Ron Paul and Digg: Abuse or Grassroots PR?

I've downloaded the Digg Screensaver a few days ago and immediately realized something very strange: Ron Paul's name is extremely prominent on Digg. So prominent that it made me suspicious. I know that the rather obscure candidate has a loyal following and there's grassroots interest in his campaign. But does it really translate into constant mention of his activities?

Apparently, my gut feeling was right Especially the comments showcase that Paul supporters see nothing wrong with it.

Just like stuffing the ballot box, I don't think this marketing tactic is ethical. And it will hurt Digg in the longrun.

Why would I search for news on Digg when it can be hijacked by a special interest group? Digg was meant for people and not for organizations. It's going to be a tough fight for Digg to ensure that special interest group can't own the site. And Ron Paul?

I don't believe it's in his best interest to continue this way of marketing. I understand why it's done: limited funds. But it's intrusive. It's over the head. And that's the enemy of any social network. And doesn't offer you a chance to connect with voters outside of your bubble.

Advertising Week - Day 1

Interesting am session with Carla Hendra (Ogilvy), Rishad Tobaccowala (Denuo) and David Verklin (Carat).

A few quotes:

David Verklin: "The future is not brands telling stories, it's people telling stories about brands."

Rishad Tobaccowala: "Media companies have to distinguish between paid and earned media."

"Drop the word advertising and change it to marketing services."

"The only way to face the future is to face reality."

One of the questions asked by the audience why PR always seems to be missing from panels. Scanning the list of attendees, only a handful of PR firms are even present at these conferences. It's a missed opportunity since PR and Advertising need to work closer together to connect better with consumers.

Clients and agencies

BusinessWeek surveyed advertising and branding elite from both the client (Kraft, Home Depot, Yahoo!, etc.) and agency (BBDO, Leo Burnett, Saatchi & Saatchi, etc.) sides to gain insight on the future of marketing. Below are two interesting snippets.



It shows clearly that advertising agencies still don't get the power of WOM, utilizing traditional PR techniques. Clients are starting to get it. That's a huge opportunity for niche agencies or a hybrid of advertising/PR agency.

PR and advertising agencies

Advertising agencies are not fond of PR agencies and vice versa. Especially in this changing marketing landscape, both are starting to compete even more for the same piece of the pie.

I jsut stumbled upon Richard Edelmans's Game On blog post. Here are a few excerpts:

“The advertising industry is facing a stark new reality. The traditional business of buying time and space in mainstream media is not a growth proposition.”

He believes advertising can't move the market alone.

“The response from ad agencies is to develop their ancillary businesses, from direct marketing to interactive to public relations. The agencies have changed their names, boasted about their truly integrated campaigns, and even hired chief marketing officers who are tasked with persuading clients to undertake viral or other non-media based projects.”

Clearly, not only advertising agencies are facing stark new realities. A few years ago, neither PR nor advertising agencies were remotely prepared for the digital age. Now they're getting ready.

Traditional is not on the way out but it's losing its power and new, innovative ways of connection with customers will become even more important.

The innovative will survive. Based on traditional advertising and PR practices, innovative agencies will found ways to engage in, yet, unknown ways.

Advertising part of PR?

As illustrated in the video, change is almost always incremental:

We were discussing marketing ideas for one of our clients.
A few years ago, we would have discussed banners, SEM, advertorials, sponsorships and other ways to push our message out to the consumer. Today we were talking about buzz, blogging, viral messaging, outreach, etc. We see the 'traditional online media' as a given and focus more and more on WOM techniques.

I would argue that the changes in marketing, communications and media are so pervasive, so fundamental and so dramatic that advertising agencies and PR firms won't be referred to as advertising agencies and PR firms anymore. They will be something different. Something new.

Let others worry about how we'll be calling this.
For now, let us just worry about great ideas. Ultimately, clients don't care where ideas are coming from. It's not about the delivery service, it's about the product

Consumer 2.0

We're done. We’re not gonna take it...anymore. In the beginning of the Internet, we educated ourselves: we compared, we shopped, we reviewed. And we were ready to deal with the sales people. Now we don't need to educate ourselves, we're always on, always connected, can immediately confirm details and find better offers.

And what happened is just stunning. Consumer not only have immediate access to information but the Consumer 2.0 has finally found a voice that can be heard by millions. And you can't stop them.

Here's a video about Comcast. It says more about Comcast than any flashy advertising can do. Their technician has to wait on hold for an hour and falls asleep. Do I need to know more about Comcast? Not really.

Suddenly, the customer experience is more important than any other brand experiences and Consumer 2.0 will find ways to make his point. PR agencies need to be ready for Consumer 2.0. Because the consumer is ready for them.

Web 2.0 is all about the money?

In his newest article, David Lazarus discusses Web 2.0 and the implications of the DoubleClick acquisition.

Two observations:

1. The headline of the article and the first two paragraphs are completely misleading and utterly wrong.

"Web 2.0 is all about money

The Web 2.0 crowd totally cracks me up -- all this prattle about reinventing the wheel, as if networking and community building haven't been core aspects of the Internet since day one.

You want to know what Web 2.0 is really about? It's about who makes the most money off the largest captive audience since the invention of television. And nothing underlines the stakes of this contest like Google's planned $3.1 billion takeover of online ad agency DoubleClick."

I have no idea what the Google and DoubleClick acquision has to do with Web 2.0. Both are 1.0 (1.5 at best) companies trying to move into the 2.0 space. Google's and DoubleClick's mission is not to build communities or to try to connect in innovative ways with online consumers. And, yes, of course, the acquisition is all about money. Just not Web 2.0.

