they are the news," the less they will be viewed as reporters "of the news." There's nothing wrong with taking a network, or a brand, in this direction. But it's not the direction of a great news station. With Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper reporting, CNN might think about joining with E!. It would fit their format better, it would be far more entertaining, and at least their brand would be true to their reporting.
Paris - looking for your next new thing?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Crest Leads The Way In Integrated Brand Marketing
The big news isn’t that Crest is launching a new product. The news is how it is launching its new product.
Crest Weekly Clean Intensive Cleaning Paste – a new paste designed to give you that “just went to the dentist” feeling – will hit the shelves in September, but P&G has already started sending samples to bloggers and select online parental groups. Apparently they have decided to forgo a traditional launch campaign in favor of one that targets the more influential online community. Apparently, Crest sent a survey to more than 600,000 moms in late August through P&G’s Vocalpoint buzz-marketing program.
According to the product’s spokeswoman – Allison Yang – television will be relatively light, consisting of five second tags on ads for other crest products. Instead, their research told them it’s a product “people talk about.” And what better way to get people talking than online – right?
So read between the lines. Crest – one of P&G’s biggest media spenders with almost $237 million in ’07 media spend, is backing away from expensive television in favor of creating a consumer-driven online platform for Weekly Clean. If this doesn’t tell you how important it is to create an integrated communications program online, before using more traditional media – nothing will…..
Crest Weekly Clean Intensive Cleaning Paste – a new paste designed to give you that “just went to the dentist” feeling – will hit the shelves in September, but P&G has already started sending samples to bloggers and select online parental groups. Apparently they have decided to forgo a traditional launch campaign in favor of one that targets the more influential online community. Apparently, Crest sent a survey to more than 600,000 moms in late August through P&G’s Vocalpoint buzz-marketing program.
According to the product’s spokeswoman – Allison Yang – television will be relatively light, consisting of five second tags on ads for other crest products. Instead, their research told them it’s a product “people talk about.” And what better way to get people talking than online – right?
So read between the lines. Crest – one of P&G’s biggest media spenders with almost $237 million in ’07 media spend, is backing away from expensive television in favor of creating a consumer-driven online platform for Weekly Clean. If this doesn’t tell you how important it is to create an integrated communications program online, before using more traditional media – nothing will…..
Friday, August 22, 2008
Green Ideas That Make Business Sense
Every once in a while you come across a company that is shifting their brand in very real ways. It's often the simplest things that make the biggest difference in how a company and a brand is perceived. It's what I call taking the brand off the drawing board and bringing it to life.
For all those people who look at outdoor advertising as a blight on America, I ask you to check out what Fuel Outdoor in Miami has done. It's created a deal with the city of Miami to build 600 solar powered bus shelters. Yes, it gets to sell the advertising space on these locations, but hey, that's 600 bus shelters for people to hide from the sun and rain. Better still, they're solar powered, so the cost of keeping them lit at night is nothing.
So who says creating a green initiative has to cost? Who says it has to be painful for the company? It can be a win for the company [Fuel gets more ad space to sell], a win for the community [Miami gets 600 bus shelters for free], and for the planet [solar, solar, solar which will prevent an estimated 2 tons of carbon emissions from being expelled into the air].
For all those people who look at outdoor advertising as a blight on America, I ask you to check out what Fuel Outdoor in Miami has done. It's created a deal with the city of Miami to build 600 solar powered bus shelters. Yes, it gets to sell the advertising space on these locations, but hey, that's 600 bus shelters for people to hide from the sun and rain. Better still, they're solar powered, so the cost of keeping them lit at night is nothing.
So who says creating a green initiative has to cost? Who says it has to be painful for the company? It can be a win for the company [Fuel gets more ad space to sell], a win for the community [Miami gets 600 bus shelters for free], and for the planet [solar, solar, solar which will prevent an estimated 2 tons of carbon emissions from being expelled into the air].Miami Mayor Manny Diaz explained, “Thanks to a successful public-private partnership, what we have with Fuel Miami is a revolutionary model at work – corporate advertising dollars are being used to clean the environment.”
“As outdoor advertisers, we are sensitive to the quality and appearance of the city’s environment,” Freedman said. “In the case of our Miami bus shelters, we felt it was necessary to ensure that our advertisements could provide benefits to not only our clients, but also the city.”
Not a bad thing for everyone involved....
