Magnosticism

From a spam press release I received today:

David Hancock of Morgan jams Publishing offers the advantages of a New York Publisher without the drawbacks. His entrepreneurial publishing model gives authors control over their own books, influence over cover design, and most importantly, his authors retain full rights to their books and earn a 20 per cent commission on each sale.

Hancock teamed up with Glenn Dietzel of AwakenTheAuthorWithin.com, whose Entrepreneurial Authoring Program teaches clients to write a money-making book in 12 hours of actual writing time<emphasis by Magnostic>. Clients who complete the program discover how to write a book that is “entrepreneurially sound” and are guaranteed acceptance with Morgan James Publishing, without writing a book proposal or going through years of submission and rejection.

Dietzel’s Entrepreneurial Authoring Program and individual business mentoring teach clients how to create a book that is an entrepreneurially sound lead generator for a well-structured business. A book that is entrepreneurially sound naturally leads readers to interact with the author and continue to do business again and again. The book is specifically designed as an invitation to take part in the author’s other services. Special offers and free gifts of value to the reader are tucked into the pages of the book.

I once aspired to write a novel, but an “entrepreneurially sound lead generator” sounds much more romantic.

Watching the tail lights of the campaign buses finally pulling out of New Hampshire following today’s sort-of-first-in-the-nation primary got me thinking about the candidates’ marketing machines. Politics and marketing have been joined at the hip ever since the first pre-Geico caveman lobbied to become head of the tribe, no doubt promising something he had no plans to deliver.

As a New Hampshire resident and registered independent, I’ve been receiving a months-long stream of propaganda from the candidates on both sides of the divide. Talk about multichannel marketing: The local citizenry has been overrun with TV ads, outdoor signs, telemarketing, direct mail, email, live events, and even door-to-door campaigners. Much of it was poorly executed, especially the prerecorded voice mails, the overproduced brochures, and the Christmas card from the Clintons. None of it, with the exception of a truly passionate Obama supporter who rang my doorbell on Saturday and actually asked if I had any questions, contained a whiff of authenticity or made any attempt to understand my concerns, as a parent, as a small business owner, as someone with a $10,000 medical deductible and a knee that needs surgery (they assume they know, but rarely ask).  Though I will say that the candidates’ websites have come a long way in engaging supporters (beyond just asking for money) through various Web 2.0 tools.

Despite the new channels, the PR machine hasn’t really changed much over the past 150 years or so. There’s a great if little-known show on HBO called “Assume the Position 201″ in which Robert Wuhl puts a comedic spin on American history in a classroom setting. The latest episode includes a riff on all the bad presidents this country has endured, perhaps none worse than Franklin Pierce (from New Hampshire, ironically). Wuhl contends that the main reason Pierce was elected in 1852 was the biography that he convinced his buddy, Nathanial Hawthorne, to pen for him. The lift Pierce received from his association with the noted writer carried him to victory. Unfortunately for Pierce (and the rest of the country), his divisive policies and poor decision-making laid the groundwork for the Civil War and made him the only sitting president (before or since) to not be nominated for re-election by his own party.

Edward Bernays, dubbed the “father of public relations,” also played a role in presidential politics. In what is considered the first presidential photo op, Bernays organized a White House breakfast in 1929 for Calvin Coolidge with a group of vaudeville actors in an effort to improve the taciturn president’s image. One headline the next day read, “President Nearly Laughs.”

On to Michigan!

Normally smart people seem to lose all common sense when it comes to joining an online conversation under a fake name. The cloak of “sock puppeting” (a terrific phrase to describe the act of masking your identity when posting comments on a Web forum) can be incredibly empowering, even for people who already possess gobs of power.

