Measuring Up

The lost art of interviewing

Had lunch with a friend the other day. He’s a top officer at one of Wall Street’s largest banks. Aside from lamenting about our woeful economy and the stock market for most of our meal, we somehow ended up on the topic of college graduates and their inability to understand the art of interviewing.

My friend (let’s call him Harold), interviews scores of Ivy League and other top international university graduates each month. While many of them are quite intelligent and some are technically proficient in their specific finance specialties, he complained that most don’t come into the interview with any real strategy to win the interviewer over. Often (he finds) that they are either lazy, over confident in their degree and innate intelligence or simply look like deer in the headlights who are about to be slaughtered.

Interestingly, the smaller percentage of those who really make good impressions do so because they understand how to take the interview over in the right way.  Meaning, those few crafty college grads actually switch roles with the interviewer by tactfully asking all the right questions, thus controlling the direction of the discussion.

I told Harold that we experience the exact same thing with our pool of graduates (who typically don’t have anything close  to the pedigrees of those looking for jobs at Wall Street’s biggest banks). I elaborated more by offering up my favorite line on this topic: Candidates need to understand that a good interview shouldn’t really be about or focus on him/her. Instead, it needs to be all about me, my company and what I care about. Although technically I’m supposed to ask a lot of questions, I’d much prefer to see a smart, ambitious candidate who has done his/her homework, asking me lots of focused questions so that I can  understand just how good this kid can be.

When that happens, it’s a beautiful thing. Magically, the interview always lasts longer than it should because our discussion flows so naturally. Did I mention that it actually becomes a two-way dialogue? (another key point) versus a deadly, one way monologue where I ask the question and receive in return an eight second one line response.
Harold and I both agreed that those great interviews just about always lead to very quick hires.

We both wondered why more colleges aren’t doing more to ensure their graduates are really prepared to win that interview. He told me that many of the schools they recruit from hold workshops or even courses on how to interview well.

My response was that someone clearly needs to train these trainers better, because it’s not paying dividends. That’s when we finished our last sip of coffee, paid the check and the conversation ended.

Frankly, I don’t get it. Maybe these bad habits are limited to only the candidates who Harold and I interview.

Hmm…somehow, I doubt it though. We’re in a terrible economy. More pressure is on colleges/universities than ever before to show parents that they are really preparing their kids for the workforce. Yet, this vital last step for success (interviewing well to be hired), is the one that seems to be most easily forgotten.

What a dilemma...

“A true friend is with you on the way down as well as the way up”

I read this quote on a small Captiva monitor as I rode up the elevator to Peppercom’s offices the other day. It is quite strange, mainly because this is copy for a Chivas scotch advertisement. Since I was a captive audience in that elevator, I read the copy again and scratched my head trying to understand why Chivas would possibly use this line based on the product that it produces and distributes. 

Are you thinking the same thing? My most immediate reaction is that Chivas is making a connection to people who are crashing in life (that they need friends). And I’m thinking that it’s because they drink way too much. But, why in the world would a spirits maker want to tie its brand to such an awful concept? Especially considering how careful the entire industry needs to be about responsible drinking behavior.

So being the curious fellow that I am, I decided to check into this further: http://www.chivasbrotherhood.com.  The Chivas Brotherhood is a testosterone-driven, male bonding site. It aims to connect the Chivas brand with sophisticated and affluent men who clearly like the finer things in life, including relaxing in cigar smoke filled billiards rooms, sipping scotch and eating a tasty steak, all while telling chummy stories with their buddies.  The opening manifesto says it all:
     “There’s a certain bond that can only be attained by a group of men…These men belong to the brotherhood”

There’s a special concierge which offers specials, contests and giveaways to its members and an “Agenda” section that highlights upcoming events that its members could be interested in attending. And, the library is a real treat because the quotes and stories are made up of such macho content that just by reading them, members are sure to grow more hair on their chest as well.

