Virtual Coffee Break is a compilation of observations and commentary by Robert Murphy, President & COO, of the Storch-Murphy Group. These columns offer a critical review of current events and real-world analysis of how these things relate to the business world and lessons that may be drawn from them. These ruminations also offer a window into the thinking that drives the agency. If you have a comment or would like to offer a future topic for consideration, please email rmurphy@storchmurphy.com

Consumer-Education Campaigns: Set Sail On The 7Cs - 06/09/08

In 1492, when Columbus was sailing the Ocean Blue, you can rest assured he had the budget necessary to fund every aspect of his grand Tour. I’m sure he didn’t skimp on food to buy other supplies and vice versa. As a result, his mission was a success and history remembers him as one of our greatest explorers.

Now fast forward to today and use the sailing metaphor to symbolize the launch of a consumer-education campaign.

The same principle applies with respect to funding the trip. If a truly unique idea walks in the door and a company decides to pursue it, then I say pull no punches. The best idea is only a small budget away from being a colossal disappointment.

Specifically, when it comes to consumer-education campaigns, there really is no place for middle ground. In my opinion, the best consumer-education campaigns should “set sail on the 7Cs” which include:

- Clear direction—the program should have very clear focus about what it is and isn't from the outset

- Celebrity involvement—a celebrity with a vested interest in the subject matter can help build awareness

- Cause related—campaigns should benefit a charitable cause, when appropriate

- Content—materials should be comprehensive, informative, and available

- Consumer benefit—consumers should learn something useful from the program

- Coalitions—third-party relationships provide added credibility and message band width

- Capital investment—you’ve got to pay to play and it’s money well spent

Unless, you are going to commit the resources necessary to actually build a program versus launching some promotional copy that looks and sounds impressive, yet has surprisingly little substance, my advice is to walk away or shelve it until you do have the money.

Journalists will sniff out the ruse in less time than it will take to make the pitch and if media attention is an objective, then the mission failed and the ship sunk.

Society Is Diluting My Intellectual Property - 05/15/08

Alright folks, I’m going to come right out and say it. I’m an Olympian—a Spelling Olympian. Yes, it’s true. In eighth grade, I placed second in the New Jersey Scholastic Olympics for spelling savants.

So, it should come as no big surprise that one of my greatest strengths is that I can write content exceptionally well. In fact, one of our agency differentiators that clients really appreciate is my direct involvement in all content creation. Not only does it keep my writing skills sharp, but I enjoy it.

However, you can imagine my dismay when I learned from our resident expert linguist (Ellen), who is also a writing professor at the University of Texas at Austin, that the phrase “hone in” was recently accepted as the equivalent of “home in” into Webster’s Dictionary. Despite the fact that the act of “honing in” on something doesn’t even exist in the English language, Webster’s accepts it as a substitute for the proper usage, to “home in.”

Their reason: So many people use the term hone in incorrectly, that it is grandfathered as an acceptable variation of home in by default. So, I ask:

Would the Food & Drug Administration arbitrarily accept marketing efforts promoting a currently unapproved use of a drug or medical device, simply because so many physicians were using it that way off label?

Would a company accept patent infringement, simply because so many competitors are emulating its practices?

I could go on, of course, but the short answer to these questions is absolutely not. That’s why the FDA levies penalties everyday, entire corporate healthcare compliance departments exist, and patent-infringement suits are filed by the boatload.

But, who can I complain to that the tools (language) of my trade (writing) are being morphed into something that may affect my Intellectual Property (writing skill)? The answer is no one. So, I’m going to lament the cause here, where I’m the de facto editor.

The lesson is this: Language is a dynamic entity. But, change for the sake of change is not good. We shouldn’t devalue our language by accepting substandard usage simply because so many people don’t know the difference.

Think of the poor writers, who have taken great lengths to use the English language correctly in the pursuit of their craft.

Reach Consumers; Bridge To Life Points - 04/30/08

I’m a big believer in putting yourself into position to capitalize on emerging opportunities. I have a long list of personal and professional successes not because I anticipated an event or was the best and brightest (how many CEOs would admit to THAT!), but because I was ready and willing to take the necessary measures and risks when opportunity knocked.

Today’s consumer brands need to be certain they are in position by ensuring they are investing in the right opportunities to be there when consumers are most receptive to the messages. This means more than simply communicating with them while they are on the computer, reading a newspaper, watching TV, or listening to the radio. It means communicating with them at Life Points.

A Life Point is a term I use to describe a momentous occasion in each person’s life when it seems like time slows, your senses become sharper, you are open to more stimuli, and your memories become imprinted in your brain!

Believe it or not, Life Points may sound idealistic and scarce, but I believe they happen around the country all the time. Here’s a quick example: When my son was born, you can imagine the excitement—and angst—that new parents go through. That’s a major Life Point. When my wife and I did our first diaper change, we hung on the nurse’s every word and she gave us Pampers. In the three years since, we’ve used a different diaper exactly once. That’s brand loyalty.

But, I didn’t become loyal to Pampers as a result of trying all the other diapers out there. Pampers was in the right position when I was most receptive to the message. Now, if the product wasn’t good, I’d change, but they had me at “hello” so to speak. And, it’s been a great relationship to date. In fact, Baby Number Two arrives in August and she’ll be using Pampers as well.

Here’s how we have applied this concept to the brands we work on. Zicam Cold Remedy is a unique cold product that is clinically proven to get you over the cold up to three times faster. When looking for new ways to market the product to large groups of individuals with a vested interest in staying healthy, our agency suggested marathons as a fertile opportunity.

Marathoners are committed to staying healthy. By default, they can’t be sick when it comes time to run 26.2 miles in one day. Talk about a major Life Point. Completing a marathon is an achievement that takes months, if not years, to achieve. And, it’s a Life Point that will stay with you forever. We knew Zicam could be a meaningful part of that experience.

Last November, we tested the concept at the New York City Marathon with stellar results. During the three-day exposition, we handed out nearly 25,000 samples and had another 40,000 samples put into the race registration bags. Most rewarding, we had about 60 participants come to the booth in various states of total anguish, because they were sick and weren’t sure they could complete the race. They had never heard of Zicam and wanted to know if it could help them. In most cases, the answer was yes (unless they were already too far into the cold).

Imagine the positive halo Zicam received when those runners crossed the finish line. In their minds, Zicam will be forever linked to their achievement.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t plausible to track these runners down afterward. But, one thing is for certain, we put the brand into position to become part of a powerful Life Point in a previously untapped consumer segment.

That’s the power of opportunity. That’s the power of Life Points.

Celebs Benefit From Getting Personal With Online Fans - 03/23/08

As the concept of online social marketing matures, it is encouraging to see our brand-building mantra of bringing the product “experience” directly to the consumer being embraced. However, it’s not the marketers one would typically expect, who are doing the embracing.

The more entrepreneurial promoters behind some of today’s top recording artists have done two things exceptionally well: 1) they spent enough time on the big social networks to establish a presence there, and 2) they now understand the platforms well enough to take it to the next level by spinning off a satellite portal for the artist. Meanwhile, they inherit the fan base or “friends” list, which can number well into the hundreds of thousands, from the original mass website (think Facebook, MySpace).

Oh, and by the way, by offering their clients a personalized experience on the artist’s site, visitors are more than happy to share important personal information such as email and demographics. This was never possible to obtain by simply existing on the larger social marketing forums, because those companies do not share that data.

I found it interesting that a handful of celebrities would beat Corporate America to the punch in this effort; and judging from the success of social networking sites owned by entertainers including rapper 50 Cent, singer Kylie Minogue, and the popular band the Pussycat Dolls, I’d say the floodgates are about to open.

While it might be difficult for a consumer brand to build the same type of interest as an artist, brand managers can still use this template to build meaningful relationships with their customer base.

The key word should be engage! Engage your customer to bring them to your site; Engage your customer to keep them “experiencing” your site for as long as possible, every visit; and Engage your visitors in a way that brings them back time and again.

How do you engage? Here are our Top Five ways brands can engage online:

1) Invest in an online social marketing strategy that creates more buzz about your product and draws surfers to your website—from search engine optimization to proliferating brand messages on social networks to developing an engaging website that offers true two-way communication with your customers.

2) Offer educational information about the space your product operates in. Don’t just sell your product. For instance, if you have a product for the common cold, educate the consumer about the cold in general and weave in points about how the product fits into the treatment paradigm. You’re offering value in education versus a hard sell!

3) Once at the site, use creative methods to keep them there exploring and learning about your company and/or its products. This may involve streaming video, reprints of clinical or consumer media articles, animation, entertaining games, surveys/polls, podcasts/webcasts, regular columns authored by thought leaders in the field, etc.

4) Provide branded downloadable elements that can be printed out for later use such as coupons, shopping lists, at-a-glance questions to ask a healthcare professional, tip cards, and more. These add tremendous value and brand loyalty.

5) Create an opportunity for two-way communication, which allows you to organically grow your databases by obtaining visitors’ email and demographic data. People are more apt to share personal details when they are getting value in return. In addition, it offers an opportunity for you to gain insights about your products from the people who use them.

Finally, effective social marketing campaigns should integrate the entire marketing communications function (e.g., public relations, advertising, special events, etc.) to maximize the return on investment and ensure the campaign has the highest level of exposure possible.

It’s hard to ignore something you keep seeing throughout the day.

Email: Communication Boon or Bust? - 01/14/08

It is hard to imagine a more useful communication tool than email. Email is at once instant and global. You can communicate to one or to one million with the click of the Send button.

You can use email to catch up with old friends, meet new friends, and be the conduit for connecting others via the CC function. In our personal lives, email can be used to convey everything from birthday greetings and other well wishes, pictures and video, jokes, familial updates, and a slew of other situational niceties ad infinitum.

Professionally, email has been nothing short of a revolutionary boon that allows us to circumvent the physics of the time and space continuum. No longer is it necessary to be physically in the same location as your client or consumer to get things done. Communication is everywhere; you can be everywhere. And, in no small part, this is due to email.

However, like everything there's always a dark side. And, email is no different. Emails can be an insidious thing indeed. And, you will always have those whose ill intentions help transform email from helpful to hurtful. Just ask Barack Obama. A recent viral email smear campaign by political adversaries had the declared Protestant labeled as a devout Muslim who had undergone radical Islamic education as a youth.

After some personal investigation, I found this to be patently false and nothing more than an effort to scare American voters. Staying with the political theme, the same thing happened quite effectively during the last presidential campaign with the use of the Swiftboat initiative against John Kerry.

On the lighter side, we can focus on user error as the culprit. For instance, who hasn't experienced an email-induced "ohnosecond;" that brief moment in time when you realize you just made a big mistake AFTER hitting send. The recall function hardly ever works and only increases frustration and worry as you sit idly by wondering if it went through or not.

Then, there's always the chance your email can be misconstrued in terms of content or intent. Emails are, after all, entirely made up of words. However, they are read and interpreted by people who have their own perspectives, which can lead to true intent becoming lost in translation.

