It took a long ten months — from the time that Mayor Bloomberg proposed his plan to ban large sugary drinks of 32 oz. from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments, ostensibly to curtail obesity, to NY’s State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling’s verdict, which came down yesterday invalidating the proposed law, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”
What? We cannot do the simple math? In my blog of June 1, “…Size Matters,” I argued that if we could not buy a 32oz. soda, we could just get two 16 oz. ones, obesity be damned. Our choice. Not Mayor Bloomberg’s.
It is absolutely incredible that the proposed plan was taken seriously in the first place; incredible that it got so far as to have businesses such as Dunkin Donuts, hand out information cards to its customers in preparation of having to comply with the potential upcoming law; incredible that it wasted the time of lawmakers, judges, city clerks and, of course, Judge Tingling’s; and incredible that this nonsense might have become a law today.
Just imagine all that would have been accomplished in that time, had the focus been on what really would impact healthy eating. A law could have been proposed and implemented by now for public schools to get healthier lunch menus; for public education and community centers to dig deeper into needy neighborhoods that do not otherwise have access to health seminars and dietary information; for restaurants to list calorie counts of dishes they serve, no matter how upscale they may be; for movie theaters to do likewise with their snacks (if they don’t do so already); and for public health centers and clinics to re-double their efforts to promote healthy diets.
It’s a clear case of a misguided personal quest to leave a legacy of healthier New Yorkers. A personal quest at the cost of businesses’ profits, of sending a message to the obese community that cutting out large sodas is an easy answer to loosing weight and of mocking the real causes of obesity — health issues that go far deeper than soda.
It gets worse…It seems like he had all loose ends tied up to support his plan. He had the city’s mayor-controlled health board approve the ban last fall, improperly sidestepped the city council’s legislative authority, and had a new city study released the day before the law was to go into effect that showed that neighborhoods with the greatest obesity, also consumed the most sugary drinks.
Unfortunately, the city’s chief lawyer plans an appeal. More waste of time; much ado over nothing…
Somebody was asleep at the virtual wheel…
So Tesla finally did produce the vehicle logs that ostensibly contradict the New York Times’ reporter John Broder’s recent account of a test drive road trip he took, driving Tesla’s electronic car Model S, which resulted in a scathing negative review in that publication. But there was a lag of three days, which allowed for the rancorous back-and-forth to continue and escalate, pitting one of the nation’s most influential newspaper against one of the most successful entrepreneurs.
To begin with Tesla’s CEO Musk’s knee jerk response to the negative review was ill conceived. His blistering response in a blog post vociferously countered Broder’s account and said that data pulled from the Model S’s onboard computer would more clearly account for what really happened.
But no data was released to support that blog statement until three days later.
Apparently, for those who did not follow the public rants that erupted surrounding a bad review of the car, there are discrepancies in the nature of the trip as to how fully charged the car was at the outset, whether or not the car deviated from the planned route and took a detour and at what temperature the car was held – all directly responsible for the car’s performance.
This is clearly a case where data and PR intersect. One would think it critical for a communication team to create a scenario where success can happen, and have plans and precautions in place should there be a hiccup in the process — especially so when you have the Goliath of a newspaper covering the trip. As such, it would seem tantamount to success of any road trip to be able to follow it in real time, know where it is going at all times, keep aware of dashboard data in real time and act upon it. Minimally, the car was surely tracked via its GPS and at least that could have showed them any deviation from the agreed upon course, allowing the communication team to react as it happened.
What is puzzling is that Tesla’s communication team and engineers had several phone conversations with Broder throughout his trip. So how is it that they could not track the trip’s progress and counsel the driver of the vehicle in real time as to detours, charging and temperature gage, all directly impacting outcomes? And why was Musk not counseled as to his call with Broder last Friday, before the article appeared online, in which he offered regrets about the outcome of the test drive? Really? What regrets?
Or what about this one? According to Musk, “When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.” Apologized for any inconveniences?? Irregularities in Broder’s behavior not tractable in real time???
It would seem that this could have been easily course-corrected if someone was sharp at the virtual wheel. Opinions of what happened are flying, with even the NYT’s blog refuting every single point made by Tesla. Maybe the result will be a David and Goliath story, where the NY Times (Goliath) will not recant and where Musk’s (David) electronic data will not lie. With the difference being that the marketing disaster of Tesla’s own making is a misstep that may find “David” at the wrong end of the stick.
Hard to combat missteps…
Excerpt by Noemi Pollack from PRNewswire & Agility@Work’s crowdsourced e-book, The Practitioner’s Guide to Social Influencer Engagement
Nielsen reported recently that consumers trust “real friends” and “virtual strangers” over newspapers, TV, magazines or ads.(1) This trend, coupled with the increased value of third-party endorsements and positive word of mouth, demonstrates a fundamental need to earn trustworthy endorsements from influencers in today’s increasingly consumer-driven environment. The challenge for brands, however, is not just finding an influencer – it’s finding the right influencer. Measuring Influence
Influence is a commonly used word with a very broad definition. Without dissecting the etymology of the word, suffice to say it refers to the act of compelling someone (or a group of people) to a particular opinion or behavior. In other words, a successful influencer would be one who can incite others into converting, whether that means purchasing a product/service or agreeing with an idea.
Since influence is more than merely being heard, one must look beyond metrics such as audience size, friends/fans/followers, website visitations and impressions. There should certainly be a baseline expectation of a person’s network size, but that should not be the only metric. Influencers should be weighed more in the quality of interactions they have with their audience, the amount of responses they earn with their interactions and, perhaps most telling, the evidence of positive conversions. For example, looking at the number of Facebook friends is not enough. Do the friends interact and engage with the influencer? How many comments/likes does an influencer produce with each post? Is there evidence of conversations in which the influencer has swayed the opinions and/or behavior of audience members? This information can be found through an influencer’s blog, through Twitter mentions and any other platform on which he or she is active.
