Love and Fear

Love and Fear

Both are very powerful reasons to do anything.

The former builds brands and products and businesses that will endure.

The later is a feeble foundation that will collapse with the weight of the world.

Stay true to your mission.  

But make sure it is born and built on love, not fear.

News - viewers and readers dictating what they get

Today, the news is not so much reported as digested. It is why the larger news agencies race to report based on the ratings they think they will receive, rather than on the nature of the story. It is why public relations firms are no longer an outside irritant, but a relied upon source. It is also why more and more people are relying less on traditional media for their news, and turning to independent reporting through blogs, twitter and trusted websites.

It is nobodies fault but a failure to evolve. Newspapers were too focused on the "paper" part of their name, and not enough on the "news." When the idea of a 24 hour television source for the news was put on the table. The old fashioned news rooms laughed at the idea. "there is simply not enough news for 24 hour coverage" they said. In less than a year they were shocked to find that people were perfectly happy with news sound bites rather than lengthy stories.

A dozen or so years later, the television networks got too caught up in the fact that their anchors were stars rather than journalists at heart. Some replaced experienced journalists with flashy anchors. Their audiences, who wanted news a bit fluffier than papers, found they did not want as much fluff as they were now getting. Who knows but perhaps they overshot the mark a bit, which is why there's a bit of a controversy as to where is the line between real news reporting and opinion.

I'm not sure we're going to have to worry about that for long. Because now both newspapers and television outlets, as well as magazines and newsletters are finding that their audiences are leaving them for the words and reporting of bloggers and digital journalists. Why? Because these independent people are the new journalists consumers are more comfortable following. These are the people delivering the news the way their audiences want it. Fast, quick, targeted, with just the right amount of commentary. Does this foretell the changes to come? Smaller, more targeted news outlets run by people who really care about what they are reporting? Is this the re-birth of the Fourth Branch of the government?

I hope so. If it's any indication, just look at the direction most advertisers are moving their media dollars - toward the online bloggers who are influencing their customers the most. If there is one indication of what consumers think of the news, just look at those brands who are putting money where their mouth is. We may not see The New York Times in print or CNN over the airwaves in twenty years. But we will always see our favorite brands.

The Politics of Hate

With the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, there has been a new call to end, or at least reduce the vitriol of Washington. Some people seem to think that lowering the anger-based rhetoric is an infringement on our basic freedom of speech. In some ways it is. But there is also a level of responsibility and maturity that goes along with the concept of free speech.

Sarah Palin recorded a statement in which she said, “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

What she seems to forget is that when we raise the general level of discourse to include maps with gun sights targeting political leaders, we lower the level of discretion about what is right and what is wrong. I am not targeting Ms. Palin alone, as it comes in from both sides. But if we cannot see that there needs to be some level of acceptance and compassion in our public rhetoric, then we are truly doomed as a country and as a political system.

I agree with Ronald Reagan when he stated that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. However, I also agree with him that individuals should take responsibility for their actions. To date, I have yet to see any politicians do so.

If now is not the time? The when?

iPAD? Print?

Recently I dropped a few emails about a certain morning experience. My "friend" was having tea and saw a spider crawling up a wall. Not being much of a sports section fan, they casually rolled up that section of The New York Times and completed a major Smackdown of their eight-legged adversary. Throwing the paper away they realized, "hmmmmmmm, now there's something I could never do with an iPAD."

So I had to ask a lot of people I know what other things they could come up with. Here's what they came up with, just to show everyone how the print medium is truly not dead.

"You can't shred an iPad and line a hamster cage with it."
"You can't light a BBQ with an iPad, well you can, but the burgers will taste off..."
"Ya can't wrap fish in an iPad."
"You can never get free Yankees tickets from someone selling space on an iPad."
"You can't write a kidnap note by cutting up an iPad."

Please - feel free to add your thoughts on this matter...




Jeff Cannon
Think Cannon

What is Microsoft Doing With Bing?

What are the key words that I associate with a great search engine? Words like thorough, believable, unbiased, honest, integrity, consistent, user friendly, immediately come to me. There are others, but when I started writing, I was stunned that the same brand attributes I attached to a search engine are almost exactly the same as those I look for in a reliable news source. I am sure each of us has their own list of attributes that can fill in a particular blank, but I think you get the picture.

