Increasing Confidence: Three Surveys See Optimism

After months of economic uncertainty, most people have had enough. And while there is much more that needs to be done to grow out of the recession, the majority of companies are optimistic about sales in the near future. This is especially promising for advertising agencies and public relations firms with experience marketing to affluent and/or young consumers.

American CEOs Express Rising Optimism For Business.

According to the Young Presidents' Organization (YPO), more than two-thirds of U.S. respondents expect sales increases by more than 10 percent over the next 12 months. Not surprisingly, small companies are among the most optimistic. Construction remains the least optimistic in the United States.

"The YPO survey shows a continuing trend of improving results and rising CEO confidence in the United States and globally," said Dave Maney, co-founder and chairman of Headwaters MB and former YPO international board member. "CEOs are more bullish about the prospect for higher sales."

Financial Advisors And Retirement Planners See Improvement.

USA Tax & Insurance Services conducted a survey with its affiliates and found 52 percent of financial advisors and retirement planners are cautiously optimistic about the business climate outlook over the next 12-18 months. Thirty-three percent are highly optimistic.

Part of the optimism is related to increasing client activity in the financial services industry. Joseph R. Karsner IV, president of USA Tax, attributes the increased client activity to consumers who are seeking out financial services in this confusing economic climate. People want to move forward, but are unsure how.

Workers' Confidence Increases In Personal Employment.

The SFN Group Employee Confidence Index, which measures measures workers' confidence in their personal employment situation and optimism in the economic environment, increased in April. According to Roy Krause, president and CEO of SFN Group, Inc., the confidence index has reached its highest level since November 2007. Highlights include:

• 31 percent of U.S. workers believe the economy is getting stronger, up 7 percentage points from March.
• 60 percent of workers surveyed believe there are fewer jobs available, down 3 points from March.
• 68 percent of workers report increased confidence in the future of their current employers.
• 72 percent said that they are unlikely to lose their jobs in the next year, decreasing one point.

What These Collective Surveys Mean For Marketers And Everybody.

Almost every survey suggests sales are slowly increasing as companies have found a new core of confident consumers, which predominately consist of younger workers (ages 18-34) and those who already earn more than $75,000 (generally affluent consumers and/or management). Middle and low income and older workers are slightly more optimistic than they were, but considerably less optimistic than younger employees and top wage earners.

Trends in optimism will likely increase over the long term, provided the optimistic core (young and/or affluent) are not derailed by over regulation or increased taxes. As a result, marketers working for companies that target either of those consumer groups will continue to see gains, helping spur the economy to inch forward. Companies that rely on lower to middle income consumers or older consumers will grow at a much slower pace if they can demonstrate a competitive value proposition.

The real hold up on the economy is jobs. While most companies predict increased sales, relatively few are planning to increase employees until the full impact of health care, new employment costs, and increasing federal debt are clearly understood. In essence, the uptick is the economy seems to have more to do with companies settling into a smaller consumer base.

If there is good news for people in communication-related agencies and firms from this data, it seems likely that growth companies will eventually rely on outsourcing until they determine the feasibility of adding more employees. Expect companies with long-term vision to be among the strongest competitors. Many of those companies grew last year, disregarding recessionary pressures.

Being Right: Fresh Content

When we started the Fresh Content experiment several months ago, we established more than a dozen criteria for picking what the daily fresh content picks might look like. One of the criteria was simple enough. The authors had to be right.

I don't mean right as in "everybody agrees." I mean right in that their take on the subject transcends popularity and strikes at the truth. You see, topic popularity has very little to do with reality. For example, if you surveyed the masses to determine the shape of the planet several hundred years ago, the most common consensus would be that the Earth is flat. Um, it's not flat.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of April 26

• 4 Reasons PR Agencies Are Failing in Social Media.
Ever wonder why some public relations firms aren't finding peak performance with social media? Valeria Maltoni provides the four most common challenges facing public relations firms, including: too much reliance on the pitch, learning the client's business, measurement models, and ever-present reliance on media. As a fifth reason, Maltoni suggests that another problem is that many public relations firms believe social media always needs to be handled in house, by the client. She's right.

• Warning: Your Internet Marketing System Will Fail.
Ian Lurie suggests that most Internet marketing systems are developed using an invent-and-impose route rather than an observe-and-clarify route. What he means is that most professionals are launching a network presence, collect followers, and then yell at them until they submit. He's right and it does work. He suggests a different approach, attributed to Albert Einstein. Rather than impose an idea, he suggests understanding what exists and then clarifying a position. He's right.

• A Better Brain in Four Days.
Unless you missed several decades of marketing research, it's apparent that psychology and sociology play a leading role in communication study. But psychology and sociology aren't tools to simply be transposed upon audiences. Professional communicators can use them too. One recent standout example, backed by a study, comes from Roger Dooley. Remarkable new research shows that just four days of meditating for 20 minutes per day produced significant benefits as measured by a battery of tests of cognition. He's right.

• The Social Media News Release Isn’t Dead – The Audience Is.
Ike Pigott fails at staying out of the press release must die meme for the benefit of everyone. The debate is wrong, he says. The format of the communication is not as critical as the audience who is reading that communication and, probably, the quality of the information contained in that format. Given that we frequently find the best written releases — those that rely on news over pitch marketing nonsense — still have traction, we can't argue. He's right.

• More Proof The Echo Chamber And Reality Aren’t Related.
There have been many days that we've sat back and wondered if Jason Falls had fallen so deep into the echo chamber, we'd never get him back. And then within a single week, he surprised us not once but twice with posts that point to the most obvious conclusion: most social media experts believe things that are wrong. Edison Research, Arbitron, and Citibank are right. Social media is not the end all to communication. Far from it. It's only another beginning. Falls escapes the echo chamber and comes up right.

Rolling In Muck: Nevada Politics As Usual

In Nevada, mud slinging has fallen out of fashion. Nowadays, everyone would rather roll in the muck.

In one of the more ridiculous campaign moves in recent history, Gov. Jim Gibbons sent out a press release that attacked primary candidate Brian Sandoval for a comment he made eight years ago. Sure, the answer to the question asked was absurd. And it showed Sandoval's complete and utter ignorance about the Constitution. But to burp it out in a release in an attempt to make it a platform plank can only be described as novice or perhaps desperate.

A Brief Backgrounder On The Comment.

With Nevada still moving in the wrong direction of economic recovery (Las Vegas unemployment is over 13 percent), one might think the priority would be jobs. You'd be wrong. This week's issue is about an exchange between the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board and Sandoval, who was running as attorney general at the time.

