RepMan

Knowing when to say when

Not too long ago, we pitched a piece of business in which the founding CEO was still actively engaged. We waited patiently for his arrival and, then, boom, the conference door swung wide open.

In limped a wizened, elderly gent who looked to be in a great deal of physical distress. He hopped into the room, lowered his failing body onto a chair and pulled himself towards the table.

We began the discussion, but he quickly interrupted. First, he wanted to tell us what he was looking for. That was fine. But, then, he began to regale us with countless war stories from pre-Columbian America. His tales were interesting, but totally irrelevant to the topic at hand: getting his organization better known.

It got to the point where we were collectively biting tongues and pinching arms to keep from snickering. And that, for so many reasons, was sad.

It's sad to see anyone in any profession who doesn't know when to say when. Professional sports are full of these sad sacks, including:

- Willie Mays, circa 1973
- Joe Namath, circa 1977
- Joe Louis, Roberto Duran, Muhammad Ali and countless boxers.
- Herschel Walker (Greg Schmalz tells me the erstwhile Heisman Trophy winner of three decades past is now an Ultimate Fighter. That's sad and scary)
- Brett Favre, circa now (Just check out the Hyundai Super Bowl commercial)

Politics seems to attract a fair share of octogenarian blowhards who don't know when to say when. That said, Congress seems replete with blowhards of all ages.

So, why do some people not know when to say when? And, why do others know exactly when to step aside? Greta Garbo, Sandy Koufax and Barry Sanders come to mind. Each quit while still at the very peak of her or his game.

As we were leaving the new business meeting described above, I pulled our team aside and said, 'Guys, I'd like one of you to put a bullet in me if I ever hobble into a meeting and start telling war stories from the 17th century.'

I'm not sure what my image and reputation will be when I finally do step down. But, I don't want to make it any worse than it will be by sticking around too long. I'd like to think I'll know when to say when.

There doesn't seem to be a Robin Hood in this economic downturn

I've been on a Depression-era reading binge of late ranging from 'The Grapes of Wrath' to 'Pretty Boy: The Story of Charles Floyd.' I also happened to catch the surprisingly good flick, 'Public Enemies.'

I found it fascinating to discover that the public enemies of the Great Depression era were often desperadoes with hearts of gold. Floyd, for example, would not only rob banks, he'd tear up the mortgages being held on his friends' properties (that's kind of cool and certainly endeared him to the local kinfolk). And Dillinger was noted for being an early proponent of Ronald Reagan's trickle-down theory. He'd often hand out recently stolen bank money to passers-by in the street and occasionally pay the drivers of the cars he'd just hijacked.

Floyd and Dillinger were also said to be extremely friendly and courteous, especially to local citizens who lionized the bad guys for 'getting even' with a system that had let them all down. Locals not only provided food and shelter, they'd often send pursuing G-men on a wild goose chase.

The public enemies of the Great Depression chose crime as their way out of poverty. But, some did it in such a way that their image and reputation often rivaled that of, say, a Babe Ruth or Jack Dempsey in terms of popularity.

Juxtapose that phenomenon with today. We're in the midst of what many are calling the Great Recession. Yet, I sure haven't seen any examples of latter-day Robin Hoods, have you?

Today's criminals seem to range from Al Qaeda operatives and white-collar Dennis Kozlowski types to drive-by gangstas who murder innocent kids and muggers who kick the bejesus out of helpless octogenarians. If there's been one bad guy with a good heart, I've sure missed the story.

So, how come Dillinger and Floyd had hearts of gold while Madoff and the Christmas Day underwear bomber don't? (Btw, how'd you like to be remembered for the rest of your life with that sobriquet? 'Hi, I'm Steve. I do PR, and you?' 'I'm Achmed. You may remember me as the Christmas Day underwear bomber.').

I think yesteryear's bad guys were nicer because they grew up in a 'nicer' society where the Golden Rule still existed. Floyd, for example, came from a classic, hard-working farm family. Neither Floyd nor Dillinger grew up in a 24x7 negative news cycle. Nor did they have access to video games like Grand Theft Auto (although both would have no doubt excelled at it). In short, Dillinger and Floyd grew up in a kinder, gentler world where a man's handshake was as good as gold, people treated one another with respect and role models (for the most part) behaved like role models.

Today's criminal class would probably laugh at the very notion of sharing the loot with the unemployed underclass. Sadly, our bad guys are more like the sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood.

Detroit has to be loving Toyota's troubles

Like most car owners, I've been amazed to see how many problems Toyota is experiencing with its cars. I'm also surprised to see how poorly they've handled it (The New York Times reports that Toyota issued the recall only after U.S. Transportation Department officials had to fly to Japan to 'remind Toyota about its legal obligations.' Apparently, the car maker knew about the pedal acceleration issues as long ago as April, but did nothing to alert consumers about it). I've heard about differences within the ‘auto culture’ before, but didn't think they extended to not doing the right thing.