Ok, I get it. I’m a marketer. This is Chivas’ cute approach to building a deeper relationship with target men drinkers. It’s also a smart means to generate lots of email addresses to enhance the beverage maker’s growing database. All of that makes total sense. But, the ad still doesn’t. I only went to this site because the advertisement was so bizarre and was curious. I also wondered if I did my homework, would I have new blog material. Clearly, that’s now a reality.

There’s no doubt that a good ad can and should lead the target audience to do something. But in this case, I just continued to connect Chivas with “on the way down.”  There is nothing enticing or remotely positive about that.

A fruit that has clearly soured

Yesterday’s financial reports from RIMS, manufacturer of Blackberry devices wasn’t pretty. The Canadian technology company missed its earnings projections by a lot. Probably more importantly, its immediate future is unclear and the company plans to lay off thousands of employees as it ponders its next move to compete in the ever competitive mobile device marketplace. Based on my recent experience, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

I am far from an expert on this type of technology, or the latest products that have emerged.  Like many business professionals, I listen to the advice of my company’s IT professionals and often try the latest product based on what they recommend and some of the hype that other technology leaders create.  As a matter of fact, I’d probably consider myself to be the opposite of an early adopter of new technologies. Instead, I just want a product that will serve its basic functions for me well. And, if I can have the added benefits of some new, cool bells and whistles, then I’m one happy customer.

Peppercom has always been a Blackberry loyal company. Because on our client serving needs, we thrive on immediate email on a 24/7 basis and from a business standpoint and the easy to type keyboards work well with our style. Each and every new model has been accepted enthusiastically by our professionals. Then in trying to break into Apple’s ownership of the lucrative consumer iPhone market, RIMS finally released the Torch late last year. From what I’ve read (and understand), this product was released very quickly so that RIMS could showcase its newest foray into the consumer marketplace. Our IT professionals were a little weary of recommending it. But, because Blackberry has such a proven track record with creating high quality products for professional audiences, they suggested I try it to find out if it could work for me.

At first, I really enjoyed the product and experience I was having.  That’s because the Torch tries to integrate the best of both worlds–  the touch screen and ability to maneuver very quickly through many apps and files (like the iPhone), with a real key board that is pretty easy to type on (a critical part of the Blackberry experience). Unfortunately, that experience only lasted two days though, because all of a sudden, half my emails only came through in bits and pieces. They were unintelligible and that created immediate problems for obvious reasons. As this continued, I found that the system actually became sluggish and it took quite a bit of time for some applications to open after I clicked on the icon.

To make a long story short, our IT whizzes spend hours on the phone with Blackberry trying to fix the email problem. It seems that countless other customers were also experiencing this frustrating problem. What really surprised me (though) is that the RIMS gurus had no idea how to fix it. That just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. After reading through numerous tech blogs on the topic and interviewing Peppercom’s IT professionals, it seems that one truism exists. RIMS was in such a hurry to enter the consumer market that the company didn’t create products that actually worked (or that they knew could work). The consumer experience failed and now we are seeing just how bad the fall out is (and will continue to be) for this once proud technology leader.

For me, well…I returned my Torch and actually decided to try an iPhone instead. So far, so good. I like it mainly due to most of those features that the Torch promised (but didn’t deliver on) are being realized with this product. The bad news for RIMS is that Blackberry loyalists (like me) will now think twice before using one of their new products in the future. Maybe more importantly, those in the know (like our IT professionals) feel much of the same. Deivis Baez, our Director of IT actually told me, “I feel let down because RIMS had plenty of time to come out with the right operating system for this product. Its failure to do quality control prior to launching is a real failure.”

Companies that are extending their brands into new areas need to understand that getting their first product launch right is so critical to ensuring that trust and confidence in their brand continue. The Blackberry failed to do this and its reputation has soured because of it.

Will you pay up?

The New York Times will now charge money for readers to access its online version. That's a big leap of faith for any online news provider. 

Will it work?

This blogger says no. Here are three simple reasons why: 

1) Free - The New York Times and pretty much every other competitor has already spoiled us rotten. Content is free. We like it free. And, with so many other news providers to choose from, free trumps anything else these days.