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Cyberattacks - Warfare's New Militia
Well before a shot was ever fired, and as early as July 20, 2008, the republic of Georgia was under attack. It's government’s websites were under a constant barrage of attacks by a network of hackers that some have called the new militia.
"They mobilize themselves without a need for a central location to do so, distribute the targets, discuss the attack approaches, come up with a plan on the coordination, and you have everyone participating," Bulgarian security researcher Dancho Danchev said in an instant messaging interview. Danchev and others have found evidence that points to a self-starting militia composed of volunteer hackers and cyber criminals who control large-scale bots, or collections of previously-compromised computers. While the forces may appear to be uncoordinated to the untrained eye, they are in fact very coordinated, both researchers argued. In a lengthy post on ZDNet, Danchev spelled out the coordinated steps that someone — or some group — took to rally the hacker troops and turn them against specific targets. And yes, there is evidence that the coordination comes from mother Russia.
For everyone in the military or the civilian world, the lesson is that any modern conflict will include some type of a cyberwarfare component. Why? Because it is simply too cheap and inexpensive not to. While countries like the United States spend billions on missle shields and fire rates, we’ve left our back door wide open to attacks that could cripple our efforts on the world stage.
So how does this apply to brands? Well, take note. Some simple hacker can have fun with your message through spam, illicit postings, or with DOS [Denial of Service] games. It may seem funny at first, but when your customers start screaming, you’ll have wished you spent a little bit more time listening to your IT people.
"They mobilize themselves without a need for a central location to do so, distribute the targets, discuss the attack approaches, come up with a plan on the coordination, and you have everyone participating," Bulgarian security researcher Dancho Danchev said in an instant messaging interview. Danchev and others have found evidence that points to a self-starting militia composed of volunteer hackers and cyber criminals who control large-scale bots, or collections of previously-compromised computers. While the forces may appear to be uncoordinated to the untrained eye, they are in fact very coordinated, both researchers argued. In a lengthy post on ZDNet, Danchev spelled out the coordinated steps that someone — or some group — took to rally the hacker troops and turn them against specific targets. And yes, there is evidence that the coordination comes from mother Russia.
For everyone in the military or the civilian world, the lesson is that any modern conflict will include some type of a cyberwarfare component. Why? Because it is simply too cheap and inexpensive not to. While countries like the United States spend billions on missle shields and fire rates, we’ve left our back door wide open to attacks that could cripple our efforts on the world stage.
So how does this apply to brands? Well, take note. Some simple hacker can have fun with your message through spam, illicit postings, or with DOS [Denial of Service] games. It may seem funny at first, but when your customers start screaming, you’ll have wished you spent a little bit more time listening to your IT people.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Apple 3G iPhone - Next Gen's Product To Avoid?
When a 14 year old knows more about the iPhone than your CMO does, you have a problem.
That dawned on me when I spoke with one of my nieces who swore she’d never buy a new iPhone – and yes, with her fledgling baby sitting empire, she could easily afford one. What she doesn’t do is visit CNet.com or read product reviews. What she does do is IM her friends incessantly, trade products back and forth, and talk, talk, talk. What she also does is influence her mom, her dad and their friends about new products, cool brands and hot items of the moment.
So my question is this – if a 14 year old is commenting on slow downloads, the need to constantly shutdown and restart, and how un-cool the product is turning out to be, why didn’t Apple’s CMO?
Hey, it’s a great brand. It’s the only company that’s been able to turn a tech product into a consumer brand. It could also get crushed under the weight of the new products it’s rushing to market. It would be a shame if the Apple of the future was the next gen’s product too avoid.
Think it can’t happen? Think about GAP in the early 90s – it was the cool thing to wear. Think about how kids look at it like mom and dad's brand to avoid…
That dawned on me when I spoke with one of my nieces who swore she’d never buy a new iPhone – and yes, with her fledgling baby sitting empire, she could easily afford one. What she doesn’t do is visit CNet.com or read product reviews. What she does do is IM her friends incessantly, trade products back and forth, and talk, talk, talk. What she also does is influence her mom, her dad and their friends about new products, cool brands and hot items of the moment.
So my question is this – if a 14 year old is commenting on slow downloads, the need to constantly shutdown and restart, and how un-cool the product is turning out to be, why didn’t Apple’s CMO?