And, last but not least, let us not forget that any email is subject to discovery; whether by a loved one, employer, or worse--a lawyer. I've been deposed for work with clients and have been asked to explain the intent of emails dating years back, which of course is next to impossible. However, that doesn't stop someone from trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The issue seems to be that most people still view email as an innocuous form of communication that lends itself to stream-of-consciousness rambling. When, in fact, it is anything but innocuous. Emails live on in digital perpetuity long after you've hit delete, so be careful what you type.

I have a somewhat unique perspective in my regard for email. I view it more like a firearm--a relatively uncomplicated tool that demands respect and your full attention at all times. No matter how well versed you are in its use, slip up a single time and catastrophe may ensue. The general email rule is: If you don't have anything nice to type, don't.

After all, emails don't kill people; people's emails kill people!

Celebrity Endorsements Can Cut Both Ways - 12/10/07

Certain celebrities’ stars burn so brightly that everything they touch turns to gold. Virtually no one represents that reality better than Oprah Winfrey, who has become a billionaire media mogul and icon for many Americans.

With a mere endorsement, Oprah has made fortunes for previously unknown personalities such as Rachel Ray, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz and has helped products from cold remedies to books fly off the shelves.

But, can the magic translate to politics—much less the 2008 Presidential election? Barack Obama sure hopes so, but I’m not sure it can. Barack Obama’s campaign probably did somersaults when Oprah agreed to stump on a tour with the presidential hopeful. But, after it’s all said and done, I’m still not sure what Obama stands for or what Oprah’s endorsement achieved beyond being the ring-leader for an emotionally charged pep rally.

I’ve analyzed ensuing video and print media reports for something of substance; anything that tells me who Obama is, what he represents, and why I should vote for him. But, to date, I still don’t have enough information to vote for him conclusively on anything but a popularity contest.

Admittedly, Oprah’s involvement controlled the news cycle for a few days, thus elevating Obama’s campaign through the cluttered media storm. And, I’m sure Oprah had an effect on event attendance in states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina; tens of thousands of people came out. But, who did they want to see? Even Obama admitted that he recognized he was less of a draw than Oprah.

Obama is already enjoying the Oprah spike in consumer opinion polls, but will it endure through to next year? My opinion is that unless Obama starts maximizing the “Oprah Effect” with real, hard-hitting messages about who he is and what specifically he plans to do for the US as president, than he could very well wind up the same way as the boy who flew too close to the sun and got burned. Here’s a hint: the boy got burned. Savvy?

As with any celebrity endorsement, the basic message has to have substance for it to truly resonate with people. Highly charged rhetoric is meaningless if what your product offers is truly a “me too” that gets lost in the shuffle once people come off that initial high of positive thinking.

Choosing the right celebrity to represent your brand is equally as important as what your brand represents. For my money, Oprah delivers people in droves, but not even she can deliver a presidency.

In The New Marketing World, E = MC2(Squared) - 10/24/07

Several years ago, as it was becoming increasingly more difficult to place stories in the traditional media, I began to ponder the fate of marketing communications, particularly media and public relations. It is somewhat sobering to think that one day your professional function might become “non-essential.”

At the time, the marketing industry saw potential in trying to reach consumers on the Internet, but aside from a few spin-off franchises, the “how” was far less understood and remained elusive.

That was then, this is now.

As distribution outlets in the new media world continue to grow, I can’t help but become more excited about the ever-expanding possibilities to help our clients reach their consumers with brand messaging. You just never know where the next big channel is going to open up; for instance Facebook.com, the equivalent of an online “streetcorner” where more than 50 million people come to hang out.

And, if you think only the “big idea” gets the attention, then think again. Just ask that poor high school kid whose infamous homemade video became the most downloaded video in the history of the Internet, much to his chagrin and embarrassment. He’s got some moves though! Do a Google search for the “wannabe jedi kid” and you’ll see what I mean.

Our agency has spent quite a bit of time considering the new media landscape. And, for the sake of this article, let’s imagine that Experience = Multi-Channel Communication, or E = MC2(Squared). I know….Right now, Einstein is probably issuing a Homer Simpson-like “DOH” and wondering how the pinnacle of his opus magnum wound up so bastardized in my Coffee Break. But, stick with me; this is going somewhere.

The traditional media is hurting and is losing influence quicker than they would like. And, while it still is, and should be, a priority to get your client into top TV and print publications, in my opinion traditional mediums aren’t the be-all-end-all they used to be.

To me, the future of marketing communications is about creating an experience for your consumer. It’s about putting effort behind big and small communication elements—or Multi-Channel Communication—all with the intention of creating a meaningful encounter between your brand and your consumer—even if by chance.

When your brand is associated with real-world and/or virtual experiences, every time that person relives the experience, your brand has a chance to come top of mind as well. Building a little well thought out E = MC2(Squared) into a marketing communications program can go a long way into paving a future of greater awareness among, and closeness to, your consumer.

Here’s what you need to understand. Will everything work: no! But, it’s like the lottery. If you aren’t in it, you won’t win it. By ensuring you’re brand is playing in enough places, you cast a wide enough net that will catch your target. With any luck, your video will become the next great thing that millions of people share on the Net.

The best part of incorporating online media into your programming is that there are no gatekeepers such as traditional media’s editors and producers. Too long we have been at the mercy of others who decide whether our news is relevant or not. The Internet is the great equalizer. Now, everyone can have a worldwide megaphone that enables them to be heard.

So, when we develop our client programming, we always start with a simple equation E = MC2(Squared).

It’s elementary!

Over-the-Counter Products Increasingly Fall Into Gray Area - 10/08/07

Last December, as I suffered through a terrible, chronic sinus infection that lasted through March, my physician recommended a cough suppressant/expectorant to ease symptoms in addition to an antibiotic.

After many frustrating minutes in the pharmacy medicine aisle looking for the exact one I needed, I decided to ask the pharmacist. Turns out, it was behind the counter. And, I had to sign my name to a logbook at the time of purchase. While, I didn't really mind recording the initial product, I couldn't help but feel a bit self conscious upon subsequent purchases of the same product what with all the illegal use of dextromethorphan these days.

Why? In the case of cough medicine, the short, flippant answer is that some people can’t be trusted to behave properly. The longer, more complex story is that federal legislators believe that some drug ingredients are safer for consumers when the pharmacist is the gatekeeper.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration is currently exploring ways to move more over-the-counter and prescription products into a middle ground lorded over by the pharmacist called behind-the-counter. Currently, there are a limited number of drugs that are marketed in this gray area including the Plan B emergency contraception pill and certain cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine. While a prescription is not needed, a conversation with a pharmacist would be to obtain the product.

This article is not about the virtues or inconvenience of limiting access to certain medicines. And, it’s not about implications on healthcare compliance as companies consider the pharmacist’s increasing role in how their products are marketed, although that is important.

This article is about taking lemons and making lemonade. As more drugs move off prescription status, the pharmacist will become the new, highly sought-after marketing battleground for retail sales. Already the first line resource for consumers nationwide, the behind-the-counter push comes at a time when pharmacists have more involvement in consumer health issues than ever before. For instance, many pharmacies have set up health clinics and every graduating pharmacist today is legally allowed to administer a variety of vaccines in the pharmacy.

As an agency, we understand the value of the pharmacist in helping consumers select the best medicines and understand proper ways to use them. A decade ago, way before behind-the-counter marketing was discussed publicly, we realized the value of incorporating the nation’s oldest and largest organization for pharmacists into our marketing communications initiatives.

Pharmacists, as a profession, have been clamoring to become a larger part of the healthcare system for years. The behind-the-counter initiative places them smack dab in the middle of a marketer’s plans. By nature, pharmacists can be a skeptical bunch, which is good, because they will be well-equipped to weed out marketing fluff versus the educational content. Industry can join forces with pharmacists to offer appropriate and informative communication that leads to better consumption of medicine.

More interaction between consumers and pharmacists means smarter choices and less likelihood of product misuse and abuse. And, that’s a very good thing.

PR: The Noblest Uphill Battle - 09/11/07

The public needs our help. How do I know this? My mother-in-law is in the hospital right now for neglecting what she thought was a headache for three weeks. She went to the doctor twice, but didn’t ask the right questions and wasn’t forceful enough to get him to go beyond a basic exam. Only until the pain became unbearable did she agree to go to the hospital. Now, she is being evaluated for a possible stroke.

Need another reason? For 10 years, I worked on the Tylenol, Motrin, and St. Joseph brands of analgesics. Most of my friends and family cannot tell the difference between acetaminophen and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

These are not dumb people. Like most people, they simply choose to pay attention to the things that affect them most. Yet, despite this seemingly uphill battle, I know public relations is moving the needle, because the research—both empirical and anecdotal—says so. For instance, breast cancer survival rates are improving drastically just in the last decade. I hear people talking about drug-drug interactions and cardiovascular stenting with their physicians and peers.

In my opinion, this is what it’s all about. Advertising is a vital function to marketing, but its basic intent is to sell product. The space is too limited to impart meaningful information that can change—or save—someone’s life. True public education and awareness requires sustained public relations programs whose intent is to educate first, sell product second. One begets the other, but that’s a difficult thing for some clients to understand. Hence, only the most well funded programs stand a chance in making a maximum impact, because the unfortunate reality is that most people need to be hit over the head repeatedly before good common sense information hits home.

As a college student on the fast track to a career in journalism, I was drawn to the field by the knowledge that others would read what I wrote, and quite possibly enjoy and learn something. It was my opportunity to educate the masses, while ensuring that I’d be “in the know” versus everyone else.

When I decided the field of public relations was more to my liking, I reveled in the fact that the programs I developed would still educate countless others. I share to this sentiment to this day.

All of our public education initiatives start out with one basic premise no matter the topic: To empower consumers with the information they need to trust their “gut instincts” and ask the right questions of their healthcare provider. When something feels wrong, it usually is. If you have taken the time to learn about your health, then you’re in a better position to receive better care and relief.

A noble as that may seem, it’s an uphill battle. But, I’d rather go slowly uphill with the knowledge that this agency’s hard work and insights just might help someone, then coast downhill knowing otherwise.

My How L1N9U1ST1x Has Evolved - 08/30/07

For those of us who don’t speak EliteSpeak or “Leetspeak,” as it is known, the title of this article simply states “my how linguistics has evolved.”

According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, what started as the simple LOLs, ROFLMAOs, and benign smiley face tags once relegated to the esoteric world of email, online geekdom, and gaming has finally permeated the way society speaks. And, it would appear that the English language as we know it is getting “pwned, puh-owned, pund or pwoned,” which is Leetspeak derivatives for the word owned.

One can almost imagine the mayhem this lingo might wreak in the corporate world. Tonality and emotion is already pretty much impossible to convey adequately in many emails, but now it seems we might run into words we don’t even visually understand. Worse still, even among “leetspeakers” there’s generally little agreement in how these new words are spelled and pronounced.

Will the press release of tomorrow be adapted for leetspeaking blogs, social networks, and publications? It’s most likely only a matter of time before the big agencies pounce on the issue by incorporating Leetspeaking divisions and spinoff companies a la the first go round of the online goldrush.

