By Francis Moran
There’s a witty little joke that’s been running on Twitter for some time now. I don’t remember when I first saw it, but every so often it pops into my Twitter stream and I click through to the punchline again. The otherwise redoubtable @missrougue, Montreal-based Tara Hunt, hooked me this morning.
The setup line is usually something like, “How to use Twitter for Marketing and PR” and a short link. Clicking on the link brings you to a one-page website that has the word “Don’t” in block black letters in the middle of the screen.
Ha ha.
But I could not more profoundly disagree with the sentiment.
Let me leave aside what I believe is the immense potential Twitter represents to engage with customers, stakeholders and others, what I would think is the very definition of marketing, and let me briefly cover how we at inmedia routinely use Twitter in our technology media relations practice.
1. We follow journalists who cover our clients and their space. Journos have been enthusiastic adopters of Twitter, using it to source ideas and contacts and to spread the word about what they’re working on. This brings us opportunities we can pitch our clients into and helps us understand even better what these reporters are interested in.
2. We actively pitch reporters through Twitter. Along with email and the telephone, Twitter has become a useful tool to reach out and touch a reporter. With a mere 140 characters at our disposal, you’ve got to believe we need to get the story down pat! And we do. Some reporters welcome this approach, and we embrace the channel where they do; others would prefer we not do so, and we respect their choice. Our front-line media relations practitioners can now count several instances of successful story pitches that were at least initiated, if not fully consummated, through Twitter.
3. We monitor Twitter for mentions of our clients, their competitors and their issues. While most of those mentions do not emanate from journalistic sources, tracking them helps our clients understand who is talking about them and what’s being said. If our clients are active on Twitter, they can engage across this channel. And even if they’re not, Twitter can be an early warning of an emerging event that could bode well or ill. Twitter has become just one more default source in our integrated monitoring efforts for clients.
4. We tweet major announcements by our clients. We count interested journalists, a broad range of technology executives, industry watchers and other influencers among our own lists of followers. So tweeting our clients’ news releases is just one more channel we can deploy on behalf of our dissemination efforts for our clients.
5. And, last but not least, we tweet major hits we get for our clients. I could tell you we do this for much the same reason as item number 4, and I would not be lying. Tweeting major stories attracts attention to them and so expands their reach and improves their impact. But to be thoroughly honest, we also do it to toot our own horns a bit. We like being able to announce that we just got coverage for a client on CNN, or in the New York Times or CIO or some other big-name outlet.
So I’m utterly persuaded, all joking aside, that Twitter is an effective new tool in the media relations tool box, one we’re happy to use extensively.
By Francis Moran
The news last week that major international news agencies, including Reuters and Agence France-Presse, were going to boycott the news conference launching this year’s Cannes film festival in a dispute over restricted access to the festival’s fabled red carpet is an uncomfortable but not wholly unexpected consequence of both the blurring lines between the editorial and commercial departments of large media conglomerates and of the recognition that there is still a lot of money to be made from news content — at least, from certain kinds of news content.
Here’s the back story. The fabled film festival, which is the world’s largest and this year runs from May 12 to 23, signed a sponsorship deal with French broadcaster Canal Plus and with European pay-TV company Orange, a subsidiary of France Telecom. The deal, part of a growing trend by media properties to extract more than just exposure from their sponsorship of events, gives the two sponsors a level of exclusivity over video footage from the red carpet, where the world’s stars and starlets preen for the attention of paparazzi as they arrive for screenings, and from news conferences, where the stars and directors of the movies meet the world’s journalists covering the festival. The festival has said that other news organizations would have restricted access to these venues for video-shooting purposes. The world’s largest wire services, which are well paid to serve up this video to their clients around the globe, have cried foul.
I’m not sure they should be.
I realise that media outlets, especially reputable media outlets, have always maintained opaque Chinese walls between their editorial and advertising departments but many of them in this modern era have been tearing down those walls themselves. The trend is most advanced in broadcast, where, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars are paid every two years for exclusive broadcast rights to the Olympics. An unchallenged outcome of this is that while non-sponsoring broadcasting companies can certainly cover the games, they accept that they will face restrictions on camera placement and access to athletes, and quite severe limits on how much they can actually broadcast.