Hey, it’s a great brand. It’s the only company that’s been able to turn a tech product into a consumer brand. It could also get crushed under the weight of the new products it’s rushing to market. It would be a shame if the Apple of the future was the next gen’s product too avoid.
Think it can’t happen? Think about GAP in the early 90s – it was the cool thing to wear. Think about how kids look at it like mom and dad's brand to avoid…
Monday, August 18, 2008
Flip Flop - Meaningless Phrases & Meaningful Networks
“Flip Flop.”
It's a phrase that came into being in the 2008 elections to discredit John Kerry for changing his mind on issues. I have to admit to the people who created it – it was shear genius.
The fact that there is not a candidate alive – republican or democrat – who has not changed their position, or their mind, on an important subject at one point in their career, let alone their candidacy, is absurd. Yet, with the right network of media relationships, this term helped turn an election.
In the 2008 election, the term “flip flop” is still being bantered around from time to time. It seems like an effort to ill-brand a candidate, but it hasn’t stuck yet. Perhaps even the media has begun to realize it is a meaningless term - something that cannot be a defining label to any campaign because every candidate has “flip flopped” at one time or another. Or perhaps it’s because nobody has been able to energize a network like the inventors of “flip flop” were able to do in the 2004 elections.
And maybe that’s the key. Maybe what you say is not as important as how you say it or who it’s said to.
It's a phrase that came into being in the 2008 elections to discredit John Kerry for changing his mind on issues. I have to admit to the people who created it – it was shear genius.
The fact that there is not a candidate alive – republican or democrat – who has not changed their position, or their mind, on an important subject at one point in their career, let alone their candidacy, is absurd. Yet, with the right network of media relationships, this term helped turn an election.
In the 2008 election, the term “flip flop” is still being bantered around from time to time. It seems like an effort to ill-brand a candidate, but it hasn’t stuck yet. Perhaps even the media has begun to realize it is a meaningless term - something that cannot be a defining label to any campaign because every candidate has “flip flopped” at one time or another. Or perhaps it’s because nobody has been able to energize a network like the inventors of “flip flop” were able to do in the 2004 elections.
And maybe that’s the key. Maybe what you say is not as important as how you say it or who it’s said to.
Think about that the next time you spend hours perfecting your message before you figure out how you're getting it out to the audience you want to reach...
The Integrated Battlefield - PR Included
Regardless of who fired the first shot, who crossed over the line, or who hurled the first insult, the conflict between the Republic of Georgia and Russia shows that the 21st Century battlefield extends well beyond the trenches where the ground forces live and fight.
With the public’s thirst for 24 hour as it happens, and the media’s desire to feed the ratings an inside look at the latest and greatest news story [it is entertainment after all], they have created a platform where a savvy media group can help to define the line between the good guys and the bad guys like never before - often before all the facts are in.
This is something political leaders, and yes, the military now leverages as an integrated part of the wars they wage. Witness how Georgian president - Saakashvili – leveraged the media to support his ground troops, even though his own tactics were later found suspect.
With his public relations firm, Aspect Consulting, in place [a firm that also works with such companies as Exxon Mobil, Kellogg's and Procter and Gamble], Mr. Saakashvili, began an hourly barrage of media releases that followed the action on the ground, sometimes even leading it.
With carefully planned headlines, like "Russia continues to attack civilian populations," and stories describing how the capital Tblisi was “intensively bombed," or how a downed Russian plane was in fact "nuclear", Georgia quickly positioned itself in the hearts and minds of the world as the underdog. The press, in their efforts to take the lead and put out the story first, took a big bite and chewed away.
With the media quickly jumping on the bandwagon, releases were given greater credence than they should have been. Some implied greater threats to the world at large. Others implied threats to European energy supplies as "Russia dropped bombs near oil pipelines.” Even "humanitarian wheat shipments" were apparently blocked. The resulting terminology early in the conflict complained of "invading Russian forces" and "the occupation of Georgia." The best move, was when Saakashvili's government filed allegations of ethnic cleansing to The Hague, using keywords and terms designed to trigger media interest, such as civilian victims, nuclear arms, humanitarian disaster, occupation, and yes ethnic cleansing.
In the initial days of the battle, Mr. Saakashvili held international media phone conferences, got himself on TV news channels and even found time, within hours of war breaking out, to write for the Wall Street Journal. In contrasting style, Russia, allowed little access to South Ossetia – adding to the evil empire image the West enjoys painting it as.
