Rapid content response - can you do it?

Communications organizations need to act fast these days – like the bicycle maker that recently pounced on a green gaffe by General Motors.
Here’s how it went down.
GM put out this ad, targeted at college kids…
GM 'stop pedaling' ad
…showing a poor sap on a bike in front of a cute co-ed who was riding in a … wow, car!

Embarrassed

…and then there was this part:

bad part

“Yep. Shameless,” wrote BikePortland.org publisher/editor Jonathan Maus. “But just more of the same from the auto industry.”

Cyclists went ballistic. The auto company – a recent beneficiary of American tax dollars, contributor to our national debt, and the front end of a pretty big greenhouse gas supply chain – actually had the gall to promote its cars as, well, an alternative mode of transportation.
Why pedal, indeed? Why drink tap water when you can get a plastic bottle from Fiji? Why compost your leaves when you can let the garbage man take them to the landfill? Heck, why regulate carbon emissions when it’s easier just to spew?
Cyclists occupied Twitter with complaints about GM. The company quickly apologized (smart) via Twitter, shifting the blame onto college kids (dumb, but no one called them on it):
We're listening
One company in the bicycle industry, Giant Bicycles, actually made some hay with the story. The bike manufacturer came up with this take-off on GM’s ad and, within about 24 hours of the twitstorm’s beginning, posted it on Facebook.

Giant Bicycles reply parody ad

That’s quick.

The Giant post gained more than 1,000 likes and 386 shares (a pretty big share ratio). That’s solid engagement and a boost for the brand. Although Giant is admired for Toyota-like value, it doesn’t have the cachet of the Pinarello, Orbea or maybe even Trek brand. So leading the charge against GM’s foul, if only for a minute, adds an emotional dimension to Giant.
Either way, Giant’s rapid content generation feat is rare. Sure, savvy communications organizations know how to join a Twitter conversation, but quickly developing solid content like the parody ad almost never happens. Many companies and agencies still use byzantine “public relations 1.0” workflows for social content creation, review and approval – assuming they can conceive of a clever response in the first place.
Too often, it still takes a month to put out a press release. Even if social content takes half the time, this pace simply won't work. In the age of Twitter, Facebook or YouTube, an opportunity goes cold long before you’ve had a chance to run your proposed creative response up and down the chain of command, collecting edits, suggestions and feedback at every turn. By the time the content is blessed, if it ever is, it’s worthless.
To get results in 2011, be ready to act. Faster than you ever have. Like Giant, which is said to be the world’s largest bicycle manufacturer.
So … how does a giant company like Giant get so fast on its feet?
Well, we asked them*.
Checkmate: First, how did you come up with the idea for your parody ad?
An Le, Giant Global Marketing Director: GM’s ad was so off the mark that it made our idea quite easy. We simply illustrated the real “reality” of what college students (and many of us) are facing these days – rising cost of fuel, congestion, and an ever-expanding waistline.
Checkmate: How did you get the ad done so fast?

Giant: Instead of going through our agency or design house, we did this piece in-house. It took us about two hours from conception to going live on Facebook. With Facebook, we have a quick and casual way to get a message out to our core audience, and we would not have produced this parody ad if Facebook did not exist.

Checkmate: Do you pull off these quick content creation feats very often?

An Le on a charity ride. Photo by Jake Orness.

Giant's An Le in a charity ride. Photo by Jake Orness.

Giant: We create content daily – be it news, videos, photos, etc. – but this is our first parody ad.

Checkmate: What’s your process for approving the concept and, later, the final? How many approvals?

Giant: We don’t have too many layers of management at Giant. I have final say in creative, and in creating this particular ad, our in-house designer (Nate Riffle, who sits next to me) and I bounced ideas back and forth and had it done in a couple of hours. If we work with a design agency, the process is similar but does take a bit more back and forth. 

Checkmate: What is your secret for fast content creation?

 

Giant: Be quick. Avoid committee approval. Don’t worry about making it perfect. Have some guts to take chances once in a while. And don’t be malicious – do it in a spirit of fun.

...

* via email. They provided answers from their global marketing director in one hour and five minutes. Do your spokespeople move that fast? We got the right email address by pinging Giant’s Twitter address. That yielded another quick reply. Who’s monitoring your Twitter feed for media/blogger inquiries?

Saying goodbye to greeting cards

I’ve done a lot of things I haven’t enjoyed.

I worked in a fish-processing plant. Endless blocks of frozen cod came rolling down the line. We’d cut and pack it for millions of consumers longing for six-month-old sea catch. At least I got a uniform – a dashing cross between fast-food counterman and computer chip lab technician. My hairnet made the plant girls swoon; or maybe it was the oppressive heat.

Later, I found work in management. I managed toilets at an industrial company that cleaned uniforms, tablecloths and towels. The laundry bundles were rank with ketchup, molasses, steak juice and mayonnaise. The toilets, however, were another story. Shiny white porcelain had been replaced long ago by a black nastiness that made it impossible to distinguish between permanent discoloration and recent events.