2) Where's the unique value? Sure, The Times might have exceptional writers and does clearly offer some interesting stories and exposes. But, most of what the online version offers is also generic, national/international news and trends. These stories are often covered similarly by dozens of other news and content providers. Unless this new outlet can bring its current readers more compelling content that they can't get elsewhere, the masses simply won't pull out their credit cards and subscribe.

As I was thinking about this post, my brother made a good point yesterday on this topic. He believes that there are specific sections of the paper (like the Arts and Book Review) which fall into the exception to this rule category. That's because the Book Review Section has a following based on the distinctive types of reviews it offers. Many New York Times readers buy the paper simply to read this section because the content is hard to find elsewhere. Some audiences might subscribe simply because of that. I agree with his viewpoint. But, the amount of loyal followers here, doesn't add up to a lot.

3) Duplication - I have a regular print subscription to the paper. And, I read it online (when I am traveling). Would I buy an online subscription, thereby duplicating my subscription (and adding to my cost). Probably. But, that's because I'm in a related news business and truly need to read it. My feeling (though) is that the general universe who already pay for the print version certainly won't feel the same need and thus will not fork over the money, thereby paying double for both versions. That means this media company needs to pull in an entirely new audience of readers to pay for the online version. I'm highly skeptical that any such audience exists for this sophisticated newspaper.

The New York Times is a great news outlet and I really enjoy reading its online version. But free is what sells now (uh...slight humor). Absent of that, my belief is that the changed model will fail.

Playing chicken with fans' loyalty is dangerous

NFL owners and players are dancing with the devil right now. The end result could be ugly.

The latest: the owners are giving their all to lock out players. Now, the players union has filed an anti-trust suit right back at the owners to block this move.

There are dozens of issues on the line and none make for easy compromises. Among them, owners want more games added to the schedule and a bigger slice of revenues. Players are pushing for better free agency rights, more guaranteed money and a host of other benefits.

In the end though, the fan doesn't care. He is lost in a sea of legal mumbo jumbo and a lot of "He said, he said." And, when we simplify all the issues, the average Joe just sees the players as rich and owners as even richer. Place these issues next to the reality of our current world back drop which includes scores of jobless Americans, revolutions in the Middle East and complete devastation of life in Japan, and these two opposing football groups look pretty darn superficial and silly. Average Joe is calmly saying, "Shut up and just play the game."

Collectively, players and owners all exist in a lifestyle that is typically envied, looked up to or even romanticized by fans everywhere— that is, when the season is in full stride, players are making exciting plays and owners are providing great entertainment value. Allow for a strike, work stoppage or anything else which takes the fans' focus off of the actual week to week game and instead shines the spotlight on just how much ‘easy’ wealth these participants have, and the NFL has created recipe for a  brand disaster. At that point, I can guarantee you that Average Joe won't be calm anymore.

This is nothing new. We watched Major League Baseball nearly kill itself numerous times in the 80s and 90s with various strikes. In the worst of these, it lost many disheartened fans for years (some have never returned). Looking back, one can see how these strikes take their toll. Baseball ultimately lost its prominence as America's favorite sport. Now ironically, football has taken over that envious number one position.

And in my estimation, football has a lot more to lose. These quirky fans live and die knowing that from October until early February, they can count on Sundays for one thing. Through good or bad weather, work, play or rest, it doesn't matter. On Sunday, football always reigns.

Fans will lose patience ever so quickly after one or two missed games. Take away half a season or more, and an entire group of outraged fans will take their viewing loyalties elsewhere. The NFL brand will take a hit that won't easily be recovered from.

Legal maneuvering is fine right now. But, if this battle becomes an outright war, with no end in sight, in September, beware NFL. You'll be sorely testing your fans patience and loyalty.

 

This all inclusive is all right

I just came back from a family vacation (with good friends) in Mexico. With six small kids between us, fun on these breaks is all about keeping them very busy through many different activities (so that the adults can find some relaxation). We decided to try an all-inclusive resort called the Cancun Palace because of this.