In the midst of the Toyota chaos (and the latest report that the legendary Prius is also experiencing problems), I have to believe the shell-shocked, erstwhile Big Three are gleefully rubbing their hands. For once, Detroit's egregious mistakes and missteps are out of the spotlight. For once, Detroit can focus on regaining the monumental market share losses of the past three decades.

But, will they? Ford is beautifully positioned to do so (and, apparently saw a 25 percent sales increase in January). Chrysler, though, is a mere shell of its former self and actually dropped eight percent in January sales. If they can't take advantage of Toyota's weakness now, will they ever? And GM, which changes CEOs more often than Chipotle churns ad agencies (see yesterday's blog), posted a healthy 14 percent January sales gain.

Despite the Ford and GM successes, I think Toyota will be just fine. They've built tremendous brand loyalty over the past 30 years by owning dependability and affordability. And, I for one, still have a classic Pavlovian response whenever I even consider purchasing an American car (I shudder in horror just thinking about the shoddy workmanship of years past).

Toyota has to come clean in a hurry (which can be a tough thing for an auto company that is used to holding its cards close to its corporate chest). 

The carmaker can easily regain its image and reputation mojo if it stops stalling, starts repairing and goes beyond a few 'mea culpas' from its U.S. executives on CNBC, MSNBC and Fox Business.

Tell us why the problem happened, Toyota. Tell us why it took so long for you to respond and why U.S. officials had to force you to do so. And, while you're at it, tell us what's up with the Prius.

Tell us you've fixed all the problems. And , most importantly, tell us why it won't happen again.

Detroit is still way too weak to capitalize on Toyota's missteps. That said, time's a wasting. And, I'm not liking the lack of transparency.

What would you do?

Ad Age just ran a fascinating article about the industry's 'most toxic' clients. According to 'unnamed' advertising search consultants (Don't you just love that they won't go on record? What is this, Watergate?), there are several brands that are positively notorious for churning their agencies. They include:

 - Chipotle (which has had something like 30 agencies in five years)

- Quiznos (we had a small project this past Summer and really enjoyed the working relationship. Go figure.)

- 1-800-Flowers

Ad Age suggests the churn is caused by a constant turnover at the CMO level. That sounds right. I'd suggest, though, that the CMO churn is precipitated by constant change at the organization's CEO level. One begets the other (I love Biblical speak).

We've fallen prey to three recent CMO churns, losing an existing relationship in each case.

The whole sorry and sordid mess got me thinking. What would I do if I were a newly-minted CMO at a Fortune 500 organization? Would I:

A) Alert the incumbent firm(s) that they're dead meat and have 60 days to wrap things up? Like Nick Lowe, I believe it's cruel to be kind.

B) Put the account up for review, but assure the incumbent CEO that his firm has the best chance of winning? I fell for that line.

C) Tell the incumbent it has one chance to defend the business before you'll put the account up for review. Then, hold the meeting, tell the incumbent they've addressed your concerns and fire them regardless immediately after the new year? That one just happened. Nice, no?

I, personally, would go with option one. As a newly-minted CMO, I'd want to be surrounded by people I've worked with in the past, not vestiges of a predecessor's regime. That said, I'd call the agency CEO, tell him or her that I respect their work, but was making a change. It's the only humane thing to do.

One new top kick at a Fortune 500 company called our account team together this past Fall, lauded our efforts, said his direct report raved about us and even told us he'd like to expand the relationship. In the process, he asked for no fewer than four separate proposals on how we'd do just that. We were psyched to say the least. Then, we heard absolutely nothing for 30 days.

His lieutenant (the one who'd supposedly praised us in absentia) finally sent me a note, asking for dinner and commenting that it had been 'too long' since we'd last broken bread. We met and, after telling me about his son's soccer team, said, 'Steve, it's time to dial down the relationship.'

Advertising has its toxic brands. PR should have the same. The group I just mentioned would top my list. Have any toxic client churn stories you'd like to share? I find it quite cathartic.

Everyday products to everyday people in not so everyday ways

I’m always fascinated to see how organizations, large and small, attempt to differentiate themselves while delivering on a brand promise. As I mentioned in a previous blog entry, I once worked for an integrated agency whose tagline was: ‘Sales overnight and image over time.’ Sadly, the firm couldn’t deliver on either and has subsequently gone the way of all flesh. Richmond, Va. based Martin Agency, however, is the polar opposite of my erstwhile alma mater.

Adweek just named Martin its U.S. agency of the year. In addition to growing by 12 percent and winning such big accounts such as Pizza Hut and Microsoft, Martin won an amazing 14 of the 18 competitive reviews in which it competed. Wow.

