Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Sam Ford.

Companies spend a lot of time thinking about how to engage their audiences when it comes to marketing.

Traditionally, this conversation ends up focusing on having (or imagining) some sort of captive audience: the magazine or newspaper reader who can't help but look at an advertisement as they read the headlines; the TV viewer who sits through a commercial while waiting for their show to come back on; or the poor sap whose mailbox is sagging due to the loads of junk mail stuffed in each day.

Online, companies' first impulse has been to create branded spaces they own and then come up with ways to corral audiences into them: sending them along the paths we line out for them and poking and prodding them for quantitative data along the way. What better way to know if our marketing is working, after all, than to make everything easy for us to measure, no matter how onerous it is on the audience?

Sometimes, marketers do acknowledge that such approaches miss where audiences are actually already engaging, and where conversations are already happening. But in response, they often take the traditional PR route: creating lists of influencers–the few thought leaders in a given field who, they convince themselves, will bring a whole community along for the ride, if you can just get them on board.

All of these communications approaches have a vital flaw: they are about communicating at the customer, about owning the conversation, and–primarily–about fulfilling the company's marketing needs.

Now think about what might happen if we think about engagement instead from the audience's point of view.

This is the challenge we've given ourselves at Peppercom for more than a year now. As we think about our clients and potential clients, it has driven the strategies and approaches we recommend and has become one of our most effective means for problem-solving.

And, as we will officially announce next week, Audience Experience is now the newest service offering from Peppercom, where Peppercom— in collaboration with our partner and author of Your Call Is (Not That) Important to Us, Emily Yellin— will work with companies to immerse them in their key audiences' perspectives.

This approach, and offering, is as straightforward as it sounds: we help communicators step outside their view from within a particular department in their company and instead think about their communication from the perspective of the audiences they seek to reach. It's a way of thinking built on a basic sense of empathy, but it's been as deceptive as it is simple. Unfortunately, this commonsense approach has not been all that common.

We can speak from experience that truly embracing and adopting this approach is a work in progress. It's a goal we strive for and a bar we have set to reach through our work every day. It requires constantly challenging ourselves to rethink and reconfigure how we think. But the potential benefits are incredible, in terms of creating and managing communication that resonates with, serves, and engages the audiences we seek to reach.

Engaging the audience means knowing them— not just as a stat in a survey, or as an aggregate customer profile, or as the member of a focus group, or as an impression— but knowing and seeing ourselves from their point of view. It means always thinking of audience members as actual people, considering what their wants and needs are, and thinking about how the company serves them, rather than just marketing at them.

Peppercom's prevailing philosophy moving forward is that intimately knowing, anticipating and answering the audience's wants and needs benefits our clients, their audiences, and us. And both we and our clients are finding new ways this approach helps us every time we take it. We also hope it is a way of thinking that marketing and corporate communications increasingly comes to realize they can't afford to ignore.

A week after its debut, I had the chance to catch the last half hour of the newly revamped morning show on CBS.  The new morning show with its former name, CBS This Morning, promised that it would be the anti-Today Show and anti-Good Morning America, bringing hard news back to the morning.  On CBS’s website, it boasts “The style, tone, and content of the morning program extends CBS News' commitment to original reporting and journalistic integrity.”  As a news junkie, I was excited to see the show’s new format…until I actually turned on the TV.  All three anchors — Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill – were interviewing actor Simon Baker.  It eerily looked more like an interrogation than an interview.  And, oh, yes, the interview was oozing with journalistic integrity when the anchors asked Mr. Baker if he’s a surfer because he grew up in Australia or because he lived in California for 10 years.  I was glued to the TV waiting for his answer.  And, to top it off, Mr. Baker is on CBS’s show “The Mentalist.”  Talk about promoting your own shows.   I have nothing against Mr. Baker or CBS-TV.  But, as a viewer, I was duped.  CBS promised hard news and then didn’t deliver.  The messages the network pushed out were very different from my disappointed experience.

At Peppercom, we always look through the lens of the end-user to determine if there is a gap between what an organization promises and what the audience experiences.  And, there was certainly a gap with CBS…a large one that I fell through as I fell for CBS’s message.  But, I decided to give it another shot.  Maybe the Mentalist needed some additional publicity.  Next up was a segment that ran the night before on another CBS show “60 Minutes.”  Really?  Is there no new news?  The segment, for the next several minutes, discussed – and argued – how to say the name of the country Qatar.  And, even when a citizen of Qatar told Mr. Simon that it’s pronounced “Cutter,” Mr. Simon said, “But my wife pronounces it Ka-tar.”  Forget hard news.  Does this even qualify for soft news?  I didn’t know if I was more upset about CBS This Morning not delivering on its promise or watching “60 Minutes” melt before my eyes.  

What networks and companies need to understand is that they can’t just promise that a show or product or service does something.  They have to deliver on that promise.   Audiences are not stupid.  We don’t just sit there and accept what you tell us.  We actually experience the show, the product or the service.  Regarding “CBS This Morning,” all I know is what I didn’t experience… the news.

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Ann Barlow.

If you’re a cow or a heifer, a steer or a bull, you are quite a bit less popular with the American people than you were five years ago.  Same for pigs.  We don’t even feel the same way about chickens as we did in the first decade of the 21st century.  An animal could develop a complex.

But not in this case.  As New York Times magazine food columnist Mark Bittman writes in this week’s blog, Americans are eating less meat than we used to.  Down 12 percent in the past five years. 

There are plenty of posits on the reason behind the decline.  Rising food costs.  Less money in the checking account.  And the occasional common sense that we the people sometimes show.  We may actually be realizing that an 8-ounce portion of steak or pasta Bolognese, while delicious, just isn’t all that good for us.