Neither my wife nor I are big fans of any all-inclusive getaway. Although my experiences are limited, we've found that while the food is plentiful, it usually is also substandard. On some Caribbean islands, service always comes with an attitude (see Almond Beach in Barbados for this). And, although this will certainly come off as snobby, the level of clientele sophistication (that would be hotel guests) and overall ambiance within these beach front facilities typically leaves something to be desired.

That's why we were all pleasantly surprised with our week in the Cancun Palace. Here's what made it a success for us.

For starters, the resort was new, contemporary and even a tad luxurious. And, the food (at pretty much all five different themed restaurants) was very good. That, in itself, made my wife's trip.

All the other basic wants and needs were positive as well. Employees were very happy and always attentive. The facilities, from tennis courts, to fitness center, to the pool and beach were all well-manicured and taken care of. Most importantly, with the exception of the lobby ATM machine, everything always worked. We loved that. I managed to keep a little more cash in my bank account, to boot.

There is one factor that really stuck out at me, though. And, that's why I'd recommend this place to any family. Even with a very affordable price, the Palace never chose to nickel and dime us on a hundred little items (like most resorts tend to do). So, we weren't paying extra for top shelf alcohol, or offsite excursions. With the Palace, all-inclusive really means that everything is included. From what friends have told me, that is very rare indeed.

If I had to use one phrase to describe the Cancun Palace it would be consistently very good. (Here is a link to them on Trip Advisor) Nothing about our experience was bad or even mediocre. As the days went by, we could feel just how hard this superior resort tried to make its guests' vacation great. As I went into this vacation, my expectations were set fairly low so as not to be disappointed. Every once in a while, it's nice to be so surprised the other way.

Do you miss Hooters Air, too?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

What do all of these have in common?
•    Hooters energy drink
•    Colgate Kitchen Entrees
•    Google Print Ads
•    Willie Nelson biodiesel fuel
•    Ben-Gay aspirin

That's an easy one. They are examples of brand extensions gone horribly wrong. Yes, these are real products and services that once upon a time came to market. Thankfully, we've forgotten most of them. But imagine the millions of dollars and thousands of hours wasted on these.

From a PR perspective, it is one of the most difficult challenges: helping a client with a trusted brand break into a new market. Public relations is essentially based on trust. When a PR agency is tasked with promoting a brand extension, the first questions to ask are: Why should key influencers trust that our client knows enough about this new market to succeed? Why should key influencers trust that the brand really cares about the end-consumer?

As a former journalist, whenever I was pitched by a PR agency about a brand extension or partnership, my B.S. meter lit up like a Christmas tree. Any smart journalist believes that a brand extension has one, and only one, ultimate goal: to make even more money for the company behind the successful brand. So, as a reporter, I was always loathe to give any of these companies what amounted to free advertising.

So how to convince the ever-skeptical journalist that your client's brand extension is worth covering? Check out Procter & Gamble's latest foray: Tide-branded dry-cleaning stores. P&G's PR machine landed the project on the front page of the New York Times business section in what William Randolph Hearst used to call a "puff" piece. What made P&G so successful?

1. Don't tell me, show me: P&G already has four Tide stores up and running. What better proof of concept is that? A press release announcing a brand extension filled with nothing but projections, hopes and dreams isn't worth the digital ink it's written with, so have some real-world evidence ready to go.

2. Let me experience it: It’s clear from the NY Times article that the reporter visited a Tide store and had unfettered access to customers and neighboring businesses. No press junkets here. There’s nothing like firsthand experience to get a reporter on your side.

3. Lift the lid: Clearly, P&G walked the reporter through the entire process of choosing the dry-cleaning industry for their latest brand extension. “Four years ago, FutureWorks began considering franchise opportunities…,” the journo writes. That type of background gives the reporter the perception that he is getting the scoop on his rival scribes.

4. Push the benefits, not the brand: When you pitch, forget for a moment that you’re pitching a well-known brand. Pitch the project as if it is a stand-alone program. That means emphasize the benefits of the new product or service over the brand. The NY Times’ coverage of Tide Dry Cleaning notes features like 24-hour pick-up, drive-through windows and eco-friendly cleaning products. The Times bought it hook, line and sinker.