Martin does an extraordinarily good job of differentiating itself and delivering on its brand promise in simple, direct words. Mike Hughes, the agency’s creative director, says his firm fosters work that, ‘sells everyday products to everyday people in not so everyday ways.’ Is that sweet, or what?

I hate it when businesspeople use the word ‘elegant’ to describe their product or service, but that line is, quite simply, elegant. And simple. It tells me exactly who the agency targets (brands such as Pizza Hut). It tells me which target audience they know best (the everyday people who buy products from Wal-Mart and Expedia). And, critically, it tells me that Martin executes in unexpected ways (and that’s the brand promise).

Too many professional services sector firms try too hard to say too much in their taglines and positioning statements. Most end up saying exactly the same thing in more or less the same unintelligible mishmash of words. So, when a Martin comes along with a crisp, compelling statement that it actually delivers on, well, that calls for an old-fashioned shout out.

The color purple

Can an organization 'own' a color? By own, I mean, can an organization's corporate color elicit an emotional connection with a consumer that will immediately stimulate endorphins in the brain and make said consumer think good thoughts about the entity?

There are definitely some examples where it's worked to a degree:

- UPS has done an extraordinarily good job of associating an otherwise yucky color, brown, with dependability (that said, I never understood how or why the UPS delivery guys in their ugly brown shorts became short-lived sex symbols).

- Lance Armstrong and Livestrong certainly 'own' the yellow wrist band. It elicits a near universal response. But, I don't think of Livestrong when I see the color yellow anywhere else.

- The great Oakland Raiders teams of the 1970s and '80s 'owned' silver and black, and tied it directly to their harsh, ferocious and, some would say, cheap shot brand of football. The silver and black inspired genuine fear.

- That nauseating Pepto-Bismol pink is unlike anything else I've ever seen and immediately stimulates a nasty, Pavlovian response in this blogger. I detest that particular shade of pink, but would argue that Pepto does, indeed, own it (and, they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned).

- Enterprise Rental Cars has done a superior job of branding their emerald green color. But, when I happen to see the color, do I stop and think, 'Dandy has to get me an Enterprise rental car the next time I travel'? Nope.

The reason I ask the color question stems from a rather bizarre conversation with a very bizarre company about a year or so ago.

We were running from one background session to another as we ramped up our knowledge of the brand and its intricacies. In one of these meetings, we were greeted by an in-house brand ambassador. He sat us down and began a serious Power Point presentation all about the color purple. He told us the color's origins (even I knew it was created by mixing red and blue). He told us when the first businesses started adopting the color in their logos and, critically, what companies were using purple today. The big take away? This organization had a 'white space' or 'blue ocean' (choose your color metaphor) opportunity to own purple.

The brand ambassador walked us through his purple implementation plan and showed how, in a very short time, the organization would become absolutely synonymous with the color. The internal PR team feigned faux enthusiasm for the 'idea' and asked us how the business-to-business media would respond to the 'story.'

We stifled a collective sigh, agreed that an Ad Age or AdWeek might find it mildly amusing, but said that non-trade press would laugh and hang up their phones in a nanosecond if we suggested this was a story worth covering.

Needless to say, the color purple idea (like most within this chaotic organization) died on the vine. I do think, though, the very same organization could own chaos.

I'm not sure if there's a color associated with chaos but, if so, I'd suggest an immediate Pantone change. The color of chaos would definitely create an emotional connection with this organization's target audience.

Uh oh, Bill. They brought the Etch A Sketch

I long ago learned the painful lessons of the bait-and-switch.

It was the earliest days of the original dotcom hysteria (I'm talking 1993, which was way early).

The firm for which I toiled had a solid record in cable and interactive television. Through some high-level contacts, we were introduced to a tiny start-up called c/net (how 'bout that?).

We went into the pitch and dazzled the original founders with our knowledge of TV and this nascent thing called the Internet. Our star was a guy who led the Discovery and Learning Channel accounts and really knew his stuff. As we ended the meeting, we handed them an Etch A Sketch on which we'd written: 'c/net and EPB: partners in a new era of communications.' Or, words to that effect. Since c/net was a pioneer in streaming news on the web, they loved the retro parting gift. We were hired.

Now, fast forward three or four weeks. Our account star, who had been in the midst of moving from New York to Bethesda when we pitched c/net, was gone. Our other team players knew next to nothing about the new medium, the media who were springing up like weeds to cover it or the technology analysts who, we would soon learn, were so critical to the overall communications equation.

Long story short, we were summoned to c/net's tiny offices for a showdown. We were fearing the worst, but hopeful they'd give us a second chance.

That's when the doors swung open and the founders walked in carrying all of our folders. I spied what sat on the top of the folders, leaned over to my boss and whispered, 'Uh oh, Bill. They brought the Etch A Sketch.'

After a mercifully short tongue lashing for misrepresenting our capabilities, we were fired and, as Chris Hansen likes to tell Dateline predators, 'free to go.'

