Measuring Up

What's a college diploma truly worth these days?

… at least $23,000 of debt, according to a recent study which shows that the average student owes that amount  after graduating from a four year college or university. This same research also shows that the debt levels for graduates have increased upwards of 50 percent in the last decade.

Yahoo Finance decided to take an interesting direction in this article, asking the question, is it worth it? Should more high school kids forgo college because the return just isn't worth the debt accumulated? I say, no way Jose to that theory. Here's why...

I remember graduating more than 20 years ago with about $20,000 in loans. I worked like a dog for very little $$$ over the first few years to survive in Manhattan. I remember thinking just how hard it was to make those monthly payments when times were really tough. Back then (yes, even in the old days), going to college was viewed as a prerequisite into the white collar job market. Unless you were a complete freak of nature like Bill Gates, no diploma meant no real hope of staying away from a career in some type of manual labor.

Fast forward a few decades. Today, a college degree represents (even more) basic table stakes into the professional world.  The only difference is that the Internet has created all new opportunities for some to bypass traditional jobs that college graduates used to need to begin burgeoning careers. Although success rates are slim, entrepreneurs exist at the earliest of ages, setting up garage-based, venture projects and companies with the hopes of creating the next Facebook or Foursquare.  Even with that new reality though, most fail.

So, where is this all going? We all hate the rising price of college education. Hell, I've heard that top private schools might actually cost upwards of $75,000 a year by the time my 8-year old twins are old enough for college. That is downright scary. But, even with all of that, the right type of college education is worth far more than the piece of paper handed out at graduation. And, its benefits go well beyond just providing enough credentials to obtain an entry level white collar job.

For starters, research shows that over a lifetime career, those who have a Bachelor’s Degree earn on average $2.2 million. That's in sharp contrast to those with just a high school diploma who only take home about $1 million. It's hard to justify bypassing college because of a $23,000 IOU (versus) the $1.2 million more one should make with a college education.

Now to the actual part that really matters. As I watch, converse with and listen to so many graduates today, I see how their teachers have taught them to think creatively, in ways that just wouldn't be possible with only a high school degree. I've also encountered some pretty impressive problem solving in the most challenging of circumstances, from recent grads who've only been in the workforce for a year or two. Lastly, the maturity level and social skills that are developed through that four year period can't be duplicated through any other experience in life at that age. Take away those four years of growth, and you'll have a large part of our society who can't deal with the day to day opportunities and pressures that go along with being an adult.

One simply can't measure college debt as a straight pass through investment, like most do after 10 years of medical school. The comparison is truly apples to oranges.  The rising cost of college will become a more acute issue in the decade to come because at a certain point, there will be very few parents who can actually afford to pay full tuition without any financial assistance. But, that's a completely different issue to be taken up in another post. The college experience cannot be replaced.  That is just reality.

Haunted by their own past words

It's pretty funny to watch all the rhetorical grenades that the major wireless companies constantly throw at each other. What's interesting is that in light of all the consolidation now taking place and constant changes in this industry's pecking order, it makes each of the major players look like outright clowns in a circus.

For years, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile have publicly battled over which network is strongest, reaches most consumers and provides the best, latest technology. They've lambasted each other's ad campaigns, sued one another for false statements and generally have done most anything possible to win consumer loyalty by claiming superiority over their competitors.

Now, as AT&T looks to acquire T-Mobile for $30 billion, these once hated adversaries find themselves speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they try to take back or reinterpret past comments made about each other. And, the other major players seem to look just as silly. For instance, T-Mobile's current parent, Deutche Telecom, ran a campaign last year making fun of AT&T's supposed inferior, slow speed. Now, its president is quoted as saying, "AT&T is the best solution for our customers. That's why we did this deal." What is the best solution...having really slow speed?

Another great example of how words can come back to haunt a company is delivered by Sprint. Sprint loves to promote how it was the first to offer extra fast 4G phones. It also touts how it still leads this category and that superior 4G technology is the most important benefit when choosing a carrier. But, After the AT&T/T-Mobile deal goes through, Sprint could be a distant fourth in the cellular war, finding itself far behind the pack in technological prowess in this 4G battle. I'd imagine that Sprint is wondering how its marketing messages need to change given the current environment. More importantly, will customers focus on the fact that an attribute it once claimed as critically important to its customers' needs won't ring true anymore.