According to the Las Vegas Sun's retelling of a Las Vegas Review-Journal story, it went like this ... Sandoval explained the AG is obligated to enforce any enactment of the Legislature, no matter how unconstitutional, columnist Vin Suprynowicz demanded: you’re saying that if the Legislature passed a law requiring all Jews to wear yellow Stars of David sewn on the outside of their clothing, you’d enforce it?

‘It’s my job to enforce it,’ said Sandoval.

This was the focus of the Gibbons release. You can read it in entirety here. Ironically but not surprisingly, the release misses two valid issues — it would be a vile breach of the Constitution and ignores basic fundamentals such as the balance of power between legislative, executive, and judicial branches — and attempts to build a case for anti-Semitism.

Reactions from Around The Race.

Sandoval kept his response short. "Jim Gibbons' statement today is so repugnant it is beneath the dignity of the office of Governor," opened his three sentence statement.

The other candidate vying for votes in the Republican primary, Mike Montandon, had even more fire. He called on Gov. Gibbons to apologize to Sandoval and the citizens of Nevada.

The outrage has been as irrelevant as the initial blunder. Political columnist Jon Ralston offered the better response for the two candidates. "How about a lack of respect for anyone with a triple-digit IQ, no matter his or her religion, with the use of a repulsive analogy that was neither on point nor relevant?" And Steve Selebius offered the better round up, overall.

At the same time, it seems nobody can leave it alone. The release and the comment has generated more media and blog headlines than any other story about the original comment and any other issue discussed in the entire race.

Some claim anyone who compares someone to anything close to a Nazi has lost the argument. If only that were true. Nazi is the word of the day in Arizona too. Dozens of people opposed to the recent law in Arizona, including Nevada Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid, are comparing it to a Nazi policy. Interestingly enough, the media doesn't slap that analogy away. Nowadays, it takes a sports writer to offer up some semblance of reasoning against the rash of boycott.

The Psychology Of Modern Politics.

All of this demonstrates an increased reliance on angry voters, with politicians and special interests throwing up diatribe bait on a regular basis to see what sticks. Generally, the media loves it too (despite selective denunciations) because diatribe means ratings. The more colorful the controversy, the more it is covered.

So what could have the politicians done instead?

• Gov. Gibbons had a legitimate complaint in that Sandoval once said he would surrender the Constitution in favor of a populous vote. The initial comment had nothing to do with anti-Semitism as much as it had to do with being ignorant about our country. Had Gibbons merely probed to see if Sandoval had reversed his opinion, the release might have worked.

• Sandoval could have used this opportunity to put the comment to rest. His response could have been a mix of Ralston's suggestion and an emphasis on the idea that he would not support an unconstitutional law as governor. He should just say he misspoke in 2002. The fact that he did not ought to trouble voters.

• Mike Montandon should have just stayed out of it, despite still coming up third in the polls. If there was an opportunity here, it would have been to change the subject. No such luck. He jumped right into the muck.

• Rory Reid was smart to stay out of it, especially given he jumped on the Gestapo comparison bandwagon too when talking about the Arizona law. Different puddle, same muck.

When you add it all up, all four candidates help clarify there is a continuing slide in state politics. Instead of mud slinging, it's all about muck rolling. It's simple to do, nowadays. Make a puddle of muck, invite the media, and every candidate will dive right in. They can't help themselves.

Saving Wildlife: Dawn Responds To Oil Spill Crisis

Although Procter & Gamble (P&G) has a Web site dedicated to the cause, it doesn't employ much push public relations to draw attention to its role in saving wildlife. Other people do it for them.

Brenda Swindle, a stylist at Hair Impressions salon in Alabama, is one of them. Bobbie Lowe, a patron at Harvey's Supermarkets in Georgia, is another. It was top of mind for rescuers from Delaware too.

Dawn Dish Soap Saves Wildlife.

The sudden surge of attention didn't start with a press release. It started with casual mentions by people who know. For 30 years, wildlife rescuers have used Dawn dishwashing liquid to gently remove oil and help save wildlife affected by oil spills.

It wasn't until the media began to draw upon Dawn dish soap as an example of how people can help that P&G responded. Since, it has communicated its increasing role as part of the solution in an oil spill that could eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster. Since, the company has released news that it is stepping up production, clarified its efforts to raise money for conservation projects targeted at cleaning wildlife hurt by oil spills since last July, and how the company donates Dawn dish soap to the Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC), Marine Mammal Center, and other rehabilitation organizations.

In addition to its own fundraising efforts, P&G is asking fans of its program to make direct donations to the IBRRC and Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research center. They also direct would-be volunteers to contact the Unified Command Volunteer Request line at 1-866-448-5816 via its dedicated Dawn Save Wildlife Facebook page.

The description introducing the page says it all. "An Everyday Wildlife Champion views saving wildlife as an everyday thing."

You can find additional information about the company's efforts on its Dawn Save Wildlife Web site. Currently, the company has raised $385,091 of its $500,000 goal. The site also supports an interactive map, which identifies which states have contributed the most.

The $500,000 goal is in addition to all other fundraising efforts and direct support. The company has said it is just as happy (if not more than happy) for people to make direct donations.

What Public Relations Professionals Can Learn.

It is a good lesson for public relations practitioners. Sometimes the best public relations efforts are not what you can draw attention to or capitalize on, but rather a long-term investment of doing good and then being caught doing it.

In this case, Procter & Gamble demonstrates a perfect balance between being responsive to the attention without attention seeking as many companies did during the Haitian earthquake. The results speak for themselves. The effort is closely aligned to a product benefit and the company demonstrates what it means to be a good corporate citizen for others to emulate.

Playing Catch Up: Olympus Cameras

Despite a steady decline in online conversations about cameras as most tech buzz is about testing for kinks in Apple's armor (yawn), the hierarchy of camera manufacturers remains unchanged. As conversations move, they all move together with no one really making gains or losing ground.

When you look at the landscape, Canon and Nikon lead the pack, with Sony in the ball park (mostly because the general brand name gives it a boost). Somewhere on a lower plane are the next three: Olympus, Samsung, and Panasonic. It has been this way for some time, with Canon and Nikon as camera market share leaders.

The reason is pretty obvious. Nikon and Canon made an early push into social media, seeing the significance in an online world that loves photos. Olympus missed the window, and has been playing catch up for a year. It might take ten.

To do it, Olympus tapped Mullen to develop a 10-step solution for social media. I've listed the steps, but you can read the rationale on Mullen's 10-Step Social Media Plan For Olympus.

Mullen's 10-Step Social Media Plan For Olympus.

1. Make A Commitment.
2. Define The Community.
3. Determine Objectives.
4. Engineer A Presence.
5. Build A Following.
6. Inspire Participation.
7. Get Attention.
8. Mobilize Community.
9. Measure Results.
10. Keep going.