As a writer and regular media observer, I find such developments fascinating. A decade ago, when online gaming was just coming of age and I had far fewer responsibilities, I was quite the Leetspeaking pioneer it seems. While it didn’t yet have a name, I was a master at learning the keyboard shortcuts such as LOL, AFK (away from keyboard), BRB (be right back), etc. They were welcome and convenient shortcuts that quickly and effectively communicated your position to your online friends.

However, those days are gone and when thinking about the future of the English language, I’m left with the sort of nostalgic feeling one gets when viewing photos of long-ago sporting events. You know, the ones with the well-dressed fans of a bygone era that behaved themselves? Even though, most were average citizens, the excitement of the game brought out Sunday best outfits and conveyed an image about society’s level of class, sophistication, and respect for the game.

Communication is an evolving thing. But, it seems to me that we need to be careful when new forms of online communication cross over into everyday interactions. We don’t want our beloved English language to become the Rodney Dangerfield—“I don’t get no respect!”—of the linguistics world.

Leetspeak certainly has its place in online social settings, but it would be a mistake for a young employee to call work and say “BTW, I’m AFK at the doctor and will BRB with a doctor’s note.”

IMHO, that employee would be pwned! Translation: In my humble opinion, that employee would be fired!

CUL8R!

Methinks Americans Doth Protest Too Much! - 08/06/07

Let me get right to the point. Sean Penn, the actor, is NOT a journalist as he has proclaimed himself. He is another deluded, self-important Hollywood celeb who believes he has a higher purpose when in fact he does not. Here is a newsflash for Penn—you are and will always be surfer dude Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemount High.

You may assume other monikers if you like; however, you are an actor and that is all.

Once again, Penn who has already paid social visits to Iran’s president had his mug plastered all over the media this week during another visit to Venezuela under the direct invite of Enemy of the U.S. Hugo Chavez.

As someone who works hard to get my clients media attention, I find this reprehensible. It’s wasteful news filler that amounts to nothing more than a curiosity. Yet, the American public eats it up. Although, most will never admit it, they consume celebrity nonsense like M&Ms.

However, in a classic projection of the “it’s not me, it’s them” mentality that plagues people who refuse to be held accountable, survey data released Friday by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press show 87 percent of Americans blame the media for the saturation of celebrity coverage on TV.

Only 10 percent of respondents were honest—“8 percent think the media get the balance between celebrity and serious news right, while 2 percent told the surveyors that there wasn't enough celebrity scandal coverage.”

Let’s be honest, if only 10 percent of population preferred “celebrity” news to “real” news, than the networks would be providing real news versus celebrity pap.

The abundance of celebrity news is driven by several factors: 1) people are inherently interested in how the rich and famous live, because it’s a break from their own lives, 2) typically celebrity news is outlandish and involves a deliciously alluring scandal, and 3) print and broadcast news outlets must give the people what they want or else their ratings and circulation figures will plummet into the ether.

The infatuation with celebrity news escapes me, but that could be due to a personal perspective that views many celebrities as repulsive, narcissistic blowhards who unfortunately have a worldwide megaphone to spew utter, special-interest driven, hypocritical, mindless drivel. Politics aside, how many times have we heard a celebrity (e.g., think Leonardo DiCaprio) cast stones at America’s wanton abuse of, and reliance on, our ever-dwindling natural resources while driving their Toyota Prius. Afterward, the inevitable follow up will recount how said celebrity left the venue in a private jumbo jet to accommodate only a few passengers. At least John Travolta, with his fleet of supersized commercial aircraft used for personal pleasure, doesn’t deny that he’s a gas hog.

Or, how about celebrities such as Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte who, like Penn, recently traveled to Venezuela to hold anti-President Bush press junkets with Chavez . Chavez claims to be a democratic socialist, yet his actions are more akin to a totalitarian tyrant. Think Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq. The irony is that Chavez loves to be on the worldwide media circuit, yet is notorious for heavily censuring independent press in his own country.

Or how about Angelina Jolie’s recent media gaffe during the promotion of the movie A Mighty Heart where she plays the role of Marianne Pearl, wife of slain journalist Daniel Pearl. In a stunning example of Jolie’s hubris that speaks against everything the nation’s media stand for, she demanded every member of the media sign a release form setting conditions for their interview. Luckily, Fox Network had the fortitude to refuse signature and instead called her on the carpet, eventually causing a nationwide brouhaha that forced Jolie to apologize to the media.

These are but several of the more offensive examples of celebrities taking up valuable news space. I won’t waste my column discussing the tiresome dawdlings of other celebs whose actions are more gossip fodder than news.

The point, and the one I make often in this column, is that there is a finite number of spaces for news. It’s a shame that so many of those coveted news holes are filled with useless celebrity headlines instead of news that can truly enhance someone’s knowledge base.

We simply can’t blame the messenger, in this instance, the media, for our nation’s predilection for celebrity news. They will serve us what sells.

Perhaps, I doth protest too much, but I don’t think so…

War On Obesity: Friends & Family Become Collateral Damage - 07/26/07

Stop the presses! Harvard researcher, Dr. Nicholas Christakis, has found out that people are at greater risk for obesity if they have obese people in their social network.

What’s more amazing is that the data was printed in the vaunted New England Journal of Medicine. In fact, a quick scan of Google News yields 552 articles on this study in every major news outlet across the country.

As I read this, I experienced shock first, awe second. Not because it was any type of revelation, but rather because I do not understand how something this basic gets nationwide media attention. I’ll admit the story has some strong inherent news hooks such as: 1) a Harvard researcher lead the study, 2) the New England Journal of Medicine published the study, 3) Obesity is a nationwide issue, and 4) the data comes from a review of the famous large-scale Framingham Heart Study. However, none of these virtues helps make the conclusion any more logical or newsworthy to me. Let’s take a closer look.

The 32-year study included 12,067 people and found a 57% increase in the obesity risk if a person had a friend who became obese. If that person was your sibling, then your chance for obesity increases to 40%. According to the data, same gender friends or siblings have the most risk at 71%.

According to Dr. Christakis, "people might say, 'Look, Christakis is getting fat. It's okay for me to be obese as well."

Seems to me like a very complicated way of saying nothing more than “when in Rome, do as the Romans do!” Worse still, it smacks of a pseudoscientific justification for rationalizing why people gain weight.

"It's become very fashionable to speak of an obesity epidemic," says Dr. Christakis. "But we wondered, in fact, is obesity really an epidemic, with person to person transmission? Was there a kind of social contagion?"

Dr. Christakis further believes that weight gain is possible even if individuals are separated by thousands of miles, which means “social proximity overrides geographic proximity.”

Wonderful….So, now I have to worry about what all my close contacts on Facebook.com, YouTube.com, LinkedIn.com, and other online social networks are eating, because I might become “inoculated” with the obesity virus.

Does anyone smell what I smell?

Here’s what this study data really means: Americans now have yet another way to shirk personal responsibility at the expense of an all-too-often maligned group—the obese. How convenient. The best part is that these individuals now have a scientific study to use for shifting the responsibility to others. I can hear it now, “I just knew I gained weight because she keeps eating,” and “Let’s kick him out of our circle, because he’s causing me to gain too much weight!”

I guess the media has never heard similar conclusions when applied to drug use, illicit activities, eating disorders, the Freshman 15, or the baby weight that fathers gain during a woman’s pregnancy.

Here’s some newsflashes worth reporting. For every action, there is a reaction…If you have poor eating habits and don’t exercise, you will gain weight. No one can make you do something you don’t want to do, unless you allow it. If you’re eating a supersized meal, don’t look further than the mirror to find the culprit if you’re unhappy about weight gain.

I wish I could explain to editors and producers that just because a study comes out in an impressive journal or includes a large population or some other impressive criteria, doesn’t make it newsworthy.

It seems our media is in need of a diet to help cut back on the hype and serve up real news to foster accountability versus convenient scapegoats for what we don't like about ourselves.

Big Media Focus On Small Town USA For Growth - 06/25/07

Traditionally, trying to get local news coverage in a national medium has been about as difficult as attempting to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a dinghy.

However, in a surprising and encouraging development, CNN has struck a deal with Internet Broadcasting that provides the national cable network with local news stories from 70 TV stations. CNN will also reciprocate its content with the local stations. Surfers will be seamlessly able to move back and forth between national, international and local news.

The swap is intended create more web traffic for all parties, which will result in higher advertising revenue. Apparently, the market for local ads online has outpaced that of the overall online ad sales environment.

While some say CNN should stick to its roots and not dilute its reputation for national news by allowing local news, it would seem to me more beneficial to the network. CNN will now be a virtual one-stop-shop for news hounds seeking headlines, whether it’s the local school board elections or the war in Iraq.

The affiliation also opens up a wider news hole for companies that have strong local news, but have failed to capture national media due to the geographically limited nature of the story. While, no guarantee exists that others will find it on CNN.com, at least the potential is there

With more and more news holes closing up due to large buyouts, layoffs and takeovers, I’m glad to see one promising example of teamwork develop among new and traditional mediums.

Sometimes thinking on a smaller scale is the best way to begin dreaming on a big scale.

Broadcast Media See, Broadcast Media Do - 06/04/07

Former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw, who helped build the network into a premiere cable news source, recently criticized today’s broadcast media, charging that they too often “ape” the styles of prominent television pundits versus reporting balanced facts.

Shaw lamented the fact that unlike in his day, when journalists reported only the news and allowed the viewers to make up their own minds, broadcast news today relies on hosts who use their own personal opinion and celebrity to shape audience thought.

"When anchors are reporting the news, they should report the news and allow the viewers at home to decide what they think about issues,” Shaw said. "I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything. Just report the news.”

While Shaw considers himself to be "old fashioned," I think he’s dead on. As a media professional, I would like to see a resurgence of that traditional reporting style. I find the trend toward pundits most disturbing when it comes to reporting political news. It’s a well-known fact that if you want conservative news, you tune to Fox. If you want liberal viewpoints, you turn to essentially every other network. It’s easy to find sources for what you want to hear, but if you truly are to understand an issue, you need to consult various sources. And, that may require watching another network to balance out the news you are exposed to.

I posit that the reasons for the morph are fairly straightforward:

1) The American public has become so busy trying to navigate everyday life that the luxury of time to develop one’s own opinion about news has been relegated to exactly that—a luxury that many feel they do not have

2) Americans have become so saturated by the thousands of neverending messages targeted to us through ever-increasing types of mediums that we simply can’t process everything. So, we take snippets of what matters to us most and absorb those

3) News programmers and on-air anchors will do what gets the most ratings—even if that means sacrificing a balanced viewpoint for the sake of airing a pundit’s personal opinions about news events. They are only providing what the consumer wants

The end result is an aggregate of at-home-viewers who function like both waterbugs and lemmings; Waterbugs, because they don’t take the time, or have the time, to explore all sides of an issue before forming an opinion, and lemmings, because they gravitate en masse to those news outlets that distill the news in the small, easily absorbed sound bites they prefer most.

By and large, the current media landscape doesn’t impact my strategy for executing a typical project. However, as a media professional I need to be familiar with all of the nuances associated with various media outlets so that I can provide the best guidance for the type of news my client has.

