Hold on a Minute, Seth

by Roger Pynn

I’m usually a trumpet for Seth Godin. His blog is at the top of my list and he’s full of insight I use and share. But his latest post on the value of competition left me wondering if everyone sees the world the way he does.

He suggested that Roto-Rooter – and by extension anyone who provides an essential “I need it right now” service – is in essence a bully when there is no competition. Not so.

Just because Roto-Rooter is the only company that has been willing to invest in the extra cost of being available to you at 3 a.m. when your pipes burst doesn’t make them a bully when they charge you extra. Our firm doesn’t like to be a fire department and get calls from people we don’t know seeking emergency help. We specialize in ongoing relationships and expect to help our ongoing clients when a crisis hits … at any time.

But, we’re here just like the next company – to make a profit – so if you need us badly and it means we’re going to have to stretch to accommodate you, that stretching is going to cost a little more. We’re just like the computer parts company that will send you a part overnight to get your network back up and running and then charge you for the rush freight and the time it took to make the delivery happen.

Are they bullies? Certainly not. They are essential. Being essential to clients is our goal and ought to be everyone’s … at 3 a.m. or 3 p.m.

What is your Business?

by Kim Taylor

Yesterday, one of Orlando’s journalists and Twitter elite pondered if the phrase “in this economy” was the new “after Sept. 11.” This troubled economy has left so many of us prefacing each not-so-happy statement with a way to explain why it’s so.

The question resonated with me as we look for ways for our business and those of our clients to come out on top when the economic dust settles.

Our industry, like others, is ever-evolving and attempting to respond to the new innovations such as those we see in the social media arena.

But, as much as it’s changing, it left me retreating to the fundamentals of what our business is at its core. What was the intent nearly 25 years ago of then partners Roger Pynn and Joe Curley when they left the comfort of corporate life to start their own business?

This is exactly the question famed economist Peter Drucker says every business needs to ask: What is our business? And, what should it be?

Knowing I’d get a plethora of answers, I thought it would be fascinating to see how our staff responded to these questions. Here’s a sample of their responses:

Q: What is our business?
A: “Public Relations,” “marketing,” “strategic communications advice and counsel,” “message management,” “creating awareness,” and “providing clients the tools to enhance relations with their internal and external audiences.”

I was delighted to see that each response – in its own way – spoke to our business objective:

To be an essential asset to clients seeking public relations, public affairs and marketing communications advice, counsel and program implementation; to provide stable employment to the staff of professionals that make that service possible; and, to make a reasonable profit from doing so.

So, if you’re looking for ways to innovate or survive in a down economy, how about first revisiting your business’s objectives and asking, “What is your business?”

Will we Afford Internet 3?

by Roger Pynn

What impact the economic downturn will have on marketing communications seems inextricably linked, in my mind, to the public’s willingness or ability to continue investing in the toys that many are predicting will drive the future of the Internet.

A just-released study by Pew Internet suggests that the telephone will become the primary access to the Internet … no, not your landline but that little thing in your pocket or purse.

Pew said the experts who made up their panel agree on the use of the phone, but not necessarily on “whether this will lead to more social tolerance, more forgiving human relations, or better home lives.

The glaring question really seems to be whether we will continue to buy what the manufacturers and carriers are tempting us with every day, not because we believe they will improve our lives but whether, in fact, we are convinced they have already … and whether our increasingly limited resources ought to be spent on one more tech toy that brings one more bell, one additional whistle, one more amazing application we never knew we needed, but which will certainly steal more of our precious time.

Wireless devices could be the most powerful form of targeted communication. Instead, however, they seem in many ways to have become a roadblock to the new kind of personal communications the Internet promises. Heads buried in a 3.5” screen, a Bluetooth headset dangling from our ear, many of us are isolating ourselves to the point that we are no longer available to see or hear what else surrounds us … certainly not the Internet.

