Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Lot’s of lists floating about at this time of the year. This one really caught my eye. Adam Penenberg has penned an pretty interesting list of what he hopes will happen in online media during the coming year.

I was really intrigued for by the first two. The challenge of copyright and licensing of content will be one of the defining issues of the coming year. Looking at Google’s news portal – as I do each day – it strikes me that most of the publications will be overjoyed with the visibility Google gives them (I mean it’s not like I was visiting RealEstateGates.com, Radio Free Europe, or the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner). But it will be a defining issue for the big guys.

The second concerns the evolution of blogging. His second para is something I’m especially conscious of. Too many blogs, this one included, spend too much time ruminating on news rather than reporting, creating, or commenting on it. The great advantage of RSS is that I get to see what you have to post when you have something meaningful to post. Frequency isn’t the issue. Expect to hear less, but more from me in the New Year.

From NYC where I’m to judge the PR Week awards, see customers and drop by one of our agencies. I was intrigued to read that Starbucks is about to start serving muffins. Was thinking about how stupid this is (in brand terms) and then stumbled across Laura’s blog which pretty much nails my view…

The answer is not to mess with success. Strong brands stay focused. Strong brands stand for singular ideas in the mind. Starbucks should stay focused on coffee. Look at the success of their recent Pumpkin coffee promotion. So forget the egg muffins Howard and stick to the great coffee.

Down in New Zealand our coffee houses (and we have more, better, cooler of them than anywhere here) serve stunning food and even better coffee (when you have a ‘long flat white’ you’ll understand). The combo works well. The coffee house is a destination for a snack, lunch or, a cuppa. There the brand experience is defined also by the food served. All kinds of eclectic twists result.

But how an english muffin – the ‘same’ English muffin available at McDonalds – with carefully manufactured ham and cheese improves or adds to the (my) Starbucks brand experience escapes me. When we, the customer, said we wanted food, I think we meant, well, food.

But then I do have like $40 left on my Starbucks card… who would have thought a company could get you to prepay for your daily addiction all under the guise of convenience… and… the other reason I’m such an enthusiastic shareholder is their ability to move on from mistakes quickly – remember those milkshakes a couple of summers ago. Great idea but they subjected us to interminable waits for our daily fuel. The things we have to put up with to get going in the morning…

At least in terms of honesty according to Gallup (sign-up for the 30 day free trial to read more). TV reporters (#15) faired slightly better than Newspaper reporters (#16). Advertising practitioners ranked one above car salesman… ouch. According to Reuters…

Car salesmen brought up the rear with only 9 percent rating their honesty and ethics as high. That was one point lower than for people in advertising.

Journalists did not fare much better in public approval. TV reporters (23 percent) and newspaper reporters (21) ranked below auto mechanics (26) and nursing home operators (24) on the list.

James over at Redmonk points to an interesting response from one British entrepreneur to the BBC story on the effectiveness of email as a communications vehicle. Simply ban it.

Not sure that would work at Sun but would definitely free up a couple of hours each day! Actually, about a quarter of my day according to a study by the American Management Association. Hmmmm… that’s like two movies, at least one sail around the Bay or even a big lunch in the city.

For my unending promotion of Lakoff’s book “Don’t Think Of An Elephant“. Holly Yeager at the FT (the site with the annoying log-on and pop-ups) penned a short piece on it today.

And here’s another from The Chronicle on how the Democrats are looking at Lakoff’s advise.

“It’s all about words and craftsmanship,” said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, of Lakoff’s advice. “He shows us that we ought to take the Republicans’ words and show why they don’t work, why they just aren’t so.”

Taranto at the Wall Street Journal writes some of the first criticism of Lakoff’s thinking – or at least the implementation of it.

You see the problem: It’s not as if the Dems don’t already do what Lakoff is recommending. Indeed, the supposedly groundbreaking insight this professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences is offering is nothing more than a commonplace of political rhetoric: Generally, it is good to describe things you’re for in favorable-sounding terms and things you’re against in unfavorable-sounding ones.

The Dems seem to think Lakoff invented euphemism and dysphemism. Judging by the examples in the Chronicle piece, we’d say he isn’t even very good at employing them. “Public protection attorneys” as a euphemism for trial lawyers is simply laughable. (Actually, “trial lawyers” is a neutral term; it has negative connotations because trial lawyers have a bad reputation.) Calling same-sex marriage “the right to marry” seems unlikely to persuade anyone that the definition of marriage should change.

Fair point. Bottom-line is that while Lakoff’s recommended words might not be ideal, the process and thinking he has developed remains as powerful as ever. And as an observer of the latest election, did the Democrats need a message that more clearly resonated or what?