Why am I bringing this up? Well:

• First, I am in public relations and can see a spin a mile away
• Second, Microsoft's Bing just announced they surpassed Yahoo to become the #2 search engine in the world in just a few weeks
• Third, I noticed that when I enter a wrong URL in an Internet Explorer browser, I am automatically sent to Bing.com where the search engine is conveniently filled in with my error-ridden URL.

Now, while there is nothing inherently wrong with this "service", aside from it being incredibly annoying. While there is nothing illegal about this, it just reeks of being a shady marketing tactic. so much so, that I have begun to doubt Bing's integrity. I now wonder if the little lie they implied in their release is the way they do business in general. Yes, I now mistrust them. I have to ask, if they are willing to build a public relations campaign based on a little lie, how they are managing the rest of their business? Can I trust their search results? How do I know that the links they are sending you are truly an unbiased look into the web, or just another form of paid advertising?

Let me put it to you this way. Firefox's Mozilla established themselves based on the quality of their product. People tried it. They loved it. They passed it on. They raved about it. Mozilla Firefox then spread virally. There was no need for them to spin what was happening. It happened because Firefox was, and is, a great product - simple and true.

Unfortunately Microsoft failed to have the patience to let the consumer decide for themselves. In so doing, it has done a great disservice to itself by trying to spin something that is based in a false-hood. They did not do anything illegal, but their efforts were deceitful. They misled me, and a great many other people, with the idea that their product was just so popular that it took off by itself. When in fact, the growth was due to programming tricks like the default program on Internet Explorer. If you think I'm wrong, then try this little test. Enter the following URL into both IE and Firefox Mozilla - "www.google.colm".

On Firefox you will get an error message. On Internet Explorer you will get directed to Bing.com with your mistyped URL preloaded into the search bar: and Microsoft will tic off another person using Bing.

Bing - Unfortunately, I know Google. And you sir, are no Google - just a squeaky little program who's trying to buck the system. And in so doing, you are undermining your own service, your brand, and the brand integrity of the larger Microsoft.

Next time Think.


Think Cannon

www.thinkcannon.com

What's Eating You removes the slightest hint of integrity in this new show on Eating Disorders

After seeing their press release for the new reality show on E! - I can be nothing but appalled. While we all know that E! stands for Entertainment, with their new show, "What's Eating You," it also stands for "Extreme" or "Excessive" or "Exploitative" or just plain reckless and irresponsible. From their press release, this is not about help or health or saving lives. This is about trying to turn a deadly disease into entertainment - and that is wrong for those affected, it is wrong for advertisers thinking this is a way to reach their customers, and it is wrong for a brand - no matter how cheesy that brand may be. And yes, I'm speaking to you E!.

This is an excerpt from their release:

"From bizarre rituals to extreme habits, the worlds of the twelve brave participants will be an open book. From a woman who must put countless packets of artificial sweetener on anything she eats – including burgers and salads – to another who spends hours each day at different fast food restaurants, just to purge privately in a bevy of single-person bathrooms around town, audiences will follow the lives of people whose food behaviors are consuming and threatening their lives. Other stories include: a young man who will chew and swallow an entire pack of gum instead of eating food to feel satiated; a young woman who will eat ant-covered food out of a trash can, only to then purge in whatever she can find – her boots or even her purse; a young man for whom food is “dirty” and who, as a result, has a compulsion to wear rubber gloves before touching anything related to eating; a woman who drowns all of her food in gravy and has found other creative ways to eat around her gastric band and a young mother who wears layers and layers of clothes in the scorching Phoenix sun just to hide a body she feels is “sickly deformed” as a result of her pregnancies. In a particularly heartbreaking case, viewers also are introduced to a woman who was recently homeless and will drive 2 ½ hours to purchase her comfort food: white chalkboard chalk.

With the help of trained medical professionals, highly experienced therapists and nutrition specialists, these patients will attempt to begin the long, painful and often shocking journey to recovery. JD Roth, Executive Producer and CEO of 3 Ball Productions, said, “One might assume that a show about severe eating disorders would focus solely on participants’ bizarre behavior around food; but this show really is about the incredible fortitude and strength of people with intense obstacles to overcome, and how they strive to get their lives back on track. We’re very proud to be working with E!, not only in shedding light on a dangerous issue, but also in offering hope and a path to recovery.”