While no one can predict whether or not Tide Dry Cleaning will end up in the dustbin of marketing history alongside Donald Trump steaks, no one can argue that they’ve achieved a PR coup.

Entirely new ways to reach captive audiences

We all know that the power of advertising has shifted forever because of the current DVR and Internet age.

What I mean is that while advertisers still leverage traditional print and broadcast media options to reach target audiences, we (consumers) turn those ads off as often as possible. The Internet provides an entirely new channel of reaching us. But again, all it takes is one click to bypass that banner ad or video commercial. Doesn't it feel great to be in control?

Well, that may be a fleeting feeling. Some of the savvier marketers responded to this challenge. Over the last few years, they have leveraged many non-traditional, never before thought of (and some that are just a tad strange) mediums to present brands in an entirely new fashion. The kicker this time is that in all of these cases, consumers are once again captive audiences. So, that puts the power right back into the marketers hands. I'm really impressed with just how creative the marketing world has become. Many of these approaches smack you right in the face as you go about daily travel, work and personal routines. And, they definitely influence their target audiences, although I bet most wouldn't even know they are being marketed to. Here's a few I've experienced over the last few days that are worth noting:

* Airport security bins - As I went through the airport security line the other day in Newark Airport, I couldn't help but notice Zappos advertisements on the bottom of every single clothes/baggage bin. What really made me smile (though) is how the same ad showcases two colorful shoe prints (where participants were supposed to place their shoes). What a great way for Zappos to reach every person who needs to fly anywhere.

* Airline seat trays - I boarded my Continental flight and quickly realized that commercial marketing efforts weren't going to be limited to the in-flight magazine or videos. No, as I happened to look straight ahead to the folded up tray attached to the seat in front of me, a large offer from MasterCard stared me down. As much as I tried to look away, three hours later the ad was still squarely in front of me.

* Videos in elevators - Most higher-end commercial office buildings in New York City have installed video monitors in elevators where tenants, employees and anyone riding up and down can catch news tidbits and brief stories. Of course, every news story is surrounded by an advertisement that fully supports the topic being covered. Talk about a captive audience -- we're all stuck in the elevator with nothing else to look at or do.

* Supermarket carts - Who would ever have thought that supermarket chains could sell advertising on their carts the way newspapers do with their print editions? The other day, my cart (yes, I go food shopping every once in a while) had a large ad on the inside back of the cart for AMC movie theaters. After seeing this, I walked over to all the other carts to find out that at least 20 in a row showcased that same ad.

* Gas station pumps - Now, this is a new one that I couldn't even imagine could be real. But, it was. I went to pump my gas at a service station in Connecticut. Upon selecting my gas and picking up the pump, a McDonald’s advertisement appeared magically. Of course, this rest area included both McDonalds and Exxon/Mobil offerings. Talk about a real co-branded initiative.

* Toll plazas - That's right. I mean highway tolls. This week I was in Florida and saw any number of advertisements on the toll gate (Coca-Cola ad), actually on the toll booth (beneath the attendant) was a Florida orange juice ad (now, that makes sense). And, a sign running across the top of the entire toll booth area promoted some sort of Internet search engine.

I bet there are scores of other approaches that focus on captive audiences (too bad they don't actually captivate us, though) that should be mentioned in this post. I would love to hear any that you've experienced or heard of, as well.

A Darker Shade of Pink

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

There’s been a fascinating public relations battle waging this month, one that bears watching by all PR  professionals.

As we all know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For three weeks now, we’ve been swimming in a sea of pink, let loose by breast cancer advocates all over the country to remind us that this disease still affects far too many women and their families. NFL players have donned pink cleats. APG is marketing a pink Snuggie sleeved blanket. KFC is selling pink buckets of chicken.

But there’s another side to this pink PR crusade that has been quickly creeping up on the national agenda. Let’s call it a darker shade of pink. On blogs and social media networking sites, people are starting to question the appropriateness of this plethora of pink. Megan Casserly on Forbes.com called it, simply, “crap.” One blogger on the Washington Times site called it “sickening.” Another green blogger questioned the true intentions of companies that make pink products for the cure while simultaneously fostering environmental and human rights abuses.