For instance, I definitely become more selective in targeting media when communicating about business news or issue management, because a conservative outlet is more likely to interested in a company perspective.

So, if I follow Shaw’s reasoning, while the broadcast media is busy monkeying around, my job is to help clients select the best vines to swing on in order to communicate their messages through the circuitous media jungle.

Traditional Media: News Of Our Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated - 05/14/07

If one were to listen to three of the Heads of State for News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, and Comcast Corp, during the recent 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference one might believe that the New Media revolution that is currently laying siege to traditional media advertising budgets was a mere annoyance.

In fact, Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons asserted that new media goliaths such as Google and YouTube represented about as much competition as General Custer was to the mighty Sioux Nation. Through all of the blustery rhetoric, it seems to me that if we are using Wild West metaphors to discuss the impact of the Internet on the media world, then Mr. Parson’s would do well to remember what eventually became of the Sioux Nation. In those days, rifles, alcohol, and sickness were the new mediums that helped dismantle the Sioux. These days, the settlers are New Media and they bring v-logs, blogs, and user-generated content to effectively lure consumers away from legacy media.

Tough talk aside, I completely understand traditional media’s frustration at new media’s penchant for piracy and copyright infringement. The net is a virtual smorgasbord of unauthorized content waiting to be explored at the expense of the “Old media.”

Compounding the issue is that Old media already has extremely lucrative content-sharing deals in place with national cable conglomerates. How then, do they justify the disparity resulting from their inability to stem the flow of pirated content to cable executives who are paying handsomely for the same privilege?

It seems to me that in the end, these challenges will be handled like everything else in business with a series of mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers. The big media fish will decide they can’t fully compete—or bully for that matter—the smaller more fleet-footed media fish, so they will simply buy the technology.

Evidence of this Pacman mentality can be found in every aspect of business today—financial, media, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and even in the public relations and advertising sector. If you find you can’t beat ‘em, buy ‘em, right?

I don’t necessarily subscribe to that theory, because it’s a basic law of physics that what is small, cannot be made big without irrevocably altering the original structure. And, isn’t it the original entity that was so much sought after? It’s a paradox to say the least.

In the integrated communications sector, small firms are gobbled up all the time by global holding companies under the premise that the charm and expertise of the small company is still intact; it just has more resources to work with as a part of the larger organization.

My hope is that the Internet doesn’t eventually become dominated by only the handful of media behemoths with the wallets large enough to make cyberspace feel “small” again by purchasing the entrepreneurial upstarts. Can you say monopoly, pardners?

Clear Channel Radio’s New Ad Format Not So Clear - 04/30/07

In today’s media environment where subscription and viewership rates in traditional mediums like magazines, newspapers, and television stations are plummeting faster than a politician’s approval ratings, advertisers are seeking innovative ways to reach out to consumers with their messages.

It appears that Dallas classic-rock radio station KZPS, owned by Clear Channel, has implemented a new strategy aimed at enhancing ad message delivery. They are banishing traditional 30-second and 60-second spots in favor of impromptu on-air brand mentions that the host will weave into regular programming.

For instance, after “spinning Stevie Ray Vaughan's (song) ‘Crossfire,’ (the on-air host) might note Mr. Vaughan's fondness for his Fender Stratocaster and tell listeners to stop by Guitar Center to check out the latest models.”

Apparently, the move is part of Clear Channel's "Less Is More" initiative, which is aimed at attracting listeners by cutting ad time—a move clearly brought about by pressure from commercial-free satellite radio.

Naturally, advertisers have been reticent about this new direction, but some heavy hitters have signed on.

However, I truly wonder how effective that strategy will be. For starters, the most effective ads are those that capture the imagination or create a sense of urgency to own the product. Millions of dollars go into researching and developing the precise message and I’m not sure clients and most certainly agencies will want those messages diluted to a flip reference in between songs.

Next, the on-air hosts at most radio stations have almost no influential profile; because they are relegated to playing music and subsequently don’t generate a rapport with the audience. Their only time to communicate meaningfully with the listeners is the few seconds before the next ad or song, and those comments are typically flip in nature. The exceptions to the rule would be talk show icons like Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and the now off-air Imus. Their shows are well documented in the ability to move the needle in product sales. But, they are not the ones dropping the mention, so the power of suggestion by an influential person—itself a strong motivator for driving purchase intent—is lost.

Third, I believe there has to be tight controls around how the station and its clients allow the message to be delivered. By leaving it up to the on-air personality, it seems there’s a lot of margin for error to both misrepresent the brand as well as give off the appearance of misleading or being disingenuous with your audience by hiding an ad within a comment. People want to know how and when they’re being marketed to so they don’t feel put upon or otherwise alienated.

In the uncertain and dynamic media climate that we have today, it makes sense that companies will search for better ways to communicate with audiences, while increasing revenue. But, for partnering with third-party spokespeople to maximize the power of suggestion in a forthright and credible way, my money’s still on public relations.

Issue Management 101: Preparing For All Contingencies - 04/17/07

It is not the purpose of this column to play the role of Monday Morning Quarterback and I would not presume to have answers for the inexplicable and random violence that occurred on Virginia Tech’s campus this past week.

However, certain facts have come to light that reinforce the practicality of adhering to an issue and crisis management plan that lays out a blueprint for dealing with almost any contingency. This applies to any institution or organization in any industry.

From all viewpoints, it appears both the Virginia Tech university administration and the police department were ill prepared for dealing with a crisis the likes of which just unfolded. One could argue that it’s difficult to prepare a strategy for dealing with the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. But, it’s also hard to refute that had the decision been made to shut the campus after the initial shootings of two people, 31 more lives would have been spared, because the shooter took a 2-hour hiatus before his second on-campus rampage.

The challenge stems from the fact that in general people are good beings and are optimistic about the future, which prevents them from thinking the unthinkable can be possible. If it won’t occur, there’s no sense planning for it, which is why all too often, I’ll hear a new client say, “Oh, we don’t have any issues so let’s put off the development costs of any plan.”

What I’ll always respond with is “yet.” Any product, even water, eventually has issues. Mix in manufacturing problems, disgruntled employees or consumers, federal, state, and local laws, lawyers, political activists, environmentalists, product failure, misuse or abuse, or even natural disasters, and the possible combinations for a catastrophic meltdown become limitless. And, as the old saying goes, a stitch in time saves nine.

The most innovative crisis planning I've ever come across occurred immediately following 9/11 when the government convened with Hollywood directors to brainstorm possible methods of future terrorist attack. At the time, many people thought it was strange overkill. But, as a student of issue management, I saw it as an ideal and creative way of planning for the worst. If you can think it, you should plan for it, no matter how far fetched the notion seems.

Issue and crisis management is a dynamic process. Once the manual is completed, it should not be filed away and remain static or worse, forgotten. The manual, contact list, and process for dealing with an issue or crisis should be re-examined on an annual basis minimally. The strategy should layout the precise lines of communication between designated representatives in the various departments within the organization, so that when something occurs, it is immediately elevated to the appropriate people and the proper decisions can be evaluated and executed.

Crises involve two ingredients—emotion and chaos—that are not conducive to a quick and reasonable thought, much less action. The issue and crisis manual should eliminate as much guesswork as possible prior to an unfortunate event. Lastly, periodic war games should be executed to simulate various crisis situations (from bad to worse) and re-evaluate the action steps necessary to manage them.

By keeping everyone’s skills and thought processes sharp, an organization can best manage an issue or crisis from a proactive stance when, not if, it occurs.

As Media Landscape Grows, Some Doors Close, Others Open - 04/02/07

There are not many natural home runs when it comes to media relations anymore. In the past decade, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain the mass quantities of clips and videos that clients—and agencies—covet.

Challenging, yes, impossible, far from it…. Planning becomes paramount in crafting the news-oriented messages that will speak to reporters versus those that solely exist to sell more products to consumers. In my opinion, one begets the other.

Since the 1990s, declining print readership and a changing broadcast environment forced savvy media professionals to consider the Internet as a much more viable target for spending valuable budget. The progression is not dissimilar to the evolution of man. First we preferred the safety of dragging our knuckles while walking on the ground, but over the course of millions of years, humans realized we could type much better by walking upright! Ok, that last part is a stretch…. Back to the Internet….

First, communications professionals looked at it skeptically, but fantasized about its raw communication potential.

In the mid-to-late 1990s, some agencies dabbled in the development of client and cause-related websites, which quickly morphed into mega-revenue producing spinoffs for companies shrewd enough to become a technology “have” versus the “have nots” who were yet to adapt to website development.

Fast-forward several years to blogging and we witnessed the meteoric rise of a medium that is not unlike the Wild West—almost impossible to tame, and the targeted communication equivalent of herding cats. Communication professionals could no longer ignore the allure blogs had for consumers and reporters who appreciated the real-time ability to express themselves to the world using only their computer. Thankfully, technology, such as the blog search engine technorati.com, has caught up to the phenomenon making it easier to identify and target blogs that share commonalities with our clients’ needs. However, a downside to blogging for commercial purposes is that the content needs to be updated on a regular basis for the site to have any credibility or interest.

That’s a big commitment for agencies and their clients. And, it’s the reason our clients have avoided investing too much public relations budget into this area.

However, I believe that is about to change with the influx of innovations such as podcasting and video logging (aka v-logs). The reasons are simple: these mediums allow asynchronous, stand-alone vehicles that communicate specific messages to be uploaded to a growing list of popular destinations such as YouTube.com, Google Video, I-Tunes, or the client’s own website. Perhaps, the greatest incentive will be the control that these elements offer. Clients will have an outlet for telling “their” stories directly to consumers without having to first interest an editor or producer to carry the news. This immediate satisfaction is critical, especially when dealing with issue and crisis management-related topics where fair balance becomes paramount in understanding the entire situation.

As our agency contemplates and adapts to the future of public relations, it is encouraging that where some traditional media doors seem to be closing, other new media doors are opening. More important, our understanding about how to maximize these mediums is growing, which can only benefit our clients.

Media Training 101: When In Rome, Do As Romans Do, Don’t Mimic Their Dialect - 03/19/07

As a rule, I try to keep this column devoid of political rants, because it’s about education, not my political viewpoints.

However, as we approach the run up to the 2008 Presidential race, there will no doubt be copious public relations debacles and issue management case studies committed by all parties for me to highlight and expound upon the virtues of sound and proper communications strategies.

Senator Hillary Clinton fired one of the first missiles—or misses— recently during her speech at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama. Senator Clinton incorporated the words of Reverend James Cleveland's (1932-1991) historical freedom hymn, which in and of itself would be acceptable.

However, in what was either a misguided effort at being a good storyteller or a weak attempt to ingratiate herself to the mostly African-American southern attendees at the service, she committed a media relations blunder by reading the following passage in the most affected, and obviously phony southern drawl:

"I don't feel no ways tired/I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy/I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me," she read aloud.

Some detractors are already trying to portray the act as a slight against the Southern Black Vote, which she is not expected to win. I don’t believe that for one moment, although her opposition will spin it that way. I believe this is the result of poor guidance and an overzealous attempt to relate to an audience that she was not prepared to speak to.