John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods Market, is the latest poster boy for this inane and brand-damaging behavior. I’m sure you’ve heard the story by now: For more than seven years, Mackey posted comments on Yahoo message boards talking up Whole Foods and dumping on the competition. He posted under the handle “rahodeb” and never disclosed his true identify. Now he has the SEC on his back. Nice leadership. Nice irony too, considering his comments in the current issue of Fortune about his blog:   

“We want to communicate as honestly as we can. I am talking about the things I most care about. I don’t do what other bloggers do. I don’t post all the time. The great thing about blogging is that I don’t need you journalists to interpret me anymore.”

Yes, honesty. And integrity. And credibility. When you misrepresent yourself to others, you’re blowing off all three of those traits. I understand the limits that the CEO (or any officer) of a publicly traded company is under regarding what they can say about their business on public forums, but how that leads someone to make the leap to post anonymously on matters directly related to their company and business is beyond me. 

I guess the Web feeds our subconscious desires to perform uncivil acts without repercussions. Just as drivers hidden safely in their cars do unseemly things without pause - things they would never think of doing outside of their vehicles (cutting others off, tailgating, swearing in front of their kids) - the Internet (and its precursor, the online bulletin-board system) is a playground for drive-by postings from people lacking the confidence (or the balls) to stand behind their verbal attacks or contrarian opinions with their real names. (When I was with PC Week, a reader reacting to a negative column I wrote about Apple posted anonymously to express his desire that I would some day end up in prison getting gang-raped by a bunch of guys named Bubba, though he used far more colorful language to describe his fantasy. But I digress.)

Just as troubling as Mackey’s deception was his unapologetic response to being unmasked. Clearly, his actions aren’t in sync with the ideals for which his company supposedly stands. His own blog posting about “open, honest, candid communication” certainly rings hollow. When the actions of a company’s employees - from executives down to the rank and file - differ from the company’s brand promise, it will eventually lose the trust of its customers.

Quiz time: You work in PR and you receive an email or voice mail from a reporter on deadline requesting an interview. Your company or client is not particularly interested in commenting, either because of the topic, the size of the publication, or its target audience. Do you:

a) Ignore the request, figuring that if it’s important enough the reporter will email or call back.
b) Ignore the initial and all subsequent requests, reasoning that you don’t know the reporter and/or the publication he is writing for, so the request is not worth your time
c) Tell the reporter that you are checking into your executives’ availability and will be back in touch - then do nothing or simply forget about the request as you move on to more pressing matters.
d) Thank the reporter for the request but explain that your company/client is not interested in participating in the story.

I experienced each of those scenarios during my reporting last month for a feature on outdoor advertising. I can handle rejection, so d) is cool. I can respect the overwhelming number of requests that flacks at major brands receive each day, so even a) is grudgingly acceptable. But when so-called “media relations” people don’t bother to return or even acknowledge legitimate requests from reporters, they’re not doing their job. Don’t ignore me, or worse, don’t insult me by saying “we’ll get back to you” when you have no intention of doing so.

What are you thinking? Maybe you’ve figured out the whole consumer empowerment thing and assume you can disintermediate journalists and take your message directly to your customers. Maybe you’re just lazy. Or ignorant. Here’s one response I received from the Manager of North American Sales and Service Communications at a large U.S. automaker (OK, it was Ford):

Could you explain exactly what you’re talking about?  I have no idea what out of home advertising is. 

I fear for you.

JetBlue is taking steps to restore its image in the wake of its scheduling implosion last week that left passengers stranded in airports for days and in some cases sitting in grounded planes for more than 10 hours at a time. A day after trotting out CEO David Neeleman to the New York Times (who said he was “humiliated and mortified” by the delays), the company plans to unveil today a customer “bill of rights” program and new operating procedures. A YouTube video from Neeleman is also front and center on JetBlue’s website - a good use of the medium to speak directly to customers.