Yep. There are some critical elements missing. There are some steps patently out of order. And with the exception of a stated commitment, I don't understand why they are still going through the motions. It's a scripted tried-and-tired social media plan.

Unfortunately for some, social media is adaptive. In fact, about the only thing that hasn't changed is that social media skews toward front runners. Nobody likes that fact, but it makes sense. It's news when you launch the first social media campaign in an industry. It's not news when you launch the first campaign for a company.

So, how does this plan execute? Here we go.

The Latest Pitch For Olympus.

The latest pitch for Olympus from Mullen is pretty standard fare. It consisted of a faux personalized hype e-mail about a "pretty awesome contest" that they call blogger outreach. Oh, golly gee. They told be about a contest and that it would be perfect for my creative-minded readers. Um, that would be you? And it might even be perfect for me. Ho hum. Not me. I get paid to do that stuff.

So here is the skinny minus the hype (and there is plenty of hype). You shoot a video (probably with a Flip or Sony or whatever) about what you would do if you had the new Olympus PEN E-PL1 and a $5,000 budget. Then upload it to YouTube. The pitch says that the Olympus community will pick the finalists. From those six, they receive an all-expense paid trip for two to New York, where whatever they shoot with the $5,000 budget will be displayed at the U.S. Open. Pretty simple.

A Few Areas Where Things Get Muddled.

Let's start with the contest voters. They say the community will judge it so it might make sense to know who this community might be.

Well, you won't find social media links on the Olympus Web site, but you can find a community of sorts. It would include 5,700 people on Facebook, 500 members on Flickr, 500 subscribers on YouTube, and 4,100 folks on Twitter. If we skew for multiple account holders, it might consist of 7,000 (some of whom know each other). Okay, it's small. If you're new, it's a disadvantage.

No worries. As it turns out, the Olympus community doesn't really pick the winners. Only the YouTube account holders vote. And those voters won't vote for 20 semi-finalists. They only influence who might make it the final six.

So how does it really work? The six finalists will be determined by judges based on creativity, quality, and contest theme. YouTube members will still get to vote, but their votes only count for 49 percent of the tally. The same goes for determining a finalist, except the finalist videos will be about what finalists did with the Olympus PEN E-PL1 and $5,000 budget. The finalists have about a month (maybe two or three weeks depending on how fast they get the camera) to complete for the prize.

If you poke around, you'll also discover that the community is young, with the number one question about the contest being tied to the age requirement. Most can't enter. What they don't ask about is the total prize, which includes two lenses, a stereo mic, extra battery, and camera bag for a estimated retail value of $6,200. That's not bad, along with $5,000 cash.

If you're wondering why there is an emphasis on the U.S. Open, a quick search reveals that Olympus is a sponsor. Otherwise, there is no connection to the contest.

Chances For A Social Media Win With This Contest.

While anything can happen online (sometimes marketers get lucky), the chances of Olympus gaining ground with this contest is marginal. Sure, Olympus cameras usually have an advantage for lightweight travel and stabilization built into the camera body, but Nikon and Canon dominate every other category, including the pro line, market share, ISO performance, and expandability.

But beyond that, the problems can be found in the approach. There are plenty, but we'll stick with the basics today.

1. Olympus started out of the social media gate slow because it entered the game so very, very late. But worse, it's relying on contests to introduce products to a community that just doesn't exist. Seriously, with the exception of huge brands, contests work better as an engagement tool than an introduction vehicle (unless the prize is HUGE or the community is established).

2. Olympus didn't compensate for the lack of community by leaning on the networks or communities where they participate. Specifically, this contest could receive a boost from three groups: YouTube members (assuming it's heavily promoted), amateur photographers (since pros have settled on Nikon or Canon or both), and tennis fans.

3. Coincidently, this also underpins one of several problems with the ten steps from Mullen. If they had laid out all of the assets and defined their objective first, these three audiences (maybe more) would have been obvious.

4. It seems pretty clear that the primary objective is pinned to generating "awareness." Almost every seasoned communicator ought to know by now that awareness is not objective. In one case, Mullen even counted a "See Also" link mention as an actual "awareness" result.

5. It seems likely Mullen adopted the very trendy "load and launch" approach to social media at the start. They call it engineering a presence. But basically, they chose a few popular platforms and launched accounts. This tactic also forces the social media team to build four communities at once with no central hub. Really, entering social media almost always works better one platform at a time because a percentage of your first platform will help populate the second, and so on.

6. There is also too much emphasis on influencers. While almost every program includes some influencer consideration, over emphasizing influencers inserts too much emphasis on building relations with "seemingly" popular people. If you're lucky, they write what you want them to write about. If you're not, they write about the campaign. Worse, it positions someone between the consumer and the product. Think about that.

Conclusions Before A Living Case Study.

Hey, I'm all for being wrong. And maybe I am. The only way to be sure is to track the results as part of a living case study, with this post serving as the backgrounder and indication of how far Olympus has to go to gain any ground. It looks uphill.

However, if you are interested in the contest, you can find the details on the GetOlympus YouTube Channel. Just make sure you watch both videos. The videos have a weird early 90s throwback vibe, which is probably the only time I owned an Olympus camera. More importantly, you'll discover another problem. I don't think they know who their audience really is.

Playing On Periods: Right Message, Wrong Colors

Two years ago, Procter & Gamble (P&G) drew some minor fire for bringing the "Have A Happy Period" to life in 2005. While many women felt put off by the promise of playful bliss from Always, one letter captured the spirit and set the spark of some push back surrounding the campaign.

"What I mean is, does any part of your tiny middle-manager brain really think happiness — actual smiling, laughing happiness — is possible during a menstrual period?" — Wendi Aarons

Never mind that Snopes discovered the letter was never sent to P&G. It resonated for awhile, just not enough for P&G to pull the campaign. They have worked harder to explain the thinking. The Web site clarifies the idea: "Have a happy period? It can't get any worse." Or can it?

The Daily Blonde thinks so. The new ads for colorfully compact Kotex shouts "Oooh! It comes in my color!” as it introduces feminine products that come in yellow, pink, blue, and green. (Hat tip: Krystal Hosmer.)

"I never match my bag and shoes anyway, so there’s not a chance I’m going to coordinate my tampon with ANYTHING." — Cheryl Phillips, The Daily Blonde

So what gives? In 2005, P&G set on a course to turn the period frown upside down. The idea (as Kevin Crociata, brand manager for Always put it) was to aim at "having a little fun with (a period) rather than dreading it so much."