The anti-pink tide is rising.

So how is the other side reacting? Susan G. Komen for the Cure (SGK), the 800-pound pink gorilla of breast cancer foundations, has gone on the offensive. SGK founder Nancy Brinker is taking on the critics. She recently blogged that there “still isn’t enough pink.” It’s an interesting PR tactic. Brinker acknowledges the messages from the detractors, but quickly discounts them. She tugs at our heartstrings, reminding us that we need more and more pink because a woman dies from breast cancer every 69 seconds.

But does this really explain why SGK lists nearly 200 for-profit “partners” on its website, from Microsoft and Deluxe Checks to Otis Spunkmeyer and Payless ShoeSource? How many pink products does it take to cure breast cancer?

Clearly, it’s not as simple as selling pink products to fund a cure. Breast cancer death rates have slowly decreased over the years, but, strangely, the number of women getting mammograms has also decreased, despite all the pink products. How effective all this awareness really is should be deliberated every October.

How this public relations battle will shake out is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for certain: when it comes to women’s health, healthy debate is a good thing.

Who really cares?

The debate between advertising, digital and PR professionals regarding who should lead digital engagement for   clients has grown tiresome.

Witness another piece of propaganda (this one from PR Newswire). This white paper focuses most of its effort (to no one’s surprise) on the opinion that PR professionals have a better mix of ‘the right’ skills to consult and execute client digital campaigns. The argument isn’t necessarily wrong (yes, I am a PR man at heart). Public relations professionals have a certain type of DNA that pushes them to communicate in a non-commercial, typically transparent way. If we hadn’t operated this way for the last 50 years, media wouldn’t accept our client stories or use them as sources for interviews. And, non commercial, organically created humor/news/stuff is typically how real digital engagement works best on the Internet today. But, that certainly doesn’t always mean that PR professionals or their agencies are best suited to follow these rules.

Sam Ford, Peppercom's Director of Digital Strategy wrote a Chief Marketer piece on this titled 'Get Advertising and PR to Work Together on a Spreadable Approach.'

I’ve listened to and read of countless articles and debates from the digital and advertising professions as well. Their belief is that creative concepts, sustainable campaigns and the high quality graphics and use of content that are key to making brands appeal to online consumer audiences have always been owned by them. So, naturally those that have always led traditional brand building through advertising, direct marketing and now digital content development,  are better positioned to be the lead dogs in showing clients how to build their brands and create better online engagement. Objectively, it’s hard to argue the rationale behind some of this thinking as well.

Anyone in the marketing agency business can understand why this debate is growing louder and louder. A lot is on the line because the reality is that all of these ‘sister’ industries are undergoing a seismic paradigm shift that hasn’t been seen since… well, maybe never. The lines of who is responsible for creating anything digital are completely blurred. Because of this, these agencies with different traditional disciplines now (for the first time) view each other as encroaching on eachother’s turf. The result is that they aren’t playing nicely in the sand box together anymore. And, that is becoming a real problem for clients everywhere.

So, who do I believe should own the digital landscape. To me, it’s always come down to the actual people who live within each individual agency  versus the discipline or brand differentiator that any agency possesses. There are some hot digital agencies that have very mediocre executives. In those cases, any client accounts those professionals work on will probably choose their more strategic PR and/or ad agency brethren to lead digital efforts. I’m sure the reverse holds true with public relations firms offering less than stellar PR executives up to clients as well, because when there is risk involved (and digital engagement is still an unknown risk to most), clients turn to who they trust most  for direction. Not, the PR guy or advertising account leader because of some discipline specialty.

In the end, those agencies in the know are now attempting to morph into much more of an integrated marketing model, which can offer clients as much as possible under one roof (and most importantly, a real digital solution). The real question isn’t which discipline is better positioned to lead this fast growing digital landscape. But, it’s about which agencies can build the most talent to show clients how to do it right.