Breaking Up With Oil: GM

There’s some buzz in the advertising business as GM toys with the idea of running a spot to “break up” with oil as a fuel source. But as the saying goes, breaking up is hard to do.

"It's one spot, and it's not in its final creative treatment yet," GM spokeswoman Kelly Cusinato told Automotive News today. "We don't know if we're going to run it."

Two other commercials, created by McCann Erickson, airing on Planet Green are less blunt but do place an emphasis on GM’s continued consideration of alternative fuels. While there has always been considerable speculation about the effectiveness of green advertising, there is one message that resonates with consumers — gas prices have topped $4 per gallon.

Hummer could even be the heaviest causality of GM’s apparent plan to introduce more vehicles that rely on alternative fuels, including electric. As for the reservations in airing the advertisement? While some people speculate that oil companies might have some hold over GM, the more obvious answer is that GM doesn’t need another critic. It has plenty.

Making Lazy: Passive Customer Service

When it comes to communication, the most impacting miscommunication almost never appears on the news, in print, or anywhere near the marketing department. It happens on the front line, and the people impacted are customers, one at a time.

The two most common causes of miscommunication for larger companies is trending to be passive communication (eg. expecting customers to stay up to date on the company Web site) and scripted employees (eg. requiring representatives to work from scripts even in non-script circumstances).

There are plenty of examples that we’ve helped several companies resolve recently, but I thought it might be fun to share some personal examples to illustrate the point.

Passive Communication.

Cox Communications Inc. recently implemented a new e-mail filtering program to block a specific Internet port. The only mention of the service change is on their Web site.

The reasoning behind the implementation was a good idea, but they did not notify their customers of the change in service beyond posting to their Web site. In fact, we may have never known there was potential problem had it not been for a small number of clients and contacts using Cox as their primary e-mail provider. For some reason, our Cox service provider was disallowing our POP e-mails to Cox customer clients.

Their customer service representatives are now investing time to research the problem and provide a solution. To their customer service department’s credit (once the script questions were ruled out), they immediately upgraded their level service, even calling back with updates rather than leaving us on hold.

While the person-to-person customer service was great, I’m still wondering if better front-end communication might have prevented any service interruption.

Scripted Employees.

It works in reverse too. Not all companies are so fortunate to have proactive employees willing to research the impact to their customers. Some customer service representatives seem too lazy to move off script. This recently occurred when one of our last payments to Volkswagen Credit disappeared in the mail.

We were notified of the missing payment, first by receiving our next payment coupon, which required a double payment, and then by an automated call from the company on the same day the double payment went out. (Again, these are passive communication solution as opposed to a letter or live person phone call). Regardless, my wife called immediately about her car.

Despite learning the payment was likely lost in the mail, the first customer service representative insisted she answer personal questions, without explanation, including about her employment status. Not only did it seemed overly intrusive for a lost payment call, the representative informed her that the missing payment would be reported because the company had allegedly made numerous calls to notify us. Knowing that was not true, she then asked to speak to a supervisor.

“No, you may not speak to anyone else. I’m handling your account.”

For real? As unbelievable as it sounds, yes. She took his name and number and then promptly ended the call. She called back to speak to someone new. The difference was like night and day.

“I see you’ve never missed a payment. I’ll clear this up right now.”

As for those calls? They never happened. The first representative made it up. As for the general ill-tempered representative? The second representative was left having to apologize. As for the personal questions? Volkswagen Credit has recently created a program to save people who are struggling financially from defaulting on their payments. It’s a great idea, but it didn’t apply to our circumstance nor did the first representative mention “why” he needed to ask.

Mixed Messages.

Considering how many companies lean toward intrusive marketing to push products and services (I even had a mortgage company come to my door yesterday), it’s equally amazing how many become passive once you become a customer (I hope you know that periodic calls to your credit card and insurance company almost always result in lower rates).

As for the examples above, proactive communication seems like it could have been the best answer to keep everyone happy. And, once we, as customers, were forced to take proactive steps, the outcome was tied to how empowered the representatives were to make decisions.

Sure, some executives think scripting employees helps representatives stay on the same page. In reality, scripting employees only leads to one-way communication, which we already know is no communication at all.