Don't worry. It wasn't just his idea. Patti Gregoline, then senior vice president and executive creative director for Publicis Groupe's Leo Burnett worked on the campaign too. Gregoline, however, didn't work on the color-coordinated line. I'm only mentioning the original campaign to give people a sense of where this all started. (The new ads are by Organic and JWT.)

P&G does understand the issues, as evidenced by an advertisement that makes fun of its past attempts to woo customers.


Unfortunately, for all the sense that the advertisement makes, the product line doesn't make much sense. Well, maybe it does, for what P&G says amounts to 85 percent of women who are embarrassed to be seen with a feminine product.

Basically, the idea is that if it falls out of their purse, they'll feel more comfortable about it because it's a different color.

P&G is close to having it right. The thrust of the Kotex campaign is to stop all the weirdness about periods. I'm all for that. And yet, if there is an irony, the product colors and non-descript cases actually cater to the opposite concept.

There are better options to get over the weirdness. Vinnie once had the corner on cases despite the media's unwillingness to allow him to advertise. And then came the vintage collection. And then the mini-purses.

Sure, I'm hardly an expert. But I've never been afraid to talk or listen to people's take on just about anything. And from what I'm hearing from women, Kotex is thisclose to making the topic less embarrassing, but this far from delivering the right product/campaign combination. Until they do, they'll have a hard time gaining full support for their social media outreach efforts.

Analyzing Budgets: Public Relations And Communication

Despite the gloom and doom atmosphere of the public relations and communication industry, 57.5 percent of public relations/communication departments in the private and public sectors saw an increase or no change in their budgets last year. This year, 78.5 percent expect the same in 2010.

Those were among the findings of the Sixth Communication and Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices (GAP) Survey, published by the Strategic Communication & Public Relations Center at the University of Southern California. The study, and previous study, can be found here.

Characteristics Of Companies That Grew Public Relations/Communication

• They do not report to marketing, but directly to executive management.
• Most characterize their organizations as focused on long-term strategic planning.
• Budgetary spending is cautious, but neither frozen or reactive to the economic climate.
• Most indicate they have strong internal communication, with proactive people-driven environments.
• The increase in optimism for 2010 is tied to organizations that grew or expanded budgets during the recession.

Government agencies fared even better than the private sector. Almost 70 percent of government agencies were either not impacted or saw budget increases in 2009; 53.4 percent of nonprofit organizations saw no change or increased budgets.

Interestingly enough, government agencies and nonprofit organizations also allocate more of their total communication and public relations budget to staff. Most private sector companies allot approximately 42 percent of their budget to staff (except for the largest companies). Nonprofit organizations allot 55.3 percent to staff (and increased staff in 2009); government agencies allot as much as 56.8 percent to staff.

In general, only 23.2 percent reduced staff, within a modest .8 to 5.5 percent range. And among organizations that did make cuts, they typically scaled back work sent to outside agencies. In a previous study, companies reported allocating 26.6 percent of their budget to outside agencies. In 2009, only 15.4 percent was outsourced.

Organizations in the United States also fared better than international organizations. However, U.S.-based companies are less optimistic than their international counterparts. Smaller companies also tended to fare better and have more optimism.

The study helps pinpoint several conditions in public relations and communication last year. The numbers demonstrate why external agencies faced greater hardships. It also alludes to specific geographic areas in the United States that were harder hit, with their localized economies more reliant on short-term reactionary companies such as auto manufacturing, residential and commercial construction, tourism, and real estate.

Seeing The Bigger Picture: Fresh Content

It might be an embellished cliche, but it's true. There are many people and organizations that can't see the end of any forest because all they can see are trees. And as a result, they jump from one tree to the next, usually following people who appear to be up front, even if all they can see are trees too.

Did you ever read The Hobbit? There comes a point in the story when Bilbo Baggins, along with a band of dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield, are traveling through a very dense forest called Mirkwood. They become lost. Thorin provides the most reasoned solution: "Somebody must climb a tree and have a look round. The only way is to choose the tallest tree that overhangs the path."

In the story, somebody means Bilbo. In real life, we found five people who have had the good sense to climb a tree. And what they see carries considerably more insight than those hopping from one tree to the next.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of April 19

• Are You Ready to Become a Media Company?
Valeria Maltoni shares the pros and costs of developing a sustainable social media platform, with the understanding that many companies are, in essence, betting their entire program on networks such as Facebook and Twitter (Ning is one example. Those who bet Ning would always be free, were wrong.) While smarter companies use these platforms, they understand the value of having their own. Maltoni helps lock down what that means on the front end, middle, and end.

• Dear Millennials: Your Parents Lied To You.
There is a lot to like about Millennials, but there is one belief that many could do without. They believe that effort earns as much rewards as results. And in Bill Sledzik's classes at Kent State, they quickly learn how mistaken they are as the class is designed to give them a clear dose of reality: not everyone is above average, effort does not earn a trophy, and "not good enough" is exactly what it sounds like. Frankly, Millennials need more teachers like that.

• Social Business Planning: Aligning Internal With External.
Not many social media experts talk about the impact of employee engagement and internal communication as it relates to social media. They don't because, frankly, they don't know anything about it. David Armano does. He maps out several models, including some from Altimeter Group, with an emphasis on developing company cultures that share information as freely internally as people share information externally across social networks.

• Dancing with the Devil: Cause Marketing for Nonprofits.
Is Komen a match with Kentucky Fried Chicken? Many people asked the question, blaming KFC for the mismatch. Geoff Livingston turns that thinking on its head, suggesting that nonprofits, as pure as they seem to be, could take more care in the partnerships they nurture. He also pinpoints the biggest problem: nonprofits tend to forget that their primary goal isn't fundraising as much as it is to effect change. And given that the nonprofit sector saw more executive raises last year than many others, one would have to close their eyes to not see that he is right.

• Altimeter Report: Social Marketing Analytics (Altimeter Group & Web Analytics Demystified).
While there is always a constant buzz that people are struggling to measure social media (despite several people such as myself, Katie Paine, Olivier Blanchard, and others offering solutions), Jeremiah Owyang helps pinpoint four primary objectives (besides sales) that organizations can adopt as measurable goals. They include: dialog, advocacy, support, and innovation.

Creating Success: The Psychology Of Winners And Losers

Some people don't understand how 73 percent of small business owners can remain optimistic about their business futures despite 52 percent thinking it is worse than it was twelve months ago. And even while the financial stressors are considerable, the Pitney Bowes survey reveals most small business owners have two or three more options before they would have to consider closing their companies (hat tip: MarketingProfs). Even if they did, 28 percent would start a new business.

Top Financial Concerns For Small Businesses

• 74 percent say decreased sales is their top concern.
• 52 percent say health care costs are a top concern.
• 42 percent say late payments from customers.
• 42 percent say greater restrictions on corporate financing.

