Mar 06 2013
Bob Page emailed me a link to this Harvard Business Review blog post about how advertisers need to act more like newsrooms.
Written by Newsweek/Daily Beast CEO Baba Shetty and Wharton Professor Jerry Wind, the post cites some marketing trends where companies are:
- Advertising in real time by tweeting or pushing out content in response to events or public feedback. Examples would include Old Spice's successful YouTube "Smell Like a Man, Man" project where 200 short videos were shot in response to social media interaction; and brand's tweeting opportunistic messages during the Super Bowl blackout
- Creating advertorial media and content factories on their own or in partnership with media brands: they cite Intel and Vice's Creator's Project and the Redbull Media House
- Becoming more agile. Instead of planning advertising campaigns around 30-second television and meticulously planned media buys, the modern marketer is more reactive and opportunistic.
Nice sentiments, but in my experience, the reality of putting such sentiments into action is a lot more frustrating. Getting big organizations to be faster and more open is always going to be an exercise in frustration and patience. Bob wrote: "This "marketers as newsrooms" stuff from Intel, Red Bull, Liberty Mutual looks an awful lot like the kind of team you got started at Lenovo."
I'll take the compliment for trying to push the company to be more agile on its communications and media, but the frustrations occurred when two traditional conservative corporate communications edicts were invoked: risk and quality.
Risk is what a corporate communications department is designed to minimize. They plan the message, craft it, practice it, push it across the organization and limit the points where the media can engage. Rank and file employees can't, and shouldn't, talk to the press or randomly respond to social media. Even the CEO is given a speech written for him, carefully crafted down to every ad hoc joke and quip. External PR agencies and internal staff work together across product introductions, corporate messaging and investor relations, focused on cutting down the risk of leaks, illegal financial disclosure and embarrassing moments.
Risk aversion in corporate communications means slowing things down, stone walling, taking time to consider responses and reactions before blurting out something that isn't signed off. This doesn't work when a lynch party is forming over Christmas shipping delays and the CEO's home phone number is being shared along with form letters for submission to the Better Business Bureau. The realities of modern crisis communications is that minutes, not hours, are crucial, and when a customer service team needs to wait 24 hours for corporate communications to reply with a sanitized, bland statement opportunities are lost and tempers inflamed.
Quality is what gets invoked when a digital marketing team tries to get a video onto the company's YouTube channel. Suddenly the brand team and the advertising creative people turn into critics, and cry foul when a cell-phone video of an engineer explaining how he revved up boot times for a new PC is put out there on the same day of a product announcement claiming the new laptops are faster to start up than the competitions. The official announcement may make the claim, but the customers want to know how and why, so pointing a video camera at the engineer and putting up a 60 second answer suddenly makes the purists invoke HD quality standards.
Here's a video I challenged the team to shoot and post in a single day when I felt a product announcement lacked any substance or answers. This bummed some people out because of its low quality, but 80,000 views later, I'd declare it a success. It simply Kevin Beck interview Howard Locker on what he did to rev up boot times.
I maintain that if you're in a complex business and have opened the doors to questions through corporate blogs, customer service forums, Facebook pages, etc.. you better be prepared to get something up in a matter of hours, not days.
One thing will never change and that is that corporate content is ultimately advertorial and as such, inferior to independently/ objectively produced journalism.
I'm going to take credit for coining the term "corporate journalism" back in 2000 when I was at McKinsey working on the firm's knowledge management system. My friend and colleague Rob O'Regan and I realized our purpose in life was to leverage our experience as business and technology reporters in prying out of taciturn consultants conditioned to maintain client confidentiality some meaningful insights that could be developed into "content" for the benefit of other consultants and their clients.
The act of interviewing -- not media training where a PR person coaches a senior executive on how to spin a story -- but actually probing an expert in the reporter's equivalent of the Socratic method, produced some strong results: it forced the experts to clarify their jargon, realize when their points were obtuse, and understand what they considered interesting or important wasn't necessarily so. But the public result of this process -- a story in the McKinsey Quarterly, or a video series for client development -- is still content with an inherent proprietary bias.
Yes, brands need to be more agile, corporate communications needs to be faster and more authentic, and old strictures of spinning messages and planning ad campaigns deserve to die. But beware of flaks bearing the next new thing, it usually turns out to be unbearably bogus and contrived and designed to serve the best interests of the organization and its shareholders, not the public and its customers.