When addressing an audience that may not look like you or think like you, it is best to learn what is important to them and deliver it in a way that will make sense. For instance, research commonly used terms and phrases the audience is accustomed to hearing and wrap your points around those. Do not try to hard to relate, because you quickly get onto slippery slopes a la Senator Clinton. Be yourself and the audience will hear you.

Ironically, the same day this story broke, I was counseling a friend of mine on the best way to communicate the benefits of proper nutrition and exercise to a conference attended by police officers. He doesn’t regularly interact with officers and like most people, has no basis for practical understanding of what it takes physically and mentally to do the job.

First, we looked for common ground so that he would establish immediate respect among this group. We discussed the fact that his father was the chief of police in the town where he grew up and that he suffered from the common strains and pressures of being an officer. We decided to introduce that as the reason he was at the conference and to convey his sense of personal obligation to help educate police officers about staying healthy.

Next, we worked on his presentation. The content was fantastic and laid out the basic concepts of exercise and nutrition in a way that has a broad range of appeal to a variety of audiences. But, the best way to motivate the audience and really draw them in to affect attitude and behavioral change is to relate the topics directly to their field of experience.

So, we reviewed the information and selected “buckets” of similar concepts that would make sense to an officer such as maintaining proper breathing techniques for added endurance in apprehending a fleeing suspect or achieving a controlled meditative breathing pattern to help eliminate the job stress officers so often suffer.

By the end of the conversation, he was doing and speaking as the Romans would, but in his own speech patterns, not some affected dialect he thinks might appeal to his audience. More important, his confidence rose once he felt more prepared to speak on the same level as his audience.

Issue Management 101: Don’t Say Or Do Anything You Might Regret - 03/05/07

Two situations arose in the global political landscape this past week that I thought would make an interesting coffee break, because they deal with similar situations that were dealt with in completely different ways. The result in the media is worth discussing.

Last Friday, news broke about a thesis penned in 1969 by Hillary Clinton, while she served as—of all things—the president of the College Republicans at Wellesley College. Apparently, the political science honors report, an expose about radical community organizer-of-the-day Saul D. Alinsky, was deemed by the Clintons to be a political liability. As such, they requested it be hidden from public view in 1993, which Wellesley granted. To this day, it remains the only senior thesis of any Wellesley graduate to receive such treatment. All others were made public.

To my befuddlement, the document has long been deemed the “Holy Grail” for anyone seeking to discredit Senator Clinton or paint her as a politician with Marxist or Socialist views and a penchant for aggressively attacking opponents in the Alinsky style.
The Clinton’s only propagated these sentiments by seeking to repress what in my mind was little more than the scholarly ruminations of a young college student who needed an interesting subject for her thesis.

By attaching exaggerated importance to this 40-year-old document, rather than providing a simple acknowledgement and explanation, the Clinton’s might well have done irreparable damage to Senator Clinton’s 2008 run for the U.S. Presidency more than four decades after the fact. Pundits are already predicting the thesis will wind up being used against her in another “swiftboat” style ad campaign.

Similar Situation, Different Strategy…

That same day, a photograph dated to the 1970s emerged featuring a rebellious Oxford University student posing while making a vulgar gesture for posterity. Unfortunately for him, that twenty something college prankster grew up to become Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Over the years, the photo was redacted to exclude the gesture, but the original finally came out. However, rather than offer some poor excuse or attempt to place blame elsewhere, Mr. Blair said of the picture, “that I wouldn't mind if I never saw (it) again….I must have thought I looked cool at the time but I have to admit that's not necessarily how it looks 30 years later."

Short…honest…to the point…No big deal in the Court of Public Opinion. Mr. Blair acknowledged his error, took responsibility, and didn’t blow its importance out of proportion. As a result, it won’t be a lasting negative stain on his image.

Two similar scenarios, two different outcomes….

It seems to me that there are three basic tenets of issue management that can help a company or individual avoid running afoul of those entities with the motivation to exploit the action or words for their own gain and at your expense.

First, resolve to communicate the truth in an open way to prevent the unnecessary and distracting need to remember a fabrication or cover up down the road.

Second, and equally as important, avoid doing any action that has the slightest potential to cause regret or embarrassment down the road.

Third, if you commit either of the above transgressions, own up to it and be truthful about why or how it occurred. Nothing spells “guilty” in the Court of Public Opinion faster than perceptions of mistruths or cover ups—no matter how benign they may be. It’s better to tell your own story, than to have someone else attempt to tell it for you.

People have long memories and the Internet guarantees that on a grand scale anything a public figure or organization does will live on in perpetuity--or infamy as the case may be.

Integrated Marketing 101: Public Relations & Advertising Sibling Rivalry - 02/12/07

Spend time speaking with a group of public relations practitioners about their pet peeves and you will not have to wait long before someone laments the fact that marketers tend to value advertising much more than public relations.

On the surface, the idea does seem to have merit. One need look no further than the variations in budget spending that clients will devote to each function—a mid-sized consumer product advertising budget typically falls in the tens of millions of dollars versus tens of thousands of dollars for public relations. When I first entered the profession, it was somewhat “off putting” to listen to a brand manager’s seemingly endless fervor over an ad campaign, while our creative briefs seemed to fly under the radar.

But, before we collectively scream “I don’t get no respect,” and unceremoniously dub public relations as the Rodney Dangerfield of the marketing world, let’s take a closer look at the root cause of the challenges we face.

Brand managers learn about the powers of advertising early on in MBA programs, while many marketers have little contact with a public relations agency until they land their first job—and maybe later than that!

By its nature, advertising is flashy and represents the brand on the front lines of consumerism; a public relations program usually operates like Windows XP on your computer desktop. You know it is there, but it is easy to take all of its benefits for granted. Unless, of course, something goes wrong!

More often than not, I find that a lack of understanding about “what” public relations is and what it can offer prevents seamless integration into the marketing function as an equal partner to advertising.

Public relations and advertising are two communication disciplines that fall under the integrated marketing communications umbrella. Each is effective by itself, but consumer pull through is greatest when both are used in combination. Ideally, the same key message points are used across all modes of communication. However, both functions are fundamentally different. Following is a basic explanation:

Advertising
1) Advertising space is purchased. Once the ad is developed and approved, a media buyer purchases space through the media outlet’s (television, radio, print) sales department. Cost is based on a variety of factors including market rank, audience reach, time of day the ad runs, etc. Media outlets use industry standard ratings services such as Nielsen (television) and Arbitron (radio) to set fees. The higher the reach, the higher the cost for advertising.

2) Advertising impressions are predictable. Because ad space is purchased, and the cost is based on a set of predetermined factors including reach, marketers can accurately gauge the impressions of the campaign before it starts.

3) Advertising messages are controllable. Because the company is paying for the placement, it has full control of the message as long as the language is not in violation of regulations set forth by federal regulatory agencies such as the Food & Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission.

4) Advertising is recognizable. In general, consumers can recognize advertisements and realize they represent subjective messages based on the advertiser’s desire to sell more product.

Public Relations
1) Public relations coverage is free. This statement is a bit misleading. The company pays the agency a fee to develop and distribute press materials, but there is no financial arrangement between the agency and the media outlet. A story is used if a reporter deems it interesting to his or her audience.

2) Public relations is not as predictable. Because placements are not purchased, public relations is much less predictable than advertising. The media outlet is under no obligation to use them. Professionals must rely on instinct and experience to determine if the story idea has potential.

Top journalists receive hundreds of pitch calls each day and must select which ones they will pursue. Professionals must have strong writing and pitching skills to help their story stand out from the rest. However, reporters are generally very receptive to solid news leads. Surveys by industry organizations indicate that reporters obtain approximately 50 percent of all news leads through public relations professionals.

3) Public relations messages are not controllable once disseminated. Once a reporter’s interest has been piqued, the reporter is under no obligation to write the story as it was pitched. He or she may opt to write the story using a different angle or may weave your message into an article on a different topic.

At times, a writer may take a negative stance on the company or its product. In these instances, the company and agency must act swiftly to assess the situation and, if necessary, attempt to add fair balance to future coverage.

4) Public relations is not always blatantly obvious.
One of the function’s greatest assets is that it is not an overt advertisement and therefore enjoys an inherent objective quality that better lends itself to education about a product and/or service. When a journalist decides to take a pitch and develop it into a larger story, it usually will involve many elements obtained outside of the company’s message. This lends an objective quality to the piece and allows the reader/viewer to draw a conclusion while also being exposed to brand messaging. The message is even stronger when delivered by a credible third-party spokesperson who can stand behind the company message, because consumers tend to place much more value on the source of the information.

Ultimately, there is no epic battle between advertising and public relations. Both functions need to operate together to help the client achieve its business goals. However, before we can educate the consumer, we need to educate the client about how our services will align with other partner communications to positively affect the bottom line.

Forced “Creativity” Often Mimics Stupidity - 01/31/07

In what will surely be remembered as one of—if not the—biggest media faux paixs of this century, Turner Broadcasting today apologized for a guerrilla-marketing ploy that turned into a perceived national security threat.

The campaign erupted in Boston this morning when the first of more than 10 blinking electronic devices planted at bridges and other spots was discovered. At least some of the packages featured a cartoon character flipping spectators the “bird.” After a daylong scare punctuated by detonation of at least one package by the bomb squad, it was learned that the city fell victim to a senseless prank. I’m not even going to waste the space disclosing what cartoon The Cartoon Network, owned by Turner Broadcasting, was being hyped by the hoax.

As the owner of a successful communications agency, it baffles my mind that something this ludicrous and misguided could enter the realm of cognition in a post-911 world, let alone get funding and legal consent from the client. One can only expect that Ted Turner is currently in the throws of an apoplectic fit, laying waste to every department and agency representative that touched this campaign. I know I would be.

And, if those misguided individuals at Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc., its agency responsible for launching this ridiculous debacle, believed the adage that any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right, then they will be tickled to know that they landed smack dab on the radars of police departments, fire departments, politicians, U.S. Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and port authorities in nine other cities outside of Boston: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

"The packages in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner said in a statement several hours after the story broke. What they should have continued to say is “except to us,” because they are in for it. I predict many criminal indictments and massive fines are in the offing. And, I wouldn’t feel too comfortable if I owned the agency either. Turner Broadcasting has since informed the remaining cities, but too little too late. The damage is done and it’s irrevocable.

This is the direct result—albeit an extreme one—of the marketing function suffering a catastrophic failure from the top down in its attempt to differentiate and pull off edgier programming. Over the past several years, many brand managers have become enamored with the burgeoning niche of “buzz” marketing at the expense of proven, more mainstream activities. These agencies adopt trendy names and promise a different level of creativity and avenues for obtaining attention. It’s the logical extension of the “thinking out of the box” craze that plagued the 1990s.

Apparently, they have their place, but the problem with extreme creativity is that it has to be based on the gravity of reality and harnessed to produce viable results that matter—not budget-burning buffoonery. All too often, creative individuals are set loose on ideas that are not only impossible, but become fantastically expensive exercises in futility that never materialize for the client.