But there is something else too. Small business owners tend to be among the most adaptive and resilient during the worst economic conditions. They tend to be optimistic even in the face of adversity, especially those that had the audacity to start their businesses during a recession.

It strikes at the heart of the challenge. Many small business owners opted to believe that the recession was optional. It was a case I made on a couple of occasions during the last two years, asking leadership to start by engaging their employees.

Some bigger companies agreed with me too. You can see it based on performance. United Services Automobile Association, Republic Services, Wells Fargo, Dollar General, Visa, PNC Financial Services Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co., CenturyTel, Merck, and O'Reilly Automotive (among others) all posted profit gains of 65 percent or more. For them, the recession was optional.

And while we all might wish that the media covered more success stories to help lift the general population out sooner, most were too busy covering the recession. In fact, most were covering the pending recession as much as two years before it happened. Now, many news outlets are trying to shift the story in a new direction; expect to see more success stories soon.

What Makes Some Companies Succeed And Others Fail?

The only answer is their outlook. Earlier today, Ernie Varitimos shared a link to his video about winners and losers as it relates to investors. While there is a certain combatant mentality in the video that I don't personally share, Varitimos nails the psychology of it all.

He applies it to investing, but it accurately describes the relationship of trends and reversals to several arenas. As he points out in his video lesson, trends are easy because they move in straight lines and, unless you're a loser, you follow the trend to the end. That is how many companies, good and bad, made money in the last three decades. You didn't have to be good. You only had to follow the trend.

Reversals are not so easy. It begins when one trend ends and another begins, marked by a change in attitude. Basically, when the trend changes, people who were winners during the trend begin to feel like they are losing control. And as they lose their belief in themselves, this allows others — the anti-group as Varitimos calls it— to snatch control away from them. How does it happen? In defending their position, the previous followers make mistakes and eventually lose.

It doesn't just happen in investing. It happens in politics. It happens in business cycles. It happens with marketing. It happens in social media (with blog traffic or whatever). The psychology of success is directly linked to the optimism of leadership and their willingness to adapt to changes in the marketplace. It's also why my company will end in a better position than when the recession started. How about you? How are you doing today?

Advertising Challenge: Apple Suggests No Crappy Stuff

"As a creative director, I can completely understand that they [Apple] created this new baby and they want to make sure it gets born looking gorgeous. But as a creative director, I don't feel completely comfortable letting Apple do the creative." — Lars Bastholm, chief digital creative officer at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide.

That was what Bastholm told The Wall Street Journal on the news that Apple's upcoming iAd program will require advertisements to go through an approval process and require Apple to build the ads for aesthetic and functionality reasons. It is one of several hurdles, along with price (1 cent per banner impression and $2 per view),  to reach more than 85 million iPhone and iPod Touches sold.

For the launch, marketers will pay as much as $10 million, which is much higher than the $100,000 or $200,000 most agencies are used to paying. One early example is Nike (it has endorsed the Apple creative), which Apple has been using to introduce the iAd concept. How to build an app advertisement isn't the only advice Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently shared with Nike.

Mark Parker, president and CEO of Nike, shared Jobs' advice at Fast Company's Innovation Uncensored conference. "Get rid of the crappy stuff," he said.

The Apple Approach.

There are two ways to take anything Steve Jobs says. You can think of him as an egomaniac, as some people reportedly do. Or, you can think of him of someone who is always trying to raise the bar higher, which is why you won't see Adobe's Flash technology on an iPhone. He said more than that.

"Flash was created during the PC era--for PCs and mice," Jobs said in the letter. "New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too)," Jobs recently explained in an open letter. "Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind."

Adobe won't argue the point. It is reported to be working to improve Flash, specifically to appease Mac, despite what Philip Elmer-DeWitt had to say about it.

The Advertising Challenge.

When you add it all up, some people might think Apple only wins because its competition is lousy. But maybe Jobs and crew would welcome the opportunity to be pushed a little harder, with someone not only developing better products but better advertising to boot.

While there are some great examples out there, communication has become more complacent as of late. While social media has shown some companies how integrated communication can work, turf battles still exist with everyone — public relations, advertising, marketing, corporate communication, etc. — fighting for dominion over the same space.

The results are sometimes convoluted. According to one recent survey by Vocus, 43 percent of public relations professionals feel they should own social media and 34 percent of marketers feel they should own social media. Seriously?

Seriously. Someone should sit those folks down and tell them no one owns it. Or, perhaps, more accurately, nudge and remind them that the company not only owns social media but their departments or contracts as well. The first rule of order ought not to be who's in charge, but how can we accurately and provocatively communicate the company's message.

And with that in mind, can anyone blame Apple for wanting the opportunity to set a higher bar for advertisements? Say what you will about the company, but its messages match the product across all communication channels. The company already knows that the the communication of tomorrow will be both striking (advertising), responsive (public relations), and interactive (technical). See for yourself.

Deciphering Diatribe: Arizona, Alabama, Immigration

diatribe (noun) [dahy-uh-trahyb]. Definition: A bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

That is the definition, but the history of the word tells the real story. It's Greek, derived from the verb diatrībein, made up of the prefix dia-, "completely," and trībein, "to rub," "to wear away, spend, or waste time," "to be busy."

It's a word every American ought to know. And if they knew the word, they might recognize it as the perfect definition of the political climate today, fueled by one of the most divisive administrations in history. When you see it, it's easier to dismiss it.

Diatribe In Arizona

The Arizona law didn't start as diatribe, but it certainly has ended up there.

While national estimates bear out a decline in illegal immigrants (sometimes called unauthorized immigrants), Arizona has seen a 42 percent increase in the number of illegal immigrants from 2000 to 2009.

The intent of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 was to curb illegal immigration apparently propelled by a recovering economy and talk of amnesty (with U.S. Sen. Harry Reid among the biggest supporters of including amnesty in immigration reform). Among the most debated provisions in the law is whether police officers in Arizona can ask for identification based on suspicion or whether such a provision leads to racial profiling and subjects legal citizens to unnecessary scrutiny.

The entire issue has drifted into diatribe after the law has been branded "racist" and "anti-immigration." When the conversation shifts in that direction, it's diatribe. There is nothing left to be discussed because it is a waste of time.

Diatribe In Alabama

In Alabama, the driver's license test is currently offered in twelve languages. The expansion of multiple languages likely came into existence because once the test was offered in an alternative language, the state could hardly discriminate against other alternative languages. The cost to the state is considerable.

For whatever reason, Tim James decided to make the issue one of his platform planks as part of his gubernatorial campaign. He produced a television commercial that has since been called controversial.