Add to this the incessant dance of marketers to any new form of Internet communication they perceive will get them in their target markets’ wallet. Whether it is Twitter or Facebook or some yet-to-be-invented social network, as Seth Godin points out advertisers always seem to get there just in time to screw it up.

Communications theorists must be numb as they watch us set up roadblock after roadblock to the messages we so desperately need to send and receive … not the ones that sell us something but instead the ones that make us more complete: completely informed, completely aware of our surroundings, completely comfortable with who we are.

More than Words Can Say …

by Ashley Pinder

Some people say they get into PR because they are no good in math. Well, some of us ended up in PR because we love words. Not just written – but spoken – and that’s where I find myself: I love words.

Although I don’t fit in doing The New York Times Crossword every day, I do love to be up on current events, and part of that is monitoring what new words are on the scene.

Let’s take a look at some new words of late that seem to be formed from bringing together a combination of two words.

• Frenemy: not officially in the dictionary yet. It’s when two people act like friends but they actually dislike each other and many times are in competition. This word has even been used to describe the relationship between President-Elect Barack Obama and his primary rival Hillary Clinton.

• Ginormous: just made the cut into the dictionary in 2007. It’s a combination of gigantic and enormous. And, boy is it fun to say.

• Webinar: something we do frequently in PR to learn from industry leaders and stay on top of trends in the practice. It’s a live conference over the Internet. And in my experience, is one type of meeting that is famous for starting late due to technical problems.

And these are just a sampling.

Knowing the lingo is good business.

At Curley & Pynn, we use this type “strategery” to keep our clients ahead of the game.

(We’re crossing out fingers Merriam-Webster never puts that one in the dictionary!)

First Impressions

by Dean Hybl

I was struck over the last day to hear that the leaders of the Big Three automakers were going to make their return trip to Capitol Hill this week driving fuel-efficient hybrids after being berated last time around for each taking a corporate jet.

It reminded me of the old truism that “you never get a second chance to make a first impression.”

It isn’t my place here to comment on whether or not the car companies should receive the federal bailout they are requesting. However, they certainly didn’t help their case with the first impression they made during the hearings two weeks ago. Had their public relations teams been on the ball then, they might have realized that this isn’t the time for business as usual and that being proactive, rather than reactive, might help push public opinion, as well as Congressional leaders, in their favor.

Instead, they came to Washington the first time each flying on their own corporate jet and making vague statements about how they would use the money. This just added fuel to the fire for those who claimed they were out of touch and should not receive federal relief.

They have changed their tune this time around, but will driving hybrid cars and having more specific plans be enough to sway public opinion, as well as the opinions of Capitol Hill leaders? Is it just another example of them trying to save face and do a short-term fix after the fact or are they genuinely committed to making the changes necessary to make the federal bailout a worthwhile investment of taxpayer resources?

Regardless of the outcome, the case of the Big Three is a great lesson for any public relations firm, or company, looking to introduce a client or product to a somewhat skeptical market. Now is not a time where business as usual is going to work.

Before starting down the same old path, it is important to look at all the options and see if it is time for a new and fresh approach. Those who are proactive and illustrate that they understand the market and have an innovative plan will be given the chance to succeed. To the contrary, those who make adjustments only when forced to will be left wondering what happened when they are left out in the cold holding an empty bag.

That’s When you Know …

by Kerry Gregovich

A huge buzzword being tossed around all the time is “viral.” Whether it’s a video, a blog, a catchphrase—you name it—it’s nothing more than a blip in cyberspace unless it’s coined viral.

But what is the determining factor of how “viral” that something is? How can you call something a trend? Is it dependent on the number of page views, Google hits, or facebook friends?

My theory is that it really all comes down to who it is that actually notices.

Some things can get talked about on other blogs—it’ll get digged, and twittered, and maybe even sent along to you by that boss who loves e-mail forwards. But to be truly viral, it has to go mainstream.