It is inconceivable to think that the Turner team didn’t come forward to address the need to inform the proper city authorities. I believe they knew they would have received a firm rejection in every target location. Rather than sacrifice the idea, they compromised common sense and committed career suicide by falling on their sword. That error by omission will cause them to pay a hefty price indeed.

I don’t subscribe to edgy. For me, edgy campaigns are tantamount to the overpaid homerun hitter in baseball who blasts it out of the park every now and again. He can be exciting to watch, but most often he just strikes out at the plate.

I prefer programming that relies on a solid infrastructure of due diligence, common sense, and hard work to win the game. Sort of like New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter; he never misses a game, understands the show, has an impeccable work ethic, and has enough expertise and talent to help the team consistently win.

Sometimes it’s easy to overlook the genius of a common base hit versus an impressive home run. But, if you look at the stats over a season, base hits win infinitely more games, than all of the homers combined.

It’s All Good—Relatively Speaking - 01/22/07

In pop culture, the term “it’s all good” is used millions of times daily by those wishing to let others know a variety of things including “I don’t mind,” “no harm done”, and “things are going well.” It’s a newer term compared to when we simply used the word “good” to reflect the same sentiments.

However, as we sidle painfully through another anemic cold and flu season across the nation, I was reminded of the ironic double entendre that the word “good” represents.

At a function the other day, a family member excitedly proclaimed, “this is a good cold season. I’ve not been sick yet!” The consumer side of me agreed, relieved that I have had only one bout with the insidious common cold virus, while the professional side whose job it is to help sell cold, cough, and flu remedies was far less enthused. For pharmaceutical companies with cold/flu products as well as the companies, like mine, that work for them, this has hardly been a “good” cold season.

The latest flu data posted by the Centers for Disease Control on its weekly Flu Tracker map shows only minor activity with three states in the “widespread” flu category. And, while I certainly don’t wish misery and pestilence on those familiar faces I know and care for—including my own—it sure would help matters if that anonymous entity “they” we always hear about would have the decency to collectively sniffle.

When illness levels are low, demand for symptom relief and remedies is also low. This creates a trickle down environment in which clients suffer, budgets suffer and agencies suffer, because there’s less money to do things. In the media business, less sickness results in less journalist interest in reporting about the products used to treat the condition.

Times like these require creativity. And, we are adjusting our media strategy to focus on the local and regional levels where outbreaks are occurring versus the national reporters who cover larger issues affecting larger numbers of people.

The cold and flu season extends through March, so there’s still time for an uptick in activity; however, I find the current paucity of sickness baffling, particularly when you consider the widespread lack of handwashing that goes on.

All is definitely “not good” on the personal hygiene front, but that’s an editorial for another day.

Remembering One Of The Good Ones - 01/08/07

This week, one of the unexplained mysteries that long stuck with me during my career came to a shocking and sad ending.

Several years ago, a colleague and long-time associate of the agency called me on the phone requesting we visit Kentucky to meet with his new team at a vision correction company. Tom had just left Songbird Hearing where we helped him launch the world's first disposable hearing aid and I was happy to hear that he wanted to extend our relationship--again. Prior to working for Songbird, our agency had worked with Tom since the late-80s when we helped launch the world's first disposable contact lens for Johnson & Johnson.

My personal relationship with Tom began when I was charged with managing Songbird's launch early on in my career. When others might have questioned my experience or counsel, Tom provided me with his full support and a dignified seat at the table with veteran senior management during planning meetings. I learned...I performed...I thrived.

So, when we met with him in Kentucky, it was business as usual. He was positive and the meeting went well. A few days later I was in a meeting when my cell phone rang. It was Tom saying that he liked our proposal and was giving us the account. He suggested calling him the following week to hash through the specifics. I thanked him and said I looked forward to the call. That was the last time I spoke with Tom.

Over the following weeks and months, I repeatedly phoned and emailed Tom leaving messages for him. I even called the company asking if he was still there, but all they would say is "yes" and that I should leave him more messages. Finally, I gave up, but I always wondered what happened to cut the relationship short.

From time to time, I'd search Google for any sign of what Tom was up to in hopes of re-connecting with him. Yesterday, I came across his obituary. Unfortunately, Tom lost his 15-month battle with a malignant brain tumor and passed away in 2004 at the age of 54. I finally had my answer. We lost contact around the time he contracted the illness.

Tom was a sharp marketer, hard worker, excellent golfer, fair client, and more important an all around great guy. He was one of the "good" ones in this industry who didn't put personal gain ahead of the team. Tom packed a lot of accomplishments into his career that should have culminated with a long retirement spent with his family and on the golf course. I learned a lot from Tom and am glad to have worked with such a quality person.

News such as this always has a sobering effect on your perspective. I lament the fact that all too soon I'll be back to the hustle and bustle of reality, where such thoughts are relegated to the subconscious. But, right now, I'm thankful to Tom for imparting one last lesson to me. And, that's being thankful for the "right now."

The Tighter The Grip, The More That Slips Through Your Fingers - 01/01/07

As a child, I remember finding creative ways of doing the things I wanted to do, despite my parents’ protestations. It seemed the more they cracked down, the more creative I could get. However, once they successfully imposed enough restrictions to limit my enjoyment of the activity, my interest would wane completely and I’d move on to the next thing.

This is a lesson that some of the more self-righteous crusaders who campaign against the pharmaceutical industry should heed. The latest attempt to draw attention to the “dubious” activities of pharma companies was published in this week’s Wall Street Journal. The article detailed how the world-renowned New England Journal of Medicine refused to print an editorial submitted by one of its senior writers, because the content was considered too critical of the National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) reliance on “multimillion-dollar donations from the companies that make such drugs” to treat anemia in kidney-disease patients.

The author states that the NKF’s guidelines for treating the condition should be questioned, because of the “group’s close relationship with the drug industry.” Furthermore, he attempts to substantiate this point by reporting that the NKF received more than half of its financial support in 2005 from corporate and organizational partners.

Excuse me while I offer up an exasperated “So what!”

Yes, the NKF benefits from financial support from pharmaceutical companies. Yes, the pharmaceutical companies benefit from supporting the organizations that support the conditions their drugs treat. It’s a symbiotic relationship that has been around for decades. And, you know what? It works! If science and medical organizations had to rely solely on government or public funding, they would be out of business and/or their wonderful work would be at a standstill.

I am profoundly grateful to the pharmaceutical industry for designating hundreds of millions of dollars annually to advance the study and treatment of the world’s debilitating illnesses and diseases. Without their support, medical treatment would be exactly nowhere.

I do not have any doubt that the author, who is a physician, has devoted his career to science and truly believes he’s on solid ground in this case, but it seems to me that this sort of misanthropic criticism is best focused elsewhere.

Medical device and pharmaceutical companies have been bruised and battered in the media—sometimes with just cause—but, this philanthropic activity is not wrong. It is a worthwhile, humanitarian effort to support a multitude of causes in a capitalistic society. As an industry, we must maintain vigilant oversight for these activities to protect against undue influence on the sanctity of the medical decision-making process. But, we cannot continue to nitpick everything pharma does without just cause.

As implied in the up front analogy, pharma collectively will continue to do the things that best serve its products and the patients those products treat. In the hyper-critical and compliant world in which we live today, the numbers of legitimate activities companies can engage are dwindling rapidly.

The more you tighten your grip, the more things slip through your fingers. It would be a travesty indeed if the unnecessary criticism discussed in the media today prompted pharma to channel less funding to third-party organizations and charities to avoid being unjustly linked to what amounts to unproven allegations.

And, if increasing industry’s support of worthy causes is desirable, then we need to acknowledge the positive contributions, loosen our grip and stop being so cynical.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! - 12/25/06

As the year winds down and people are enjoying time well spent with family and friends, I am going to do the same.

I would like to offer season's greetings and a happy and healthy New Year to our clients, prospective clients, and those who visit our website.

I look forward to communicating with you via Virtual Coffee Break in 2007 and continue to welcome your responses.

Yours Truly,

Robert Murphy

Network News: “Ghoulish and Callous” - 12/18/06

I am continually amazed at the depths to which many network television news media will sink to in order to get ratings.

This week, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson suffered what initially appeared to be a stroke while on a conference call with reporters. It took all of about 30 seconds for the national television media to begin speculating on the political fallout of this unfortunate news.

I acknowledge the incredible magnitude such an event would have on the nation’s political landscape, but perhaps a little more compassion would be a good thing. And, I wholeheartedly agree with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was appalled by “the immediate, callous and ghoulish speculation on the part of the network news shows about the political effects of Tim Johnson's health situation.”

While Senator Johnson was whisked off to the hospital to undergo extensive testing for a potentially fatal health condition, the focus of the story quickly became one of politics versus concern for his well being. Sure, there was the obligatory, “we hope he’s ok” message, but 99.9 percent of the stories focused on the potential political fallout this situation could have on control of the Senate. If Senator Johnson, a Democrat, became incapacitated, then Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, would designate his successor, which would no doubt be a fellow Republican. That would tip control of Senate back to the Republicans and wrest control away from the newly elected Democratic party. Republican control of the Senate effectively insulates the Bush Administration from newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been champing at the bit to rain down imminent Armageddon on the Republican Party.

Fortunately for Senator Johnson, an emergency operation to fix a congenital arteriovenous malformation, a rare tangling of the blood vessels in the brain that physicians say most often goes undetected, seems to have him on the road to recovery. The status of his political career has not yet been decided, but I for one am thankful that he’s feeling better from a human perspective, although I suppose it severely dampens the hopes of pundits who were digging in for an extended news story, but are now left with “what if.”

I am no longer surprised by the actions of the collective broadcast media, which has certainly become more entertainment versus the hardcore, straight-talking Walter Cronkite-type news prior generations enjoyed. But, I suppose you can’t blame the players if you don’t first find fault with the game.

Today’s journalists face a significant prisoner’s dilemma. For instance, if a TV anchor focuses more on the health of Senator Johnson, while the competition turns to the larger and sexier political story, Anchor A may find himself/herself on the short end of the ratings stick—a poor career move. All journalists are taught to ask the questions, no matter how callous, which is why you get the “so, how did you feel when you’re loved one died?”

In an effort to thrive amidst declining readership and viewership levels, news networks have elected to cater to America’s predilection for consuming gossip-laden, overly dramatized, reality based programming.

But, I remain eternally optimistic. Just as ancient Rome’s addiction to the macabre gladiatorial spectacles in the Colosseum eventually ended, I hold out hope that today’s sensational journalism will soon hit critical mass and begin to wane in favor of a return to old-school, “just the facts” reporting that has been banished into ignorant absentia.

Talking Too Much & Saying Too Little - 12/11/06

Years ago, I remember watching a routine by comedic legend George Carlin where he described how through the years Society’s attempts at making simple words and terms more official and politically correct, have only diminished the value of those words and added to the confusion.

On a recent walk through the airport while traveling to see a client, I enjoyed a chuckle as I was again reminded of Carlin’s unique perspectives.