With most reporters at the Olympics, television stations and newspapers lacked sufficient resources to find out what was actually occurring. Which is why the Public Relations efforts by President Saakashvili were accepted so readily. While journalists may have treated it with at least some skepticism, the media campaign had an effect; and while the ground war may have been a disaster, the information war gave Georgia a crushing success. At least initially. It wasn't until much later, that the media found balance, noting that they were unsure of exactly what has gone on behind the borders, even portraying Saakashvili as a leader who made a major strategic error and blundered into a war he was bound to lose.
Again, this is not a comment on who is right or wrong in this conflict, but an effort to look at who managed to direct the press and media coverage better and how that helped their cause. It is also an effort to show how war is no longer just about the directing troops, but directing an integrated campaign, that yes includes the world’s media.
For additional information, please see the following sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/pressandpublishing.georgia
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia-Georgia-Conflict-Countries-Play-Out-Propaganda-Battle-Amidst-War/Article/200808215076440?lpos=World%2BNews_2&lid=ARTICLE_15076440_Russia%2BGeorgia%2BConflict%253A%2BCountries%2BPlay%2BOut%2BPropaganda%2BBattle%2BAmidst%2BWar
With the public’s thirst for 24 hour as it happens, and the media’s desire to feed the ratings an inside look at the latest and greatest news story [it is entertainment after all], they have created a platform where a savvy media group can help to define the line between the good guys and the bad guys like never before - often before all the facts are in.
This is something political leaders, and yes, the military now leverages as an integrated part of the wars they wage. Witness how Georgian president - Saakashvili – leveraged the media to support his ground troops, even though his own tactics were later found suspect.
With his public relations firm, Aspect Consulting, in place [a firm that also works with such companies as Exxon Mobil, Kellogg's and Procter and Gamble], Mr. Saakashvili, began an hourly barrage of media releases that followed the action on the ground, sometimes even leading it.
With carefully planned headlines, like "Russia continues to attack civilian populations," and stories describing how the capital Tblisi was “intensively bombed," or how a downed Russian plane was in fact "nuclear", Georgia quickly positioned itself in the hearts and minds of the world as the underdog. The press, in their efforts to take the lead and put out the story first, took a big bite and chewed away.
With the media quickly jumping on the bandwagon, releases were given greater credence than they should have been. Some implied greater threats to the world at large. Others implied threats to European energy supplies as "Russia dropped bombs near oil pipelines.” Even "humanitarian wheat shipments" were apparently blocked. The resulting terminology early in the conflict complained of "invading Russian forces" and "the occupation of Georgia." The best move, was when Saakashvili's government filed allegations of ethnic cleansing to The Hague, using keywords and terms designed to trigger media interest, such as civilian victims, nuclear arms, humanitarian disaster, occupation, and yes ethnic cleansing.
In the initial days of the battle, Mr. Saakashvili held international media phone conferences, got himself on TV news channels and even found time, within hours of war breaking out, to write for the Wall Street Journal. In contrasting style, Russia, allowed little access to South Ossetia – adding to the evil empire image the West enjoys painting it as.
With most reporters at the Olympics, television stations and newspapers lacked sufficient resources to find out what was actually occurring. Which is why the Public Relations efforts by President Saakashvili were accepted so readily. While journalists may have treated it with at least some skepticism, the media campaign had an effect; and while the ground war may have been a disaster, the information war gave Georgia a crushing success. At least initially. It wasn't until much later, that the media found balance, noting that they were unsure of exactly what has gone on behind the borders, even portraying Saakashvili as a leader who made a major strategic error and blundered into a war he was bound to lose.
Again, this is not a comment on who is right or wrong in this conflict, but an effort to look at who managed to direct the press and media coverage better and how that helped their cause. It is also an effort to show how war is no longer just about the directing troops, but directing an integrated campaign, that yes includes the world’s media.
For additional information, please see the following sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/pressandpublishing.georgia
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia-Georgia-Conflict-Countries-Play-Out-Propaganda-Battle-Amidst-War/Article/200808215076440?lpos=World%2BNews_2&lid=ARTICLE_15076440_Russia%2BGeorgia%2BConflict%253A%2BCountries%2BPlay%2BOut%2BPropaganda%2BBattle%2BAmidst%2BWar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