Seriously? Is this the work of anyone even remotely responsible? Regardless of what their logo says with the big E!, it is just plain EXPLOITATIVE. There is a difference between an article labeled "Stars, they're just like us," and a show that focuses on the very worst of a disease. Their press release alone reads more like a script for a freak show barker than for television programming. I could expect to see this in the darkest recesses of the Internet, but not on an FCC controlled medium like television.

If you are wondering how a legitimate brand could produce programming that delves into a subject like eating disorders responsibly - just look at A&E's "Intervention" [www.aetc.com/intervention/about]. Their approach actually does focus on hope, on redemption, and on life. They even went further to create something called the Recovery Project, to create outreach material, and to encourage people to participate in helping others. It is a responsible approach that positions the A&E brand in a responsible light.

E!? nothing of the sort. Even before their show goes live, they are focusing on "a young woman who will eat ant-covered food out of a trash can," who will "purge into whatever she can find - her boots or even her purse," or of another who feels she is "sickly deformed."

As for the producer of the show - 3 Ball Productions - they were the company that produced The Biggest Loser. A show that has been blamed for actually causing a contestant to develop an eating disorder. It is hardly any wonder as to the integrity of the producers behind the show when they've received some startling reviews by their own employees.

All in all, E! actually has a good brand for the type of programming they have developed in the past. So why would the risk undermining tne value of their brand and the brands of their advertisers by producing content like this? There is only answer - greed and a desire for short term profits over long term growth. It is a shame. But that is what happens when you make decisions that aren't focused on brand growth.

E! we can only watch and see what happens.

Think Cannon

Eat, Pray, Love & Home Shopping Network? Really?

I recently read about the new movie Eat, Pray Love. Well, not actually about the movie, but about the merchandising deals they are putting together to help promote it. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all about branded entertainment and licensing deals. I am also all about trying to find a novel way to target a niche audience. But only in the right CONTEXT. Because if content is king, then context is truly the queen.

To create branded content deals effectively means thinking beyond demographics and viewer patterns. It means looking deeper than basic psychographics in order to find the emotional core that has brought a group of customers together. Because that is the glue beneath any customer base. Hence my outrage and my blog.

When I learned that the people behind the marketing of "Eat, Pray, Love" put together a deal with HSN as a way to promote the movie, I was leery. When I learned their strategy was to create a win/win opportunity to pay for some of the marketing by selling products "tied to the theme of the movie," my brain scratched like an old LP. Selling products? Tied to the theme of the movie? Have none of them read the book?

Not to jump to quickly, I took a look at what "products tied to the theme of the movie" meant. Did they mean the Perlier-Italian beauty products "brought to you by the Royal Borghese family" for two easy payments of $19.93? Did they mean Hutton Wilkinson's "Balinese inspired Love rings in simulated Ivory" at $29.95? Or perhaps they meant Lancome's "Eat, Pray, Love Juicy Tube Lip Gloss" for two easy payments of just $18.00. However they came up with their product mix, or even the idea of the co-branded promotion, congratulations. I think you have done more harm to a growing and beloved brand than I have ever seen. Perhaps if we buy a complete set we can get our balance, love and spirituality for just three easy payments!

Did the creators of this marketing program completely forget about context? Did they fail to look at the truth behind the Eat, Pray, Love phenomenon? Did they disregard how deeply the readers of this book care for the character and for the author's life experiences? To find that message of hope, rebirth, and love being splayed to hawk wares on HSN is not only a shock. It is a complete disregard for the intelligence of the brand's fans, and for the lessons from the book itself. Even worse, it undermines everything it takes to create a truly effective brand-driven marketing campaign - context and compassion for the brand and the customer.

If the Eat, Pray, Love brand were a laminated table. You would not be selling the plywood beneath the beautiful laminate. Yet this is what the marketers seem to be doing in this case. They're selling the commercial elements around the brand. And isn't that what got Elizabeth in trouble in the first place? An attraction to worldly indulgences instead of finding that balance between the material and the spiritual?

What is almost criminal about this effort to promote an quickly beloved brand, is that the marketers behind it risk destroying the brand altogether, all for a few quick bucks. Why not think long term? Why not think outside the commerce box? Why not look for the truth behind a story that obviously resonated with so many? After all that is what attracted so many people to this book. Not $19.95
angles, but the experiences of one woman.

I just hope Julia has what it takes to transcend the Home Shopping Network's commercialism and bring out the truth behind Eat, Pray, Love. For the brand's sake if no other...


Think Next Time.


Think Cannon