The entire discussion has drifted into diatribe, being branded as "racist." On the heels of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, it's now considered another example of "racist" legislation with diatribe thwarting any reasonable discussion.

Immigration And English

When my grandmother immigrated to the United States in the 1960s, she did so legally. Still, she remembers how frightening it was arriving in New York City without being able to speak a stitch of English. Doubly so because the person who was to meet her arrived late. For a few hours, she was on her own and was occasionally asked for identification.

There were no special provisions for her. She had to learn to speak and read English. And even when she did learn, her accent frequently drew derogatory comments like "kraut" from some citizens still reeling from World War II. Over the years, she came to realize that the discrimination she experienced was the same as anyone who was part of any mass migration into any country.

Immigration requires something from everyone. It requires citizens to accept a certain enthusiasm (or, at minimum, tolerance) for cultural differences. And it requires immigrants to accept a certain amount of responsibility to partially assimilate, starting with a respect for the law and language. Until people figure this out, there seems to be little room for discussion.

Pushing Pies: Pizza Hut, Domino's, Papa John's

With speciality pizzas ranging from coal-fired to innovative gourmet pies crowding out chains for the sitdown crowd, the big three — Pizza Hut, Domino's, and Papa John's — are looking to retain dominance over the delivery game. So who's winning?

A Breakdown Of The Big Three.

Pizza Hut. For Pizza Hut, U.S. sales are up 5 percent in the first quarter after struggling last year. The turnaround is hot as the chain believes it found the magic formula. When people order pizza, what they really want is an unbeatable value and quick order convenience.

Pizza Hut has a clear advantage in this arena. By investing in easy order applications across various platforms and networks, ordering is super simple. Quick order apps have also helped make Pizza Hut the most talked about online, often by a margin of 2 to 1. And while the 1958-established pizza chain doesn't cross-connect its online assets, it has still attracted 1.3 million Facebook fans and 29,000 Twitter followers.

Of all its smart moves, the one that stands out the most is its work to implement a global marketing strategy with a localized appeal. Every application allows users to pinpoint their local Pizza Hut and receive hyper-localized offers from franchisers. The biggest misstep, of course, was attempting to be super cool in calling itself "The Hut."

Domino's. Domino's seems to have been hit by a string of bad publicity luck, ever since it accepted blame for two employees who ran amok on YouTube. Every time someone searches the headlines, Domino's has the corner on bad behavior.

Its marketing isn't always much better lately. Even on its Web site, the pizza company calls out its competitors, driving up their brand names as if this number two pizza chain was somehow a distant third or fourth. As for the 30-minute guarantee that helped it rise to to the top? Long gone.

The most recent marketing investment demonstrates heavy exposure without the buzz in connection with American Idol. However, what seems to have always worked well for Coca-Cola didn't translate for pizza pies. The campaign was barely mentioned by anyone online. (In contrast, fans are still taking about Justin Bieber's cameo on the show.)

When Domino's is mentioned online, most of it is related to the recipe mistake. Most people post how bad it sucks. On Facebook, Domino's is closing in on 500,000 fans. On Twitter, a scant 12,500. The most noticeable reason is that there doesn't really seem to be a reason to join. Its increasing corporate image is a turn-off.

Papa John's. No matter what you might think about the Papa John's push to be more Italian, which seems to drift well away from beginnings as humble as Pizza Hut, there is always something to be said for the pizza company that came on strong enough to carve out a niche that used to belong to Little Caesar's and Godfather's.

Despite its 1.2 million Facebook fans, it isn't talked about much online, capturing only a fraction of mentions when compared to Domino's or Pizza Hut. On Twitter, it has only managed 12,000 followers, which is simply a matter of its shout out, no-follow approach to messaging.

Papa John's is hoping to change all that with its "Papa's Specialty Pizza Challenge." People join on Facebook, submit topics, and provide a short write-up of why their pie is unique.

The fine print makes the contest a bit of a spin. The winner gets 1 percent of the sales, up to $10,000, and free pizza for life. The contest finalist also receive $1,000 to help market their creation to victory.

It's Not All About Social. Stick With Core Services.

In terms of domestic sales, the three pizza chains are lock step in order, with Pizza Hut on top, Domino's second, and Papa John's third. If Papa John's could make a break in some segment of its marketing, it could theoretically take on Domino's for the second spot in the next two years (with better expansion plans). Unfortunately, the social media contest isn't it.

The reason Pizza Hut is winning with its promotions isn't only about price. It seems the pizza company has figured out what hits the right spot with U.S. consumers. When consumers want cheap, convenient pies, they want cheap, convenient pies. Pizza Hut is delivering these two points, leaving social media to take care of itself. Consumers seem to like it that way.

In contrast, Papa John's is shooting for social to attract new fans despite saying they are offering the content to "loyal customers." While they might attract pizza fans, the real question is whether they can convert those pizza fans into Papa John's lovers.

Maybe. But right now, it seems more likely they'll attract contest entrants just before those entrants click on one of those super simple Pizza Hut apps and then tweet their friends how easy it is. Get it now? Give people something to talk about and social media will follow. Cater to them too much and they'll talk about everything except your product.

Nothing Has Changed: The Social Media Constant

Smart Brief recently released some results from a survey that asked corporate leaders how they view social media today. The results are not surprising. And yet, they are surprising.

What's Not Surprising About The Smart Brief Survey.

• 83 percent say that social media gives them a window into what their customers think.
• 75 percent say they were either knowledgeable or actively trying to learn about social media.
• 63 percent say that social media is not a fad, but is very "over-hyped."
• 55 percent say that social media is not a waste of time.
• 51 percent say their companies are actively using and exploring social media.
• 40 percent fear that they are are falling behind their competitors because of social media.

What's Surprising About The Smart Brief Survey.

What's surprising is that the Smart Brief survey isn't all that different from surveys published in 2005.*

• About 70 percent say they were either knowledgeable (55%) or actively trying to learn about social media.
• About 60 percent say that social media is not a fad, but is "over-hyped."
• About 55 percent say that social media is a waste of time.
• About 50 percent say their companies are actively using and exploring social media.
• About 40 percent fear that they are falling behind their competitors because of social media.

*In some cases, we had to adjust the prevalent buzz words of the day to match the statistical data, e.g., "blogs" or "new media" or "social networking" since social media had yet to be adopted as a buzz word. Also, listening wasn't even on the radar, back then.

There are only a few explanations for such a chronic state of sameness: the original surveys skewed toward people already using social media (new users are most likely to answer surveys), people generally lied about adoption for fear of looking like they are falling behind, or perhaps there is something else missing from the state of social media.