The solution is somewhere in the middle. Proactive post-purchase communication and strong internal communication can help develop a consistent, and not overly scripted, level of service that empowers employees and reinforces to the customer that they have the right company.

Taking Responsibility: Public Relations Spam 2

I have developed a great relationship with Kevin Goodman over the last year, mostly because he tends to ask the right questions. Not many people do that. And for Goodman, the issue of public relations spam is no exception.

Goodman suggests that if public relations spam exists, then why would journalists accept major newswire services, which basically “blast” releases all over the place? And, given this, why wouldn’t a public relations firm simply buy their databases and build their own lists?

Easy. PR Newswire doesn’t really blast anything. It’s a passive service, where journalists can go for story leads and get a quick snapshot of insights into specific industries. Contrary, the single release, especially if it is off target, doesn’t provide a service.

The difference between the two can be likened to visiting a company Web site or being pelted by junk e-mails every day.

So while these services create the illusion that there are thousands of journalists looking for releases, the reality is that none of them are looking for releases at all. They are looking for stories — preferably good ones that haven’t appeared everywhere else.

While a few releases do result in good stories, the vast majority only contain information that a company or public relations professional considers news and not necessarily what a journalist or various publics might consider news. Again, the difference is as vast as junk mail. The companies who send it never consider their own mailers junk; they consider it a valuable service in delivering offers that consumers would have to be stupid to refuse.

Maybe there is too much “I” think in public relations and not enough “publics” think, which is what journalists tend to have.

In other words, some (not all) public relations professionals focus so much on column inches and inclusion counts that they forget the needs of their various publics. Once one understands which publics might be interested in any particular news story (assuming it is news), then finding the right publications (and the right journalists working for those publications) becomes much more effective, especially if you can narrow it down to a handful.

Revisiting Chris Anderson at Wired and others who ban releases from select companies and public relations firms.

I’ve said this before, but in reality, Anderson didn’t set a precedent. Editors and journalists have been ignoring and banning releases for years. His post just happened to be noticed because he published the e-mails of those firms he considered spam. I would not have done that, but I don’t fault him for his decision.

Goodman goes a step further in questioning if Anderson’s post that outed alleged public relations spammers last October could be libelous.

Addressing the question in depth would require another post, but a truncated view is simply not in the least. Factual accuracy is the ultimate defense against libel. And, the First Amendment protects any opinions. It’s more than fair for Anderson to critique releases.

And sure while anyone who has served as an editor knows they will receive a certain amount of spam, they are under obligation to gleefully accept it, offer pointers, or run it. It’s not their job.

I think it’s great that some editors do take the time to do it, and those who make such investments are providing gifts, not necessarily setting a standard.

In sum, the real shift in public relations begins with responsibility and not necessarily responsibility for the industry. Just because your client wants you to send non-news, doesn’t mean you have to. Just because someone says they have a list doesn’t mean it’s worth the paper it’s printed on. Just because you have a list, doesn’t mean you have to send everything to everyone. And just because someone says something about an industry, doesn't mean you have to own it.

There are plenty of bad ads out there. Most ad agencies aren't bothered by them beyond their front door.

Nothing But Net: TheWB.com

A little more than two years ago, Warner Bros. Television Group (WBTVG) announced it would make hundreds of movies and television shows available for purchase over the Internet. They’ve come a long way since then.

Today, WBTVG announced digital distribution deals with Dailymotion, Joost, Sling Media, TiVo and Veoh. It already has a channel on AOL and a surprisingly dynamic Facebook application, with a trailer that ends “the next great network will not be televised.”

“The launch of TheWB.com [beta] represents a natural progression of the Warner Bros. Television Group’s digital strategy and complements our core business, which is based upon episodic storytelling, first-class distribution and providing value to partners through advertising in a premium environment,” said Bruce Rosenblum, president of WBTVG.

The move also solidifies the continued shift toward total broadcast-Internet convergence, especially since Warner Bros. will be adding original short form content. Currently, the WB beta site is offering full episodes of All Of Us, Blue Water High, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dangerous, Friends, Gilmore Girls, One Tree Hill, Smallville, The OC, and Veronica Mars.