As I passed the Continental Airlines President’s Club it was evident that major renovation was going on as wires, tarps, and concrete were strewn about everywhere. Accompanying the construction site is a sign to customers that reads, “Pardon Our Progress.” Interesting, I thought. We’re used to seeing “Pardon Our Appearance,” but I guess that’s too pedestrian for the unimaginative traveler who would not understand what was happening. If that were progress, I’d prefer to wait until forward movement stops and I can enjoy standing still inside the newly designed Club.

A brief time later, I passed a large, glass-encased room on the right with a cluster of people passing time doing nothing. A plastic sign clearly identified this as “Group Waiting Station.” Why “waiting room” was no longer a suitable adjective to describe what was happening puzzled me.

Finally, as I neared my destination, I walked under an overhead sign directing travelers to their respective “Travel Departure Areas.” A week ago, that would have been called “Gate,” but I guess that’s too easy as well.

The truth of Carlin’s quips can also be found in business and the scientific communities. In school, I always found it tedious to read the conclusion and discussion in a scholarly article. In an effort to make the findings sound more important, the authors would always use copious amounts of seldom used multi-syllabic words to refer to the most basic of principles.

When you write for your academic peers, that sort of confusing style is acceptable. However, if communicating to the general public, materials need to be much more rudimentary to ensure the reader understands the points that are being communicated. Otherwise, you will lose them after the first three words.

When you want to communicate about a pencil, call it a pencil, not “a cylindrical, lead-filled, writing utensil complete with soft, but firm, pinkish rubber erasing mechanism.”

Keep it simple and say a lot versus talking a lot and saying little.

Becoming Schooled On The Class Effect - 12/04/06

During a major medical meeting in October, data was presented regarding a small number of potentially dangerous adverse events known as late-stent thrombosis among patients who received drug-eluting coronary artery stents (DES) to treat their heart disease. However, the major manufacturers of DESs appear to disagree on the interpretation of the data and whether or not there is an increased risk for late-stent thrombosis.

While the overwhelming clinical evidence suggests that these devices are saving more lives and are light years ahead of older bare metal technology, one thing is clear: The net effect of the published data and widespread coverage in high-level national media has created a powerful negative class effect that impacts all current and future DES platforms.

A class effect arises when something material happens—positively or negatively—to one or more products of the same type that causes people to believe what is true for one is true for all similar products.

In other words, knowledgeable consumers, doctors, and the media may now widely accept late thrombosis as an inherent issue with DESs, indelibly linking this side effect with the device categories’ profile. Once in play, it is difficult to obtain any media coverage about the product that doesn’t address the class effect in question and a communications strategy should be developed to help the company continue to successfully market its portfolio.

Moreover, until a landmark trial is conducted that draws specific comparisons between these stents or the next generation of competitive products can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren’t associated with this risk, all newcomers will find it difficult to gain any separation or marketing advantage around this halo.

This phenomenon is not limited to healthcare products as was illustrated this month during my daily lunch trek to a favorite deli. Hungry, but looking for something light to eat, I found myself face to face with the salad section. Ordinarily, the choice would be easy—tuna salad, light mayo, assorted veggies, over a bed of mesclun greens. However, on this day, my seemingly simple lunch choice morphed into a far more complicated and troublesome experience that left me utterly incapable of reaching down and picking up the salad.

It occurred to me then, that my indecision was based on the class effect that resulted from news about a nationwide recall of E-coli tainted spinach. Unfortunately, the outbreak resulted in a number of deaths. And, subsequently, a similar announcement followed around certain brands of green leafy lettuce later that week setting off a national alert.

The recall was not for spinach or lettuce in New Jersey. However, I attached the negative news to the category, making every green leafy vegetable suspect. In the end, I opted for the salad, but not after excessive amounts of internal deliberation.

Despite the noise around the spinach tragedy, I ultimately viewed it as a one-off occurrence and have since added it back on my menu. However, I would have serious reservations about spinach longer term if it were to happen again.

Whether it’s a single, catastrophic event or a gradual series of events that lead to a negative class effect, consumers will be quick to stop buying products they feel are affected. Worse still, healthcare professionals will look for evidence to the contrary before reaching for, or recommending a product.

It is possible to successfully market a product that is the subject of class effect, but navigating the issue requires a strong, experienced team of communicators who understand that you can’t ignore or walk away from these realities. Rather, the team should engage the issue, point out the benefits of its product, and if possible, establish clinical studies to address the concerns on a longer-term basis. By investing in an effective strategy for dealing with the class effect today, brand managers can win market share tomorrow

Issue Management 101: Keep Your Eye On The Game, Not The Inning - 11/28/06

A fascinating cover story in a recent Time magazine dealt with America’s predilection for obsessing about risks associated with virtually non-existent (in the U.S.) high-profile illnesses that they stand almost no chance of contracting, while ignoring everyday risks related to diseases that kill thousands of people each year.

For instance, many people lose sleep about contracting avian flu or mad cow disease, which have killed exactly no one in this country to date. But, these same individuals routinely neglect things like getting vaccinated for the common flu, which is linked to about 36,000 deaths per year, or adopting a healthier lifestyle to reduce cholesterol, a contributing factor to the heart disease that three-quarters of a million Americans each year.

The author posits that the more gruesome or hyped a mode of demise is, the more people are inclined to take proactive measures to avoid it. The average person is much more likely to wait in line for a greasy, heart attack-inducing fast-food burger, rather than pick up a bag of lettuce. I imagine if you asked why they chose the burger over the salad ingredients, the answer might be, “Lettuce? That’s crazy talk. Don’t you know there’s E-coli in there!” There is definitely a correlation between public perception about the risks associated with a certain condition and the lengths to with they will go to actively distance themselves from it.

The same theory proves true in corporate issue management. Mostly, issue management programs are relegated to firefighting initiatives aimed at putting out the latest brushfire so the brand can resume business as soon as possible. It is easy for management to lose sight of why they should invest in a sustained issue management program once the issue is handled and no other crises are on the horizon.

For instance, the thought of an unexpected product side effect or adverse event related to a product—no matter how remote the possibility—will always send a brand team reeling. However, the same team will typically provide an underwhelming reaction to known issues they have already experienced, because they become jaded. But, known issues should be no less important than the unexpected ones, because given the right circumstances, they too can flare up and wreak havoc on a product’s profile or company’s stock.

That is why a sustained, active issue management program should be implemented and revisited often in periods of calm to ensure the brand can react quickly in periods of chaos. Manuals should be kept and updated; communication protocols in place; multidisciplinary issue management teams formed; spokespeople should be media trained; and war games conducted on at least a semi-annual basis to keep everyone attuned to the chaotic nature of a real-time disaster.

As the Time magazine author suggests: it’s not the remote worst-case scenarios that are likely to be your undoing so much as it is the everyday risks that are regularly ignored.

By keeping your skills sharp and game plan ready, you can stay focused on winning the game as opposed to being content to get out of the inning.

Pharmaceutical Sales Pitches Up For Debate - 11/21/06

I imagine that for the typical pharmaceutical sales rep who was around in the 1980s and 1990s, today’s governance surrounding physician-rep relationships must seem about as foreign as stepping foot onto the rust colored soil of Mars.

During national sales meetings, the salty dog veterans probably sit around the lunch table drinking three-olive Martinis and trading tales about the good ol’ days when a successful sales call involved a golf course, rather than a debate. Somewhere within earshot, the young, tightly wound reps the veterans refer to as “whippersnappers” sip their unsweetened iced teas and lament their decision to take up the noble sales profession.

Such is the dynamic and complicated environment that seeks to preserve the independence of medical decision-making on behalf of patients. Transgressions of the myriad state, federal, and industry guidelines can range from relatively innocuous hand-slaps by management to prosecution under extreme circumstances.

One of the most serious healthcare compliance hot buttons of this decade has been regulation of off-label promotion of drugs. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) allows a physician to prescribe a drug for “off-label” purposes; however, a sales representative is forbidden to promote the drug for a use that has not been approved by the FDA—no matter how safe and effective it may be for treating a specific condition.

There has long been a debate raging about drug companies using “wining and dining” and other incentives to encourage physicians to prescribe their drugs. Critics claim that physicians aren’t savvy enough to deflect the perks and persuasive pitch delivered by the sales rep. And, matters only worsen when the patient comes in demanding a product by name, because they happened across an ad on TV.

In fact, several high profile medical schools are expanding programs to teach the medical community how to see through the pitch and debate a product’s profile with the sales rep as opposed to blindly accepting the company information.

While I am in favor of providing doctors with constructive information that will enable them to do a more in-depth critical review of science around a drug, I am also against any program that improperly casts sales reps as company shills. After spending time with a large number of sales reps over the years, I firmly believe that today’s reps represent a new breed of sophisticated and ethical professionals who have a working knowledge of the science as well as the needs of the physician. And, with all of the focus on healthcare compliance, most know how to legally do business in today’s litigious society.

It seems to me the real issue is one of time management. Physicians have only so much time to learn about a product. By equipping the physician with a template of questions he or she can use to rapidly understand a pitch, the exchange might be just as long, but more fruitful. I seriously doubt that most physicians will take the time to grill a rep about a study, unless they have a bone to pick. There’s simply no time.

It’s incumbent upon companies and their agency partners to facilitate a physician’s understanding of the product with quality materials that present the data in a format that is less sizzle and more substance. If the data are solid, the product sells itself.
Many times, too much emphasis is placed on producing flashy, compendium-like sales pieces that simply go in the trash or are confusing.

In the end, the sales force is merely the messenger. And, we all know you can’t shoot the messenger without finding fault with the entity that develops the message.

Clinically Speaking, What You Say, Is As Important As Where And When You Say It - 11/14/06

It goes without saying that national medical meetings and peer-review publications represent ideal opportunities for releasing clinical data. These meetings almost always garner major media attention and in my experience, reporters respond more favorably to quality scientific data than most of the more creative programs that offer softer news hooks.

When we launched the world’s first drug-eluting coronary artery stent in April 2003, it was the culmination of a strategy that involved a three-year odyssey of pulsing out interim data at medical meetings and in peer-review publications. The launch was merely the icing on the cake, because most of the demand for the product had been generated years before.

Yet, in a time of unprecedented levels of scrutiny on Corporate transparency and public reporting of clinical data in the pharmaceutical industry, it is generally accepted that disclosing more timely information is best. Brand teams now have to balance the responsibility of releasing important data publicly versus holding that data for presentation during a medical meeting. Careful evaluation should include the potential impact of the news on public health, professional opinion, and corporate image. If the news is important enough to disclose, then the brand team needs to resign itself to sacrificing the more prominent forum of the meeting and hope the lay media responds positively to the data when they are not as sensitive to receiving it.

In rare instances, it’s possible to release the data early and still make a big splash during the medical meeting. This is illustrated by the recent flap over the timing for Pfizer’s release of data regarding torcetrapib, its highly anticipated cholesterol-lowering drug that is now in testing. Pfizer was on the docket to present the latest clinical data at the American Heart Association’s (AHA) Annual Meeting—a meeting that is attended by thousands of physicians, who actively prescribe such medication to their patients. This drug is expected to be the successor to Lipitor, which represents $12 billion annually to Pfizer’s bottom line. As such, the industry has been champing at the bit to get a clinical look at how well it is performing relative to safety and efficacy.