Full disclosure:  I am not a vegetarian.  I do try to get my protein from sources like nuts, beans, eggs and cheese.  I do, however, tuck into some grilled chicken or sliced pork tenderloin at least a couple of times per week.  But I don’t feel the need to have meat every night the way I used to.

I know I’m healthier as a result, as are all of us who have changed our consumption habits for one reason or another.  And if the trend continues, animals won’t be the only ones breathing easier.  Less methane equals better air quality, too. 

Of course, industry associations are shall we say, having a cow?  Mad as a wet hen?  They aren’t as happy as a pig in you-know-what, that’s for sure.  I can understand that, since they represent people who pay them whose livelihoods could be threatened by such a trend.  But how often do you have eggs and bacon for breakfast.  It’s not like it’s the first time our eating habits have changed and it won’t be the last.   

So, Bessie, Wilbur.   Don’t take our staying away personally.  Sometimes it really is good to be less popular.

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Maggie O'Neill.

What do Justin Timberlake, Snooki and 140,000 people have in common this week? They all descended on the Consumer Electronics Show for four days of technology’s best and its predictions for 2012.  As this is my 15th year here- give or take a year or two- I have to report that while it’s chaotic and loud as ever, it does have a slightly different feel to it. 

First, it feels like the year of the entrepreneur.  While players like LG, Samsung and Panasonic bicker in their football field sized booths over whose flat screen is larger and more 3D, the tech entrepreneur is quietly– and not so quietly- showcasing true innovations from robots to flying cars to medical monitoring apps.  And the attendees were taking notice.  

The second observation, despite the onslaught of celebrities, was the show reverted back to its core benefit– building relationships.  The show– as chaotic as it is- reminded me of the power and value of the face-to-face meeting.  Gone are the days of avatar presenters and back are the small couches and intimate meeting spaces.  It seemed that exhibitors are making an effort to talk with, listen to and build something with their customers.

From the perspective of an event marketer, this is a welcome approach.  Yes, the bells and whistles of an exciting and over-the-top product launch are all still there.  I mean Justin Timberlake at a Panasonic event, come on.  But the rumors of the demise of the face-to-face event, the virtual tradeshow- only predictions and all meetings online, seem to be premature.

All good news for business and for marketers, now if only my black jack dealer could get on board with this optimism.

Guest blog by Greg Schmalz, president, Schmalz Communications.

So the question of whether Alabama deserved the right to play for college football’s national championship has been answered.

You’ll recall that Alabama lost to Louisiana State University, 9-6, on November 5, 2011. The Crimson Tide seemed to have the upper hand in that regular season game, but came up empty on four of six field goals attempts.  Yet, many thought they were the best team in the country and deserved a rematch with LSU.

One by one teams fell by the wayside.  Oregon, Stanford and then finally Oklahoma State.  LSU remained the only unbeaten team in major college football.

Well, Alabama got the rematch it wanted and the Crimson Tide went out Monday night and showed why they deserved to be in the BCS title game as they easily won, 21-0.

On one hand, you had a motivated team in Alabama. Heck, they lost the first game and wanted to redeem themselves.  Nobody likes to be a loser and they wanted to prove they were the better team.

On the other hand, how could LSU get motivated for such a game?  After all, the Bayou Bengals went into Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama on its home field.  You mean, we have to do it again?

Yes, Alabama featured a smothering defense, holding LSU to just 92 yards in total offense and allowed the Tigers just once to cross midfield.

Playing 44 days after their last game was not conducive to being sharp, either.  Why the powers-to-be drag these games out is beyond me other than to maximize the income they can generate from television revenue.

And while Alabama can now claim to be No. 1, are they really?  What happened to the regular season game?  Doesn’t that mean anything?  So it’s one game apiece, should they play another one?

Is the current system acceptable?  Or should there be a more formal playoff such as Divisions II and III?  After all, Alabama becomes the first national champion since the BCS championship game was implemented not to have won its own conference.  The rematch really hasn't solved anything.

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Sara Whitman.

I am all for authenticity. In this business, you can’t put a high enough premium on straight talk, honesty and the real deal. Sometimes, though, you can be a little too open, thereby jeopardizing your reputation and the reputation of your company.

Take for example my return home last week from an international trip with my family. Like most Americans, I was dreading the airplane travel. It’s not a fear of flying or security lines or even traveling with my three kids (who were very well behaved for 12+ hours, for those of you think children are better off in isolation than in the main cabin).

Nope, for me, the constant delays, lack of reasoning and utter disregard for human beings on the plane kills me. This time, we were flying Continental. I’ve been impressed with the United merger so far. It hasn’t impacted me all that much beyond being able to consolidate my miles and a few gate changes. So when my family of five faced a flight delay on our last of a three-leg trip home, I was disappointed, but I know it’s not the airline.

We were delayed, not delayed, leaving right now, last call, and then sat on the tarmac before taking off 90 minutes later. Annoying. Still, it’s the reality of flying today. And it doesn’t change my opinion of Continental or any other airline for that matter.
Then the kicker. Our flight attendant gave us the option to either stay on the plane or to get off. Some passengers opted to stay and others tried to get off. That’s when she said, “Oh no. It’s either all of you or none of you. I’m not going to stand here and be nice to you if I’m not getting paid.”

What? Did I hear that right? You’re happy to be nice to us if we’re all trapped on the plane, but if anyone gets off the plane, you’re no longer paid and we have a fat chance of any common courtesy. Amazing. Authentic? Yes, though not in the way Continental would hope, I’m sure.
We all stayed. The attendant was very pleasant the rest of the trip. But there was no doubt every passenger on that flight knew her real deal.