The Etch A Sketch disaster was a great learning lesson for all concerned. Nowadays, we not only make sure we go into a new business meeting with the right team for the prospect's challenge. We also bring the team that will do the actual day-to-day work. We typically end new business presentations by saying, 'What you see is what you get.'

We've lost accounts for other reasons, but no one's ever nailed us for doing a bait-and-switch (or returned an Etch A Sketch either).

Brouillard, Brainerd or just bad manners?

I've received some pretty amazing, unsolicited e-mails over the years. But, two recent ones were exceptional in their sloppiness.

The first came from the editor of a leading industry trade publication, inviting me to submit ideas for a new daily news feed. That was cool, but the editor ended the note by adding, 'And, Steve, please pass along this note to other executives at Brouillard Communications." Ouch. I left Brouillard in August of 1995. Could it be time to update your database, Mr. Editor?

The second came from a job seeker who had seen our recent posting for new hires and exclaimed, 'I cannot tell you how excited I'd be if I got the junior account executive position at Brainerd Communications!' Ouch. Brainerd Communications? Is the job seeker related to the industry trade editor?

Needless to say, neither the Brouillard nor Brainerd notes lived to see another day.

We're all in a rush, but sloppy e-mails are an embarrassment for all concerned. In the case of the trade editor, there's no real damage done since his publication will do just fine without our commentary. But, the job seeker cost herself an interview. And, in this horrific economy, that's inexcusable.

So, the next time you're about to send an e-mail to more than one organization, do everyone a favor: update your database and be sure your note is going to the intended recipient. The job offer you save may be your own.

Old reliable

The late New York Yankees star Tommy Henrich was known as 'old reliable' for his uncanny ability to deliver clutch hits at critical moments.

In today's scandal-soaked scene few, if any, people, places or things deserve a sobriquet like old reliable. But I've managed to come up with a few that, good or bad, still deliver on reliability:

- Take New Jersey Transit's 7:31am 'express' to the city. Please!

It's never, ever on time. In fact, its consistently bad performance has inspired me to suggest such alternative taglines as: 'Just train bad' and 'Expect less.'

But, I think 'old reliable' is even more evocative since it captures the certainty of massive, ongoing delays.
 
- The corporate communications executive who insists a $5,000 sales promotion is not only newsworthy, but should be jammed into the lead sentence of a bylined article on thought leadership. 

This member of the old reliable club exists in many PR departments and can be counted on to do what the sales and business leaders tell him rather than what smart, strategic communications would dictate.

- The Mets and Jets. Each teases fans with occasional flashes of brilliance but each always disappoints in the end. Old reliables, both.

- Politicians of all stripes. If there's one thing that's become crystal clear over the past few years, it's this: we can count on the politicians to fiddle while Rome burns. Old reliables, each and every one.

- The technology in ANY new business presentation. Whether it's the laptop, the flash drive, the projector, the video conference or the telephone, something technical will always go wrong in any important new business pitch. Period.

I'm not sure how or why this always happens, but it always does. So, let's add technology snafus to the old reliable list.

These are my old reliables. What are yours?

A marriage made in heaven

Guest Post from Trish Taylor, Peppercom

In the Chicago area, the name Drew Peterson is nearly as well known as Barack Obama. Drew Peterson gained infamy when his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, went missing in 2007. Because a body was never found and there were no signs of foul play, he was never charged with a crime. But coincidentally his third wife, Kathleen Savio, mysteriously drowned in an empty bathtub in their home in 2004. He is now on trial for the murder of Savio.

It has been a media circus since Stacey went missing in 2007 and every time I see his antics I wonder why the media covers him. He has appeared on Larry King and all the national morning shows. When indicted for Savio’s death he told the media, “I guess I should have returned those library books.”

Well it looks like Peterson was able to finally find a law firm that loves oddball publicity as much as him. This week his legal representation issued a release titled, “Not just another pretty face.”  The defense team now includes a former model turned lawyer who is a single mom of three kids. Why does this matter? I have no idea, either. The release goes on to say that although this lawyer (Reem Odeh) doesn’t normally address the court, they are utilizing her mom skills to interview Peterson’s kids on the stand.

The best part of the release? This line: "Reem wants the public to know that beyond her stunning good looks is a hard-nosed attorney who is detail-oriented and brings keen analytical skills to Team Peterson." 

You can’t make this stuff up. While most law firms want to fly low, avoid the radar and encourage their clients also to keep quiet, this firm wants all the attention it can get. I’m all about transparency, but why add to the PT Barnumness of this trial? Luckily only the Chicago Tribune seems to have picked up the release and I’m pretty sure it was to scoff at the ridiculousness of it all. It seems like Peterson has found a perfect fit for his antics.

If this works out for Peterson, maybe Odeh can be his fifth wife. She fits the bill.