For a company that has developed a loyal following despite its low-frills approach to flying, this is a critical juncture. It seems to be aware of the damage control it must do. Here’s Eric Brinker, JetBlue’s director of brand management and customer experience, quoted in the Poughkeepsie Journal discussing the new passenger bill of rights:

“We’ll be reaffirming ourselves as a leader in this industry. It’s something that’s going to hold JetBlue financially accountable to a much greater extent than airlines have today. It’s something that really forces us to do right by our customers.

The airline already has pledged full credits or refunds to passeners whose flights were cancelled. So far, so good. But the next few months - and the steps the company takes to fix its apparently deep-seated operational problems - will determine just how much equity JetBlue has built up with its customers.

More broadly, some observes are calling the JetBlue fiasco a tipping point for airline travel, as the blogosphere heats up with calls for legislation to protect travelers’ rights.  Before the JetBlue troubles, a real estate broker named Kate Hanni had formed the Coalition for a Passengers Bill of Rights and is collecting signatures on a petition to spur Congress to enact new legislation for airline travelers. The JetBlue incident will no doubt feed those efforts.

Another great example of the power of social media.

1. Voting snafus. Hanging chads may be giving way to touchscreens, but stories of problems at the polls never change. It astounds me that we can’t figure out a way to resolve the voting-booth chaos that engulfs cities and towns across the country every election day. Maybe TWO YEARS is not enough lead time to troubleshoot new machines and properly train the blue-hairs who volunteer at the voting precincts. What a joke.

2. Corporate websites that don’t provide names for media contacts. I hate calling general “PR hotlines” or sending emails to PR@acme.com or, worst of all, filling out generic Web forms (see #3 below) with my interview or information requests. Worse yet: when I get no response to those queries. I picture a roomful of flacks sharing a good laugh as they read emails from desperate journalists. “This loser wants to interview our CMO! Hah!” Call me paranoid. Nature of the business.

3. Web forms that gag on apostrophes. Urband legend has it that a SQL programmer with a bone to pick against the Irish rigged the database language in 1994 to blow up whenever it sees a single quote mark. Whatever the history, filling out text fields in Web forms with a name like “O’Regan” remains a huge error-message-inducing pain in the ass at countless websites. Try it sometime.

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association posted a discussion draft today of 10 rules that marketers should follow when interacting with bloggers:

1. I  will always be truthful and will never knowingly relay false information. I will never ask someone else to deceive bloggers for me.
2. I will fully disclose who I am and who I work for (my identity and affiliations) from the very first encounter when communicating with bloggers or commenting on blogs.
3. I will never take action contrary to the boundaries set by bloggers. I will respect all community guidelines regarding posting messages and comments.
4. I will never ask bloggers to lie for me.
5. I will use extreme care when communicating with minors or blogs intended to be read by minors.
6. I will not manipulate advertising or affiliate programs to impact blogger income.
7. I will not use automated systems for posting comments or distributing information.
8. I understand that compensating bloggers may give the appearance of a conflict of interest, and I will therefore fully disclose any and all compensation or incentives.
9. I understand that if I send bloggers products for review, they are not obligated to comment on them. Bloggers can return products at their own discretion.
10. If bloggers write about products I send them, I will proactively ask them to disclose the products’ source.

Let’s simplify things and boil the list down to three: 1) Don’t lie, 2) Don’t cheat, 3) Don’t deceive. There, that was easy.

Open Post to All Marketers – Why Blogging Matters

 A great collection of essays here about the importance of blogging to marketers.

Earlier this week, the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog - ostensibly the musings of a happy couple traveling the country in an RV while overnighting only in Wal-Mart parking lots - was outed for being bankrolled by Wal-Mart’s outside PR firm, Edelman. This is not the first time Wal-Mart has been caught pushing the ethical boundaries of the blogosphere. Granted, the retail giant desperately needs some ammo for its ongoing steel-cage death match against its well-organized critics, but come on - what was it possibly thinking? I continue to be amazed when big brands and their big agencies swing and miss so badly. Wal-Mart got its buzz alright, but once again for all the wrong reasons.