Yet, the AHA, like all of the elite medical organizations, has specific guidelines for how much information a presenter can make public prior to the scientific session. In this instance, while Pfizer can hardly be faulted for releasing data that is material to the company, the AHA decided too much data had been made public and elected to bump it from the schedule due to a violation of guidelines. In actuality, the lack of a formal presentation at the meeting did not hurt the brand, because I am certain that Pfizer’s exhibit booth was humming with attendees filing in for a chat and a manuscript.

An inadvertent byproduct of being the only presenter ousted from the meeting is the copious media attention the story has garnered; however, it seems to me that it stems from the magnitude of the product’s potential worth as opposed to the early release of the clinical data. For the average product, losing a presentation spot at such a prominent meeting would be an unmitigated disaster.

When designing a study, it is important to decide well in advance what the study data will be used for and how it will be released. For instance, will you seek publication? If so, will you target the more respected peer-review process or merely submit to any publication that will accept it in order to get the data into circulation? Many peer-review publications will accept data that has been presented at a scientific meeting, but if that information gets into the trade or lay press, it is likely to be passed over.

If you plan to release the data during a major national medical meeting, you must first become intimately familiar with the bylaws of that organization so that you don’t run afoul and be cast out at the last minute. The medical group will typically want exclusivity so that it truly is news at the meeting. In exchange for exclusivity, the brand and the company enjoy the benefits of a built-in media pool that attends the event as well as the added credibility the association with the third-party organization delivers to the program.

In addition, if the findings are scheduled for release in a peer-review journal, it is important that brand teams understand that any release of information early will not only jeopardize publication, but may also spoil future opportunities with that outlet.

When planning for a major announcement or product launch that involves clinical data, it is imperative for the communications team to work with the brand to properly weigh the advantages and disadvantages of multiple release scenarios. Only by considering all of the options can you help brand managers see the forest through the trees and successfully navigate medical meetings and journals.

Issue Management 101: Avoiding Foot-In-Mouth Disease - 11/07/06

No matter what side of the bipartisan fence you fall on, a lot of issue management lessons can be learned from Senator John Kerry’s now infamous gaffe heard ‘round the world about American soldiers in Iraq.

“You know education," Kerry stated. "If you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don't you get stuck in Iraq."

After the massive political fallout began, he attempted to backpedal saying that he was the victim of a bad joke gone awry. However, even the most objective among us might have trouble finding the humor around what’s going on in Iraq. Kerry’s comment was the result of poor judgment by an elected official who should know better.

Kerry is certainly not the only senior politico to create headlines with seemingly amateurish misqueues or impromptu faux pas. In fact, case studies of what not to say or do and how to mismanage the situation abound in U.S. politics. Yet, what I find most unbelievable is Washington’s inability to stay out of its own way. Why do politicians who are essentially “made” continue to put their silver feet in their collective mouths by deviating from common sense with ridiculous comments?

Seasoned speakers like Kerry should know better how to avoid landmines; however, I also place the blame on his advisors who are responsible for keeping him on message and to the point. If they can’t corral that type of behavior, then they should be replaced.

One of the cardinal rules of issue management is to prepare and routinely test a spokesperson to ensure he or she has the ability to interact effectively with the media and other audiences. We do this by examining each topic from a variety of perspectives, establishing the key messages and preparing extensive scenario-based questions and answers. Regularly scheduled training sessions should be mandatory to keep the speaker’s oratory skills sharp.

The use of humor, editorial, or otherwise “from-the-hip” conversation should be discouraged when it comes to controversial issues, because it quickly takes you to a slippery slope—especially when it’s a prepared speech. Public speaking or interviewing is already difficult enough without adding inappropriate flip comments to the mix.

Compounding the issue is the lightning fast reporting that takes place on the Internet. An interview can be broadcast around the world before it’s even concluded. There is no such thing as small mistakes as the slightest slip is magnified exponentially due to the massive exposure of the web. Throw in other variables such as bloggers who quickly provide a glut of critiques and you have the potential for a major catastrophe the likes of what the Democratic party was handed last week.

It is incumbent upon those who counsel spokespeople to adequately prepare the content, provide a forum for that person to practice the art of communication, and possess enough experience and guidance to help the speaker stay focused on the issue and avoid the potential pitfalls of public speaking.

Happy HalloWi-Fi! - 10/31/06

When I was a child, Halloween was such a treat that my friends and I would begin planning our costumes and candy routes weeks in advance. Unfortunately, the passage of time into adulthood and the addition of real-world responsibilities have the net effect of imbuing the once-joyful holidays with a mundane, same-day-different-thing monotony.

Fortunately, I've moved into a new phase of life called Parenthood that bestows parents with the magical ability to experience the same energy and excitement around holidays that they once enjoyed as kids. Only this time, we live vicariously through the eyes of our children.

So, it was with great anticipation that we took my son for his first 'trick-or-treat' excursion around the neighborhood, which is always rife with costumed kids on Halloween. What I observed as I traveled around made me both discouraged and encouraged at the same time. Almost every group of kids that passed was speaking on cell phones. Some were ignoring the task of getting candy totally so that they could continue their conversations.

My initial reaction was one of disappointment, because I wondered how one can truly appreciate the experience if he or she is on the phone. Can't technology and conversations be placed on hold just long enough to enjoy a childhood tradition? Don't these kids realize that one day trick-or-treating will be a distant memory and they will loathe the cell phone as a necessary evil in their adult lives?

But, then I realized I was lamenting spilt milk. Cell phones, like every other technology are here to stay and it's only natural that they would appear en masse on Halloween. What houses were giving the best candy? Where should you meet your other group of friends? How can parents reach their children or vice versa should the need arise? These are all benefits to taking Halloween WiFi that my generation knew nothing about.

In the end, it was just another example of how cell phones, Bluetooths, MySpaces, YouTubes, and myriad blogs of the world have infiltrated pop culture and are changing the circumstances in which we communicate with each other. Conversations can continue ad nauseam during any activity.

These same outlets are also changing the ways corporations will communicate with their publics. Companies are now spending almost as much on Google ad space as they do on television spots. Newspapers and magazines are seeing less ad dollars, because their readership continues to steadily decline. Compounding the issue is the fact that the news cycle constantly reinvents itself every second as more and more people get real-time updates via the Web. There's no longer much need to get your fingers dirty reading the morning paper or staying tuned to the 6pm local newscast in order to be well informed. These are the realities of the wired world in which we live.

We as a communications agency are adapting as well and are constantly testing new methods for disseminating information in meaningful ways. It is essential to try new strategies to help your client's message break through the clutter.

That said, for one brief instance I was thankful to experience Halloween through the eyes of a one-year old no cell phones, no Internet, no computers, no deadlines only wide-eyed amazement and genuine fun.

The Symbiotic Relationships That Feed The System; Spoil The Tank - 10/24/06

Anyone who has been to a large aquarium or has watched the annual Shark Week documentary series on The Discovery Channel has undoubtedly borne witness to the feeding frenzies of our deepsea friends—the sharks.

I am always initially struck by the awe-inspiring controlled chaos that unfolds the second the chum circulates in the water and the sharks start the dance—the passing, the brushing, the tasting, and ultimately the biting. However, what used to be construed as the mindless behavior of a deadly animal has since been scientifically proven as calculated activity evolved over millions of years. There’s a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship of collusion and teamwork going on.

Yet, every now and again, when the chum gets too thick and the stakes too high, the frenzy takes over, the sharks turn from cooperative group to selfish, cannibalistic hunters intent on getting “theirs” even at the expense of their brethren.

Well, many times, there are direct correlations that can be made between the animal kingdom and what transpires in the business world—particularly, when offering up analogies about sharks.

I recently read with interest an article in The Wall Street Journal regarding an apparent power struggle that has erupted within the plaintiffs' law firms handling the shareholder securities litigation pending against Merck & Co. The issue stems from who has the right to represent the case as lead counsel, a “coveted position that often results in high fees.” The particular reasons are immaterial to this article, but it did strike a cord with me.

How much of a settlement is enough when the law firm isn’t the one who’s been wronged? I understand earning a profit, but it seems to me that it is all too often about establishing the pecking order for dibs on a windfall payout from a beleaguered company. And, a significant portion of that settlement or judgment will not find its way to the people who were actually injured or wronged.

Establishing right or wrong regarding fault in the Vioxx issue is beyond the scope of this editorial. And, I do realize that personal injury lawfirms have their place in this case. However, it seems to me that the legal system long ago spun out of control and too easily rewards those who are merely bottom-dwelling hangers on looking for the easy money.

This is part and parcel to the larger problem. I have been around issue management long enough to observe the intricacies of a symbiotic system that allows outliers in the investment, legal, medical, and Internet communities to feed off one another at the ultimate expense of the company. Following is a simplistic overview of the multifaceted approach that begins with the creation of accusations against the company and/or its products.

The overriding goal is to create shock and doubt in the minds of those audiences who can impact the company—the smaller the company, the easier the prey. The softest target is the consumer media. A juicy article in a major newspaper or TV broadcast can yield widespread negative headlines that can impact consumer perception nationwide. Worse still, incredible deadlines prevent most reporters from truly investigating an issue, so if the accusation sounds plausible and has already been reported by other media, it attains a level of credibility.

Next objective: infiltrate the investment community. Any basher knows that negative publicity can do wonders in an industry occupied by skittish Sunshine Patriots who will run from a stock the second it looks like a drop is imminent. This, of course, suits a short seller perfectly, because while legal, this investment strategy rewards investors who bet that a company’s stock would go down. So, targeting analysts and financial media to help that stock tank can pay dividends.

Once the noise hits a fever pitch, it attracts the attention of the larger predatory personal injury attorneys who waste no time chumming the waters to attract new cases. They will leave no stone unturned to propagate the spurious information through online search engines advertisements, websites and toll-free lines to convince John Q Public to join the cause and theoretically share in the rewards. Meanwhile, the net profit to the law firm raises exponentially once more people start joining the suit, while the plaintiffs see no such increase.

Finally, the effort will seek the support of a medical professional, which is the Holy Grail in solidifying the issue in the minds of the media and the consumer. If a white coat says it’s true, it must be true even if there’s absolutely no more evidence beyond an anecdotal quote. Luckily, healthcare professionals tend to be more skeptical than the average consumer, so they will need quite a bit of convincing before offering a firm opinion. However, even healthcare professionals can be duped.

Above are very real examples of how easy it is for a company to fall prey to a variety of unrelated entities that feed off each other’s activities to manipulate and benefit from the system. The infighting begins once the stakes become so high that those at the top of the food chain will systematically eliminate each other to maximize their gain.

It is a pity that the U.S. legal and financial institutions allow this sort of activity to take place. Those who engage in it either fail to realize or care about the far-reaching ramifications of their selfish actions. They aren’t teaching Corporate America a lesson as they profess when asked to justify their lawsuits.

In reality, they are limiting the supply of corporate funds necessary to create more jobs, engage in more research for cures of deadly diseases, and make charitable contributions in the community. They are stretching corporations’ ability to do business in this perm