Given our research back in time to 2005 revealed the same blog headlines we read today — such as "is social networking replacing SEO" and "Is social media a fad" — we think it's a little of all three, with the third revealing something especially interesting. While this isn't scientific per se, we have noticed that different countries lean toward different social media information on this blog.

The United States tends to focus on tactical tips whereas India tends to focus on strategic solutions. The United Kingdom tends to focus on predictions to determine what's next whereas the Netherlands tends to focus on research to determine what's most recent. The Philippines, on the other hand, tends to focus on pop culture tie-ins, which means they probably have more fun.

Why is this interesting? It might suggest where different cultures are focusing their energies. And if there is any validity to tracking topics of interest, it certainly foreshadows why different countries will end up in very different places five years from now, with the U.S. currently demonstrating a healthy appetite for sameness.

Embracing Universal Truth: Fresh Content

If there is a secret to social media, then the secret is that there are no secrets at all. Our roundup of five fresh content posts proves the point as social media — for all its newness to some people — is evolving to embrace the very theories, concepts, and ideas it once thought to shrug off.

The reason is simple enough. Tactics change but strategy tends to remain consistent. How people interact, fabricate, mislead, organize, and even tell a story remains the same as it did before social media entered the scene. So what's changed? It's even easier to see it online, which makes it especially fascinating. See for yourself.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of April 12

• Online Network Theory And Politics.
Jed Hallam shares some insight into the analysis of networks on the Internet and how people connect, interact, and share ideas as they pertain to politics. He does an excellent job taking his readers through the steps: identifying sources, evaluating influence, assessing connections, and then determining the best route to introduce messages. It's an excellent introduction to what a few people do every day.

• Imported Turf.
Ike Pigott's ongoing assessment of interaction contains a refreshing amount of dedication and detail. He continues to consider what dailies and other news outlets might discover about astroturfing if they didn't ignore it (coincidently, AOL is currently revamping its comment section for this reason). Outlined in this post, Pigott shows how some commenters masquerade as people with invented identities. On occasion, they even create supporting fake identities so they have "someone" to respond to.

• More Absurd Social Media Analysis – The Value Of A Fan.
Adam Singer was one of the first out of the box to debunk a theory floated by Vitrue that "fans" and "friends" could be reduced to a monetary value of $3.60. He provides eight points why that valuation is off, before pointing out the premise is flawed. But more than that, he makes the case that such formulas mislead companies into placing too much emphasis on mass and not enough emphasis on real marketing and customer relations. We followed up on his post here.

• Framework and Matrix: The Five Ways Companies Organize for Social Business.
Jeremiah Owyang's presentation on the various frameworks companies and organizations employ online is right on target. He presents five different organizational models that companies frequently embrace in social media, which provide a simplistic but accurate view of the way things work. While his assessment doesn't account for every model, it does accurately portray how companies create information structures not unlike those we tracked three years ago as they related to online fan bases.

• The Art Of Storytelling Is In The Telling.
A few weeks ago, someone asked if communicators get tired of telling the same story over and over (I offered they need to consider the listener is hearing it for the first time). A few days later, Ben Decker penned a post that eloquently conveys this point, using Up in the Air and himself as the example. He says that he tends to lose his gusto after telling a story for the first time whereas his mother-in-law can tell a story countless times with the same enthusiasm, often better with each telling. Exactly right. She appreciates that the story might be old to her, but it's new to the next person she tells. Perfect.

Placing Behaviors: Does Advertising Shape Social Norms?

A few days ago, Abby Ellen, writing for The New York Times, covered how something as simple as food advertising can shape our thinking. She uses Kelly D. Brownell's “The Psychology, Biology and Politics of Food” Yale class for an opener for her article.

The class begins with Brownell asking students to fill in the blank: "I go cukoo for ___." "Break me off a piece of that ___ bar."

The article stuck in my head not as a casual reader, but because I do something similar in one of my classes. I ask students to match taglines to companies, ranging from "Just do it" and "You deserve a break today" to "A diamond is forever" and "Tastes great. Less filling." Even students that were not overly exposed to some of the older campaigns can still make a connection.

No matter how many times I use the tagline retention test in class, it still amazes me. That's the power of a singular message.

The Same Lesson Takes Students In Two Directions.

Of course, Brownell and I have very different reasons for our respective lessons. Mine is to demonstrate how message retention increases with the reinforcement of a singular message reinforced by varying context. The commercials change, but they always circle around to a singular point that can be easily retained. I ask them to consider the lesson when they build their public service messages.

Brownell uses his lesson to build a case for social change, requiring Yale students to develop op-ed articles about social change with an eye toward publication. Suggested op-eds revolve around how advertising shapes how we define good food, how much should the government be involved in shaping the nation’s diet, can food (especially foods with sugar) be addictive, and so on and so forth.

I use my class to teach students how to develop commercial messages that stick. Brownell uses his to make the case that public policy needs to take control of the obesity crisis in this country. But there is another difference. I always ask my students when was the last time they actually bought the products I mentioned. (Generally, they don't.) Brownell doesn't, which likely leaves students with the feeling that advertising does more than persuade or inform people about products, but brainwashes them too.

Advertising Isn't Brainwashing.

While changing behavior is part of effective communication, advertisers generally keep the intent narrow. For example, if you're going to eat chocolate cereal, they want you to buy Cocoa Puffs. If you're going to eat a candy bar, they want you to buy a Kit-Kat. They don't really have much intent to brainwash you in bingeing on other brands unless the message is broad (although I could make the case that diamond sellers did a splendid job elevating demand over other rare stones).

Real brainwashing is much more subtle than sales. Generally, it's confined to public service announcements. But recently, it has crept into television programming with behavioral placements. While we're much more attuned to the notion that advertisements sell, we're a bit more open to embedded messages.

Embedded messages have garnered more attention lately, but these have been around a long time. Popeye the sailor ate spinach for a reason. Some television shows make political statements for a reason. And Brownell builds a case for public policy intervention for a reason.

It's all kind of creepy, really. But it does go a long way in demonstrating that advertising is the least of our worries.

Case in point: medicating children with antipsychotics wasn't caused by advertisers, much as advertisers were attuned to increasing demand. And given that children covered by Medicaid are prescribed antipsychotics at a rate four times higher than children with private insurance, public policy seems to be driving demand. Now that's a public policy we might do something about.

Overdosing On Climate Change: Earth Day

"Mister!" he said with a sawdusty sneeze. "I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. And I am asking you, sir, at the top of my lungs" — he was very upset as he shouted and puffed — "What's that THING you've made out of my Truffula tuft?"

For most people, Earth Day started some 40 years ago. For me, given I was only 3, it started a year later in 1971. 1971 was when was the year Random House published The Lorax by Dr. Suess. It was also the same year Iron Eyes Cody debuted as the "crying Indian" in the "Keep America Beautiful" public service announcement campaign. The messages matched the appetite of the populous.