Qualifying the Influencer’s Audience
Determining whether or not a person is influential is not enough, alone. Your brand advocate could have sway over millions of people all over the globe, but if those people are not the right people for your brand, that influencer may as well be shouting in a vacuum as far as you are concerned. Age-old market research tactics can ensure that the right person is saying the right message to the right audience. Vetting a potential influencer’s audience need not be time-extensive and costly.
One can simply research his or her online network and view their profiles. What types of organizations do they like/follow? Do they respond in a positive way to brand messages similar to yours? Would they buy your product or be influenced by your ideas? The influencer’s offline audience can be researched as well. What organizations is the influencer involved with? Do their affiliations and offline activities support or conflict with your target audience? If you had the budget, would you pay to advertise to this influencer’s audience?
If you are engaging an influencer to become a brand advocate, or even if you are paying them to be, be clear that on many levels you are relinquishing control of your brand to this person. Therefore, it is paramount that the influencer personality and the brand personality be aligned. If the influencer’s communication style, general personality or personal opinions greatly conflict with your brand, then you could have tremendous exposure and heightened risk of negative word of mouth.
In essence, influencers behave as brand spokespeople – but unlike real spokespeople, brands don’t have direct control over their message. So a brand should be comfortable with an influencer’s voice, style and public positioning.
In a Nutshell
When actively pursuing influencers, take the time to gauge their level of influence, as well as their target audience and public persona. When there is a perfect match, then brand advocacy is effective and far-reaching.
1. Nielsenwire. 2009. “Global Advertising: Consumers Trust Real Friends and Virtual Strangers the Most.“ Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/ global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most/
The shady individual who put up a faux press release on PRWeb about Google acquiring ICOA, the “neutral host” broadband wi-fi provider, for $400 million, got away with it long enough for several news organizations, now red-faced, to have picked up the fake news release and distributed it. Also, long enough for a short-lived, but significant bump (a fivefold increase), in ICOA stock and for someone to pocket the profits before the stock plummeted again very quickly upon discovery.
In the wake of it all, ICOA said the story was a hoax, Google declined to comment, several high profile news publishers got egg on their faces, among them Associated Press, TechCrunch and The Washington Post — publications that ran the story and later had to issue retractions and PRWeb was forced to issue a mea culpa of sorts, an embarrassing apology after posting false news.
Curiously, PRWeb’s parent company, Vocus, called it “identity theft.” I am not sure I get that, other than using this to declare innocence of any wrongdoing in posting this. According to them, “Even with reasonable safeguards identity theft occurs, on occasion, across all of the major wire services. Maybe I am naïve, but it’s news to me…
It looks more like a financial crime than anything else. In reviewing the release, there were clear signs of fraud within it, for not only did it lack details, it was pretty unbelievable that Google would purchase a penny-stock company with a total market cap of less than $1 million, for $400 million. Somebody profited off bogus news, which was probably written in the first place by the person who had schemed to profit from it, and get away with it. According to a Buzzfeed follow-up report, that somebody could have earned six digits’ worth of easy profits.
Incredulous how everybody could get it wrong. Whatever happened to fact checking a story?
The PR industry needs to question as to who bears the responsibility for this – journalists or a service such as PRWeb? To me it has always been journalists. A PR service can offer the platform for posting releases, but it is the journalist in the end, who needs to vet the story. After all, it has always been, and will always remain so, for them to check out – “from whose mouth the story comes.” In other words, the source…Their very credibility depends on it.
Two lessons can be learnt from this: not everything posted is an unvarnished truth and good journalism requires an investment of time.
What ever happened to the journalist’s nose for truth in news?
I think that some marketers have gone nuts. Piggybacking on Hurricane Sandy to sell something is akin to selling your grandmother. What on earth were the marketing teams at the Gap, American Apparel, Urban Outfitters and Groupon thinking when they thought up ways to sell their wares during the storm? It’s not only the companies that were dinged with a flurry of online outrage, but also the marketers who, by association, gave a greedy black eye to the category itself.
So, as all now know, what happened was that the Gap suggested via a tweet for “doing lots of Gap shopping at Gap.com,” while Urban Outfitters offered free shipping Monday morning, attempting to capitalize on the college students stuck inside all day. Groupon offered a daily deal to midtown Manhattanites for a dinner at a restaurant serving a surprise meal in complete darkness and American Apparel offered a Hurricane Sandy Sale.
Gap apologized quickly for its marketing tweet during the devastating storm, but not really. What they said was, that “what they really meant was” – etc. Sometimes apologies are not enough. If it was greed that spurred them on to take advantage of a national disaster, they could have garnered far more visibility by putting on their corporate social responsibility hat and thinking through how to garner customers’ loyalty in a time of need. They could have offered to send free apparel for the displaced, the ones that lost homes, or were flooded out of homes, losing everything. Maybe they could have set up a center for distribution of the clothes through their retail outlets after the storm or, minimally, offer warm clothing to children whose homes were burned down by fire within days after the storm.
Altruistic maybe, but socially responsible…
Groupon could have offered “best deals,” negotiated through restaurants that had power, to feed those that did not. Urban Outfitters could have just kept quiet about their shipping ideas and American Apparel, well not much can be said for a company that thinks there is nothing wrong in holding a storm sale as the devastation unfolds.
It may be small potatoes in the scheme of things, but such poor judgment should be written up by the marketing textbooks as examples of what not to do.