Not all that much different from what the Cannes festival has imposed.
I suspect the news agencies are crying foul less out of wounded journalistic ethic and more out of a hit to their bottom lines. You see, event organizers like the Olympics and, now, Cannes have figured out that the pictures media companies acquire at such events are worth a lot of money. And they want a piece of this action. I believe we will increasingly see event organizers charge the media for access to this valuable content.
In a way, this has long been established practice on election campaigns, where journalists who want to travel on the leader’s plane or bus must cough up substantial amounts of money to cover the costs. While nobody would ever suggest this is any sort of cheque-book journalism, it does lock out the less-wealthy media organisations and, thereby, make more valuable the stories and pictures that those with access publish and broadcast.
As I said, I’m not sure I object to this trend. While the purist in me is concerned about a world where media have to pay for access to events and the implications that holds for media freedom and other vaunted values, the realist (cynic?) in me is obliged to concede that most media today are indistinguishable from any other commercial enterprise, producing and packaging the product they know will sell while leaving aside the stuff they know won’t.
Why shouldn’t they have to pay for the raw material?
Cannes, Olympics, journalism, cheque-book journalism, media ethics [\tags]
By Francis Moran
I can’t remember when or from whom I first heard the line, “Marketers should think like the fish, not like the fisher.” But I have always enjoyed it as a pithy summary of our marketing credo that says you must put yourself in your customers’ shoes when plotting your marketing strategy. It doesn’t matter how fancy your new spinning rod might be, or how pretty the fly is that you just put on the end of your fly rod, if the fish aren’t hungry for what you’re offering, they’re not going to bite. You need to know what the fish are looking for and then craft your marketing message accordingly.
Driving along the other day, I saw the truck in this picture and I drove around a couple of city blocks so I could come back and take the picture. I tweeted this the other day but I thought I’d also share it here because it is such a simple-yet-brilliant example of this precept. Enjoy.
By Francis Moran
We’re not big television watchers in our household but like many families in Canada and around the world, we’re putting in a fair bit of time these days with the world’s second-largest (after football’s World Cup) sporting extravaganza, the Olympics. One night last week, it was the women’s halfpipe competition that had my wife and me most excited and the no-holds-barred attitude of these brilliant athletes, plus the controversial “Own the Podium” program that has Canada’s Olympians focused far more on winning than on merely participating and doing well, got me thinking about the pursuit of excellence in other arenas. Like tech marketing.
Let me explain.
The eventual winner of the women’s halfpipe, Australian boarder Torah Bright, fell on the first of her two runs. On the second run, Bright was the very first in the field of competitors to hit the pipe and she nailed an amazing routine and scored a dazzling 45.0 out of a possible 50 points to seize first place. It was then up to the rest of the women, including two highly favoured American competitors, to put in runs that would score better than that.
And here’s where I saw something in many of these athletes that technology companies would do well to emulate. They refused to hold back, to give up in the face of seemingly unbeatable competition, or to tone down their routines so they could finish safely, but in second. The outcome was that nearly all the heavily ranked favourites crashed in the pipe as they did the only thing they could do — pull out all the stops in a high-risk, go-for-broke, all-or-nothing shot at first place.
The same shoot-for-the-stars mentality is behind Canada’s “Own the Podium” program, a well-funded $145-million, pursuit of excellence that set as the target for Canada’s team in these Winter Olympics nothing less than first place in the overall medal standings. It reflected an audaciousness that is terribly uncommon for Canadians in almost all walks of life and it’s been drawing criticism here at home from people who say it’s unsporting of us and even that it puts undue pressure on the athletes. As the prospects of our team achieving that goal became ever slimmer this past week, the chorus of criticism swelled even louder.
I have to say that this sort of winning-is-somehow-un-Canadian attitude infects far more than our sports; it most certainly infects technology entrepreneurs in this country.
Far too many new technology companies play it far too safe. They husband their resources and set far-too-modest objectives for themselves for fear of failure. Here are two critical lessons they could learn from the Olympics.
1. Like the women who followed Torah Bright into the halfpipe, go for broke. Sure, you might well crash and burn, but you’ll do so quickly, the practice will stand you in good stead for your next run for gold and if, like all the women I saw, you come up with a smile on your face and a gleam in your eye that can only come from knowing you gave it your all, everyone who backed you on this crashed run will back you on your next attempt.