There were lessons to be learned. We could all do our part. All of it was in our best interest.

Wisconsin was well ahead of the environmental bell curve too. Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed Earth Day in 1969 and had intended it to raise environmental consciousness through rallies, symposiums, and discussions on college campuses and in cities across the country. His work had started much earlier as governor. Earth Day matched the sentiment of the state, especially because of its blended assets with forests and lakes to the north, farm and dairy land to the south, and industry to the east along Lake Michigan.

So what happened on the way to a greener planet in the last 40 years?

Geoff Livingston made an excellent observation about Earth Day yesterday. There isn't as much fanfare about Earth Day.

The answer might be found, in part, from another observation last year in the Washington Times. They compared Arbor Day and Earth Day to conclude that Arbor Day was largely non-political and positive where was Earth Day was political and pessimistic.

When did that happen? While the stage was already set, the shift in direction of our environmental conscience occurred in 2006 with the winds of climate change and global warming. The inconvenient truth was very much like a wild part of proof for all of us concerned about the environment, but it eventually came with one of the worst hangovers ever because some of the numbers were fudged.

That wasn't the worst of it. The inconvenient truth also took away the individual's ability to do their part and focused heavily on regulating others to do their part. The immediate impact of divide and conquer politics becomes clear enough. It shifts attention away from what "we" can do and onto what "they" can do. So "they" defend themselves while "we" forget to buy lower emission cars, recycle, and whatever. And overdosing on climate change for all its faults has made the problem bigger than any individual can fix.

Sure, I know for a fact that many manufacturers are willing to sit on emission controlling technologies (literally keeping them secret) to avoid sweeping regulations that occur at a faster pace than they can implement. But at the same time, most of those manufacturers are tied to defending their position because of pressures — price, profits, and employment — that those same regulating individuals benefit from. In other words, we're all in this together folks.

Messages make all the difference.

There have been a lot of clever and creative environmental messages since 1971, but few of them have become as iconic and legendary as the crying Indian or The Lorax. Ever wonder why?

The 1971 messages are stories that bind us together in the choices we make as individuals, with no distinction between producers and consumers or companies and people who litter. Both messages ask us to make a choice: which person do you want to be? The choice seems logical enough. Most of us want to be the solution instead of the problem.

Even the Lorax, though disgusted by the greed that came with the invention of the thneeds, left a last chance in the hands of the Once-ler, despite the Once-ler's responsibility for making the mess. The message, if you remember, is unless.

"No more trees. No more Thneeds. No more work to be done. So, in no time, my uncles and aunts, every one, all waved me good-bye. They jumped into my cars and drive away under the smoke-smuggered stars. Now all that was left 'neath the bad-smelling sky was my big empty factory ..."

Defining Engagement: The Value Of People

There seems to be some push back against the notion that social media "fans" can be valued at $3.60 each. But Vitrue, a social media management company, doesn't miss a beat. The $3.60 valuation tag placed on people is just the "tip of the iceberg," they say.

The message seems to resonate with plenty of companies, as Vitrue includes Ford, P&G, Best Buy, Unilever, Pringles, and plenty of others. Companies that ought to know better, in some cases. What's more, Vitrue doesn't seem to consider those fans owned by the brand. It boasts the combined total of its clients as their fans, about 45 million. People they "manage" every day.

Why don't most communicators accept the $3.60 valuation?

Adam Singer provides part of the answer on The Future Buzz. He provides eight points why that valuation is off beat, before pointing out the premise is flawed. Worse, they mislead companies in thinking that hordes of fans are final frontier.

Sean Williams provides another part of the answer on Communication Ammo. He offers four points, before noting that the formula fails because it sells the idea that social media is all about increasing advertising impressions.

Oliver Blanchard, who can be found at The BrandBuilder Blog, had a brief discussion on Twitter. Because he is outcome oriented, he points out the pitfall with two sentences under 140 characters.

Outcomes have value; people are priceless.

The real problem with valuations like the one Vitrue floats is that it mistakes an online environment as nothing more than media. People behave online much like they do offline in that their interactions mimic spatial actions. The only time online actions resemble media is when the engagement is media oriented (like watching a program on Hulu).

Placing a "value" on fans can be likened to claiming a product can earn media impressions simply by sitting on the shelf of a supermarket, based on a ratio of everyone who walks in the front door, even if they skip the aisle where your product is located. And doubling, tripling, or quadrupling those impressions is only a matter of adding another row of product.

Using this logic, Brillo could be placed on every shelf on every aisle and capture all past supermarket visit impressions times the total number of products. It's absurd, especially because many "fans" never return to the product page once they friend it, especially if they were driven there by a one-time incentive. Thus, every fan is not equal to any dollar amount.

And that leads us to the second biggest danger in the formula. An overly formulaic approach that relies on reach as the end measurement as opposed to a singular portion of the equation, devalues customers. After all, if we were to be so brazen in our attempts to monetize the value of people, then the Vitrue valuation gives equal value to window shoppers and customers (which also happens to be the biggest mistake among online crowd sourcing). Except, that temptation is also wrong.

Net, net, as tempting at it is to count up some 1 billion "fans" we've touched online for our clients, beating Vitrue almost 20 to 1, I'm still inclined to believe that the people we've touched are worth more than $3.60 per head. As a matter of fact, people are priceless. Outcomes have value. Engagement is an investment. And impressions are nothing but potential.

When you understand this and do the math, you get different results. You know, the kind that suggests ten people on the showroom floor of a car dealership might have more, um, "value," than 100 people who will never buy one.

Vitrue devalues its industry with a weak message.

All this made me really curious what Vitrue did. So, I took a look. It does offer some value, specifically in providing Facebook and a few other marketing-oriented applications. This, combined with some investor affiliations (like Steven J. Heyer) gave them a leg up despite being a late start-up company in social media. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not an ignorant firm.

What is happening here is the same thing that happened in public relations. Executives wanted someone to put a price tag on the return on investment, so they did. Public relations did it by counting column inches against ad rates or Rolodex card counting. Marketing did it by overemphasizing cost-per-impression. And Vitrue does it here in much the same fashion. All of those formulas did more to devalue their respective industries than any other.

But what's most striking about such counting systems is that people generally want to believe them. They want to believe them much in the same way that they were actually relevant to the clients listed beyond the sale of a single application.

But this shouldn't surprise you. Rule No. 8 in advertising is "people are irrational." That simple truth doesn't change with the favor of a title that can condensed to an acronym. CEOs and other decision makers are equally swayed by all sorts of messages, even when those message value them at $3.60 too.