2. The rest of the article discusses a topic that most online marketers are trying to rationalize, brush aside or just forget. But it might become a huge problem for the online space. I'd venture to say that 99% of all online users have no idea what's happening behind the computer screen. They don't know their online behavior is being tracked and analyzed.

The online marketing industry has to seriously discuss the implications of Behavioral Targeting. We're trying desperately to connect with consumers in new ways and clients expect immediate results. But we track and analyze without the consent and knowledge of the consumer. Last summer's AOL PR disaster, when they released their search logs, should remind us that we're walking a fine line. We need to get input from the consumer to help us clearly define the line. What is acceptable? What is creepy? Too long we've been running the BT show without involving the consumer. We better do it soon or we'll have to pay a price. The last thing we need is another AOL disaster.

The future of PR

PR Titan Edelman discusses the following, revealing facts:

"* Every dollar coming out of print advertising revenue for newspapers is replaced by only 33 cents online, according to Citigroup analyst William Bird. Print advertising accounts for approximately 66% of total revenue for newspapers. This money is ebbing away to web competitors like Monster.com or Yahoo.
* The largest 50 Web companies are attracting 96% of the ad spending on line, according to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, with the majority going to AOL, Google, MSN and Yahoo. (Editors Note: You might say this defies the Long Tail theory. Actually, it doesn't - half of the ad revenues for Google and its ilk are actually redistributed to thousands of smaller sites, via such affliate models as AdSense. It's actually a quite good long tail example.
* An estimated 9.5 million homes in the US now have TiVo or another digital video recorder. According to a study by CBS, 64% of DVR users skip all ads and an additional 26% skip through most ads. The number of homes with DVRs is expected to triple in the next five years.
* An estimated 24 million homes in the US now have access to video on demand. Comcast, the cable company, offers 4,000 on demand features at present. General Motors is now experimenting with short promotional films on the on demand menus of cable systems.
* Publishing companies are moving away from free content towards a subscription model on the Internet. The New York Times has put its very popular columnists (Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd) into a paid format called TimesSelect costing $49.95 a year. There has been excellent response to this service, with 135,000 new subscribers in only two months.
* Circulation for large American newspapers is down 2.5% in the third quarter versus a year ago, continuing a decade long slide. Erosion is particularly evident among younger consumers. As a result, there have been reductions in head count in the newsroom. The Philadelphia Inquirer just cut 5% of its reporters. According to today's The New York Times (an article by David Carr), The Los Angeles Times announced cuts of 85 newsroom employees, while The Chicago Tribune side it was cutting 100 jobs across all departments.
There are several clear implications for the media business. There will be continued cost pressures on the companies, but with attendant questions about the ability to maintain quality of the product. The search for new revenue streams, whether from repurposing (such as podcasting) or pay-for-content, must accelerate.
For public relations professionals, these profound changes in media are both a challenge and opportunity. Our traditional channels are under siege, yet there are more media options, particularly if one includes blogs. Here are a few suggestions for the next year:
1) Retrain our work force. PR should move away from "pitching the story" mentality. We can be part of conversations on line. We have to be smart about our subject and careful with our facts because these discussions are always on the record.
2) Recognize the influence and credibility of blogs. David Kiley of Business Week wrote about Paramount Studios' success with a niche film, Hustle & Flow, which was promoted through music blogs and fan sites. Thirty five percent of moviegoers said they were motivated to see the film through discussions on line.
3) Experiment. We should be working with video clips attached to press materials to make it easier for bloggers in consumer technology to create v-blogs. We should seek out innovative sponsorships with traditional media, including cross-platform content creation such as a discussion of real beauty, brought to you by Unilever's Dove.
This truly is a time of unprecedented opportunity for public relations. As Paul Holmes noted in a recent address to our European management team, the Internet is a perfect venue for our industry because our business relies on conversation and we engage multiple stakeholders. At the same time, we must always cognizant of our responsibility to be transparent and trusted sources."

Just a few thoughts:

How can PR professionals innovate and lead? PR might rethink their model and focus on developing communities. Social networking has produced mass sites like Friendster, Myspace and Facebook. But that's just the beginning. Private social networks pop up every day and they are here to stay. These might not be flashy sites, but they are relevant, they deeply engage the consumer and they tend to keep Marketing and PR out of the conversation.

In the world of Wikinomics,journalists, publicists, bloggers and consumer might think about forming a community who share a common interest in a brand, an industry or a topic. There a technological solutions out there, and Marketing as well as PR professionals should speak to companies like Passenger and Communispace. What about an online community of journalists, publicists, bloggers, users and others who share an interest in a company, an industry or an issue? Communities like that might create a microcosmos that represents exactly the communication that needs to happen. And the discussion and interaction we need to observe and listen to.

Clearly, the brand/client does not own messaging anymore and they need to understand that messaging is now in the hands of consumers. Giving up control is a hard thing to understand. It's even tougher to implement new ways of dealing with this monumental change.

The old media distribution model is dead and brands need to understand that we live in a new world of media consumption. Brands have to be where the consumers are and, increasingly, they don't tend to watch TV, listen to radio, read the newspaper to engage with a brand. Consumers are watching TV to get entertained, they listen to radio to hear music or talk, and they read the newspaper to get information. Brand engagement and discussion happens on a different level and in different channels: on blogs, on messageboards and on social networks.

The only way to deal with this monumental change is to embrace it. Online communities are out there. Every brand should beat down the doors of those online communities and get in the game. Because the game is not where it used to be.