Everyone remembers the coverage on lonelygirl15, the teenager’s blog that turned out to be a hoax. That got attention from every nightly news station in the country. Something you could definitely call viral. Even the Mountain Dew commercial featuring Chuck Norris was a brilliant use of a viral phenomenon. While it did leave my mom a little puzzled, it was the perfect inside joke for the few million people who have read Chuck Norris Facts.

So, sure, the “Don’t tase me, bro” University of Florida student got his fifteen minutes of fame and several remixes, and even the Obama girl had an appearance on a Saturday Night Live sketch, but I think this Thanksgiving saw the greatest example of something that is considered “viral” come to the public eye …

If you happened to watch some of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, you may have seen a float with waving children and dancing puppets. As they go into their song and dance, the music is instantly interrupted by none other than 80s pop star Rick Astley performing “Never Gonna Give You Up,” which might seem strange to those who haven’t been “Rickrolled” yet this year.

This Internet phenomenon involves a bait and switch type of prank where unsuspecting internet users click on a link which instead takes them to Rick Astley’s music video. On April Fool’s Day 2008, YouTube and several other Web sites “Rickrolled” millions of people (myself included). How did this even become a trend? I’d say the best explanation comes from Wikipedia.

But when tens and millions of families get Rickrolled simultaneously on national television, well…that’s when you know—it’s viral.

News or Commentary?

by Dan Ward

An Associated Press story printed on Page A-2 of Tuesday’s Orlando Sentinel raised some eyebrows around here yesterday.

The story, by Matt Apuzzo, discussed how the Bush administration backed off crackdowns of troublesome mortgages years before the economy collapsed.

Certainly nothing wrong there in the reporting. It’s a fact that the administration considered such crackdowns but backed away. (It’s also a fact that members of both parties in Congress did much the same, but that’s a story for another day.)

But at one point, what began as a news article turned to commentary, with lines such as “The administration’s blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy.”

Blind eye? Emblematic of a philosophy?

The Sentinel can actually be commended for editing out some even stronger language. In a longer version of the story printed by USA Today, the Seattle Times and others, the reporter follows his blind eye comment with, “Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.”

This kind of language doesn’t belong on the news pages. It is editorial commentary, and should be labeled as such. When a news organization with the history and presence of the Associated Press begins to blend news with commentary, it calls into question the credibility of the entire organization, and of the media that publish its reports.

The fact that this story was picked up by outlets throughout the country, with few if any questioning the reporter’s comments, is all the more reason for those granting media interviews to take a hard look at whether their comments will be used to support a factual news story, or whether it will instead be used to support a reporter’s or news organization’s editorial position.

Like the old adage that says “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” any time a reporter starts telling you his or her opinion, it probably means that opinion will creep into the story.

Blockbuster Looks for New Ways to Boost Revenue Stream

by Kimberly Taylor

A colleague shared a story with me today of Blockbuster’s move to begin selling concert tickets in their stores.

It’s an interesting move for a company undoubtedly struggling to convince consumers that bricks and mortar beats the convenience of subscription-based services like their competitor, Netflix, or the identically priced on-demand services offered by cable providers.

The move comes as concert promoter Live Nation continues to look for ways to build their own ticketing channel while moving away from ticket-selling giant Ticketmaster.

So far, I see the benefit to Blockbuster: more product offerings for consumers who’ve stayed loyal and continue to shop their stores, and a cut of the transaction fee charged to buyers. Live Nation opens up their distribution channel and is able to rely less and less on Ticketmaster.

What I don’t see, however, is the advantage to the consumer without whom neither company would benefit.

The biggest draw to consumers would be a reduction or elimination of the convenience fees on tickets, which are typically in the $9 to $10 per ticket range. Let’s face it, concert tickets aren’t sitting next to the typical gum and candy impulse buys normally found at the checkout counter.

So have Blockbuster and Live Nation taken aim at their target audience with this strategic move or is it simply a self-serving business scheme disguised as convenience?

Perhaps if they were listening to what keeps their client at night, they’d combine their need for a revenue boost with the consumers’ need to save and still come out on top.