What will be especially interesting is if the new site might even provide viewers another opportunity to resurrect some shows that did not perform well according to Nielsen ratings. Several had developed strong Internet fan bases, including Veronica Mars, Moonlight, and Supernatural.

Moonlight fans found out their show was cancelled in May while Veronica Mars fans are still working hard to see their favorite detective move from the small screen to the big screen. (Supernatural has at least one more season left on The CW; we hope many more.) According to fans, all of these shows have a following that is not well represented by Nielsen.

For WBTVG, the move toward an all-digital network might also provide marketers and advertisers with more options than investing exclusively in their own original content to reach an audience that is already outpacing traditional media. The primary advantage for WBTVG over other networks seems to be that they are unencumbered by any attachments to traditional media. For them, it’s simply full steam ahead.

Burning Music: The Irony Of Anti-Violence Violence

"We are considering having something similar to a rally where parents and children can bring CDs and video games that they consider are destructive to the mind set of our youth and have a burning, just like they had a gun buyback last year.” — Pastor Richard Patrick

Blogcampaigning summed up their take on a potential anti-music/anti-game rally as something that they thought only happens on the Simpsons, which is pretty amusing since the Simpsons would likely land in the fire. Otherwise, it happens all the time.

What makes this Newport story interesting is the amount of attention it has received. Slashdot even pointed to some studies that suggest what is on the burn list might not be to blame.

One study concluded that “there were actually higher levels of relaxation before and after playing the game [World of Warcraft] as opposed to experiencing anger, but this very much depended on personality type.”

The latter is true. You never know what people are going to do when exposed to any material. For example, four years ago, a 19-year-old poured grease on her boyfriend’s face during an argument about a Bible verse. The Bible, of course, had nothing to do with the decision.

So while the pastor might be right in that some youth emulate the material they are exposed to, encouraging “burnings” seems to be a same path alternative. After all, it’s one thing to teach youth and parents how to make positive life choices, but it’s another to encourage the destruction of everything disagreeable.

Defining Relationships: Three Degrees Of Clients

Seth Godin once pointed to Stew Leonard’s unwritten rule 3, which states “if the customer is wrong, then they’re not your customer any more.” In other words, if it's not worth making the customer right, fire them. And, he has a good point.

While we have some pretty simple guidelines, it’s not always black and white. We listen carefully to the client and then deliver some degree of what they need or what they want. Usually, we know which degree of customer they want to be long before they become our customer.

The Three Degrees Of Clients

• We work with the client to deliver what internal and external research suggests they need in the marketplace.

• We work with the client to deliver what they want, sometimes suggesting what they might need in the marketplace.

• We deliver exactly what the client wants, until they don’t like it and as long as they don’t blame us for the results.

Of course, we usually don’t have to ask which degree of service they prefer. The answer tends to come up in other ways.

“We want a brochure like this.”

“We need two fax numbers on our business card.”

“We showed a bunch of people and they had opinions.”

If there is any uncertainty, we might ask them why they need a brochure, why they need two fax numbers, or who were the people they asked. For some, light bulbs go on. Others, the second degree, has explanations.

“Our competitor has a brochure like this.”

“It would make it more convenient for me.”

“I really trust their opinions and we always listen to them.”

Sometimes I’ll ask if they think it’s smart to be the same as the competitor (thereby surrendering any competitive advantage), whether they’ve considered the inconvenience to the customer (never knowing which number to fax to), or if any of the collected opinions come from someone in marketing, with tangible market research, or a prospect (not an existing customer) at the very least. For some, light bulbs go on. Others, the third degree, has explanations.

“Yes, because they seem successful.”

“Yes, they can always call me to find out.”

“I’m not going to tell you, but I really think they are right.”

When we hear these answers, the next question we ask is to ourselves. Can we afford to give them what they want or are their wants better served elsewhere so we can focus on those clients who have entrusted us to find out what they need? I usually make the decision based on whether the client will be happy with what they want or if they require us to be happy with what they want. The latter cannot be our client.

After all, as Alexander Kjerulf said last year — “some customers are just plain wrong, that businesses are better off without them, and that managers siding with unreasonable customers over employees is a very bad idea, that results in worse customer service.”

I tend to agree. Our customers are always right. Or, they aren’t our customers.