2. Set what former Tundra CEO Jim Roche likes to call “big hairy audacious objectives,” just like the Canadian Olympic Committee did with its “Own the podium” program. Was it too audacious an objective now that it has been proven to have been too ambitious? Not in the least. Coming up short doesn’t mean we failed; it most certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have set that objective in the first place. It means that in sports, as in business and most every other aspect of life, the competition can still win no matter how well you play. And who knows how many of the athletes who did win medals and who turned in personal bests did so because they were inspired by this objective?
The bottom line is that if you don’t think you can win, you won’t.
By Francis Moran
It might be an oversimplification on my part, but from where I stand, much of the global debate around what to do about climate change has split along a fairly classic left-right axis. Those on the progressive end of the spectrum have embraced the environmental benefits of reducing anthropogenic climate change and often cast the debate in traditional liberal terms such as mitigating the impact on the poorest people on the planet, cutting our dependence on fossil fuels and the often-corrupt regimes governing countries where such fuels are to be found, and halting runaway consumerism. For many on the farthest end of the spectrum, fighting climate change is a natural outgrowth of their anti-capitalist convictions.
People on the right, on the other hand, are over-represented among the climate-change skeptics and even when they do acknowledge that something untoward may be going on, they consistently sound dire warnings about the economic disruption that will surely befall us all if we do anything significant to address the situation. Free marketeers and advocates for the smallest-possible level of government involvement in our lives are practically default members of this side of the debate.
There are always exceptions to be found but I don’t think it’s any coincidence that it was a Liberal government in Canada that signed the Kyoto Protocol — albeit without ever doing anything substantial to meet our treaty obligations — while it is a Conservative government that has swiftly back-pedaled away from making any concrete commitments. Similarly, south of the border, the last Republican administration wanted to have nothing to do with the issue while the current Democratic president and Congress are far more engaged in the debate.
I don’t want to belabour the point but a quick Google search finds the following two rather representative comments among hundreds of blogs whose writers have opinions about global warming, its causes and what we should do about it that align rather predictably with their self-identification as liberal or conservative.
“Now world leaders, and even some liberals, are calling man-made climate change what it truly is, a hoax.” — Conservative Politics Today.
“Physical evidence of global warming is widespread and startlingly significant.” — U.S. Liberal Politics
As with many left-right splits on issues of compelling human interest, I find myself a bit bewildered by the near-complete binary nature of this one. While I have no difficulty understanding the motivation and point of view of the left-wing campaigners, I am astonished that those on the right can’t see that, within what I believe is an incredibly urgent requirement that we swiftly and decisively move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, there resides an almost unprecedented economic opportunity that ought to warm the cockles of the fattest-cat capitalist.
That’s why I so so enjoyed a blog post I read over the holidays by Ron Pernick, managing director of Clean Edge, Inc. and coauthor of The Clean Tech Revolution. In a column titled, “Don’t think of a solar panel,” Pernick said we need to reframe the debate so as to attract the support not just of “Birkenstock-wearing, back-to-the-earth, environmentalists” but also of the innovators, the entrepreneurs and, yes, the nakedly capitalist and return-hungry investors (my terms, not his) who will underwrite the massive changes that must take place.
“We should be framing the clean-tech revolution not in the context of something as amorphous as climate change and as divisive as cap-and-trade, but instead on job creation, economic competitiveness, energy independence, and national security,” Pernick wrote. ” Instead of leading with carbon offsets, cap-and-trade, and climate mitigation, we should be focusing on energy independence and security; clean-technology innovation; green-job creation; and global resource management and leadership.”
I’ve never made any secret of my socially progressive political views.Indeed, I have often joked that from where I sit on the political spectrum, Canada’s sort-of-socialist New Democratic Party looks dangerously right wing to me. And yet, at the same time, I am a business person, an entrepreneur and an investor of capital in technology and other companies. I see no contradiction in this whatsoever. Reframing the climate change debate as Pernick suggests leaves no contradiction for others who, like me, can’t identify with either the left or the right on this one.