I devoted many hours working events that inevitably ended in “athon.” Hot dog-athon. Parade-athon. Texas square-dance-athon. Although the causes were worthy, the pay was an inviting $1.50 per weekend day plus all the stimulating conversation I could muster with people attired in gingham, string ties, polka dots, petticoats and metal-tipped shirt collars who willingly responded to strange verbal calls.

But these adventures pale in comparison to setting foot in a Hallmark Store.

Oh, I’m sure Joyce Clyde Hall meant well when he invented the business in 1915. He thought greeting cards represented class and were “more than a form of communication, they were a social custom.” By 1944, this philosophy had been ingrained in the public’s consciousness via a clever tagline: “When you care enough to send the very best.”

Fast forward nearly 70 years, however, and greeting cards have become arduous and quaint.

Arduous:

I’m always amazed how something so simple becomes so complicated. They’re all cards (one idea), but there are so many layers:

  • Recipients (grandmas, brother-in-laws, dogs, neighbors!)
  • Categories (stress, consolation, surprise, death!)
  • Occasions (birthdays, anniversaries, retirement, weddings!)
  • Varieties (Shoebox, Maxine, Forever Friends, singing cards!)
  • Mood (serious, sappy, sublime, inspirational!)
  • Quantity (50 different card choices – at least - per major category)

When I’ve worked through the layer matrix and finally zeroed in on the card zone I need, my frustration spikes again. Despite the expansive choice, the words never feel right. I don’t talk that way, and I don’t think that way.

Quaint:

Sending a greeting card seems so irrelevant in this age of social networking; the way we communicate has changed radically since Clyde invented a new social norm.

People communicate more than ever and they’re very comfortable doing it. Whether it’s sending Tweets, Facebooking, writing blogs, texting, posting videos or sharing photos, our country and the whole world for that matter is connecting and expressing constantly.

We’re also much more aware of our environment and sustainability. We care about what we buy, consume and dispose of. How many beautiful, life-giving trees is Mr. Hall’s social custom responsible for?

So I’m wondering:

Do we really need to waste a half hour in a store looking for a printed card written by someone we don’t know that’s consumed in a few seconds and thrown away? Is social media really more impersonal than a card? Could hearing a live human voice be, by any chance, more meaningful? If I convey my own thoughts using my own words and send that message however I choose, is this not the most personal touch of all?

The greeting card business is headed the same place as film cameras. And I no longer feel guilty about not sending the very best. I'd rather don a hairnet, pack fish and clean a toilet.

I’m really sorry. Unless I’m not

Public apologies as an art form need a serious overhaul because they have a very fundamental problem. No one believes them.
Look at what just happened to Rupert Murdoch. The tabloid baron apologized in person to the family of a British murder victim whose voicemails were hacked by his reporters. The family’s lawyer said the family believed Murdoch was “very humbled and very shaken and very sincere.” Unfortunately for Murdoch, no one else seemed to believe him. Poke around the blogosphere and you’ll find a lot of comments along the lines of “Murdoch’s just sorry he got caught.”  
When even the victim’s family can’t vouch for an apology, you know the art form is really in a sorry state.
Murdoch’s is just the latest public apology to fall flat. Tiger Woods, BP, Charlie Sheen, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Brown and John Edwards are just a few of the celebrities whose recent apologies went over like day-old road kill.
Those of us in the PR industry need to take notice because the odds are that we’re going to have to help a client apologize for something, someday. If the apology is tanking as a form of public contrition, our repertoire of tools is severely limited. So here’s a suggestion for rebooting the public apology. The next time a client is in the broth and needs your help saying they’re sorry, try asking them this question: “Are you?”
No, seriously. How often does the person in the fix reflexively bark, “sorry, sorry, sorry!” without really understanding what they should be sorry for? That’s a big part of why people don’t believe apologies. How much more credibility would a company or an individual have if they said something along the lines of:
“I stepped in it big time. I understand that what I did or said caused a lot of people pain and loss. But right now, I only understand that on a factual level. Before I can sincerely apologize, I need to spend time with the people I have offended to learn why I thought I could disrespect them in the first place. I need to hear directly from them how my actions affected them. I’ve asked and they’ve agreed. At the same time, I have to examine the thoughts, feelings, prejudices and blind spots that got me into this mess to begin with. When I figure them out, I can ask for forgiveness with humility and a true awareness of the damage I have caused. I expect to be standing in front of you again soon, able to offer the people I have injured an apology that comes from understanding and genuine regret.”
Apology purists will argue that this isn’t an apology. Okay, it’s not. It’s a promise of an apology, with the apologist publicly putting themselves on the hook by setting high expectations. They’re showing a willingness to learn, not just go through the motions. It’s a high-risk PR strategy, but how much more risky is it than an apology that no one believes?

Powered By: BlogCFC via Ray Camden.    Design By: Harbour Light Strategic Marketing      Privacy policy    Terms and conditions