Understanding how future competitive events might impact one's own company is not easy. But, if there's anything to learn here, these companies need to realize that bold claims can be used against them later on. And, when an entire industry changes the rhetoric so often, credibility is eroded and it begins to create misbelief among consumers. That impacts long term reputation, sales, stock price, etc.

I'm not sure if most people even listen to all the shouting that is aimed at them anymore. I really don't. All I care is that my phone works well. However, I do think this industry needs to become more sophisticated and less bafoonish about how it communicates and markets points of supposed differentiation to its customer. Lord knows its players spend enough money on advertising and promotions. It would be great to see a different strategy employed to build our confidence and loyalty.

Barcelona in the summer is very nice…

Anyone who thinks that earned media placements can be equated (and measured) to the equivalent advertising cost (AVE) of that placement as if it were an advertisement, doesn’t have a clue. Just to make sure you all understand my point, here’s an example: A half page article on Company X in Business Week would be measured (and valued) by what it would actually cost Company X to by a half page ad in that same publication.

Katie Paine is one of the measurement gurus in our industry. I completely agree with her recent post which not only argues against using this type of metric, but also attempts to outlaw the practice through something new called The Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles. These seven core beliefs were recently mapped out by a lot of very smart research and measurement folks at a conference in Barcelona.

Some of these points seem obvious, but just the same, it’s great that all are being reinforced because many in our industry still do a lousy job of showing any real value or proof that their communications programs actually work. I’ve been harping about the advertising equivalency issue for years. It makes no sense because an ad is not an earned media placement and there simply is no way to scientifically equate one to the other.

Some of the other tenets that were pushed forward in Barcelona include such common sense practices as setting real measurable goals before each program begins. One of my personal favorites is that real outcomes need to be measured, not just outputs. And, of course, we all should know by now that media cannot be measured alone without integrating a metric for social media as well.

Finally, Katie is spot on by stating that measurement shouldn’t just be about protecting turf and budgets (oh by the way, that’s the only thing that happens when advertising equivalency measurement is implemented). No, it should be all about measuring client programs so that we can see if a campaign is actually working. A good measurement program will create real transparency so client/agency can then channel money into those program areas that work best and prescriptive changes can be made to specific components that may have gone awry.

I commend your work, Katie.

How do you measure PR success?

That’s a never ending question for my industry. Ask 100 executives and there is a chance that you might actually hear 100 different answers (well, maybe 75 would be closer to the truth).

I’ve found that too many professionals continue trying to isolate the public relations discipline (or the value it provides) from the rest of the communications/marketing mix. In this day and age, this makes little sense. I’ve also continued to watch with amazement how more often than not, the discipline (itself) is still only equated to “old time” media relations concepts…especially as it refers to measurement.

Like many others, I joined a few Linkedin industry group discussions a while back. Usually, there are too many topics covered to actually keep up on a regular basis. But, every once in a while a thread of a conversation or debate catches my eye. Here’s one professional’s take on the issue at hand How Do You Measure Your PR Success? . While he makes some valid points, I’ll refer back to the problems I just laid out to respectfully disagree with many of Drew’s assertions. 

For starters, I disagree with his theory that PR campaigns cannot be measured based on sales achieved or rate or return. I’m paraphrasing, but Drew elaborates by stating that PR is a long term investment that can increase awareness of a product/service/expertise. But, that doesn’t mean skyrocketing sales will be the result.

There’s no doubt that PR professionals need to be careful when over promising that any individual campaign/program will lead directly to sales. This is especially the case if the product/service being marketed is not really unique, or the market is already saturated with competitive look a likes, or if the company behind it has almost no visibility (which means a lack of credibility with target audiences). That said, I’ve witnessed many recent campaigns leverage the integration of very creative social media, traditional media and experiential disciplines to generate real, honest to goodness sales.

One great example from a few years back is Crocs- children’s rubber shoes that have became a huge phenomena. I remember when the company made a tremendous outreach to mommy bloggers and national media years ago. If memory serves, the specialists behind Crocs created some type of online contest to draw moms in…and it worked! At that early point in the company’s growth, it spent very little on advertising. So, public relations really helped to directly impact the bottom line, as well as create a longer term, trusted reputation with moms everywhere.

While it’s often hard to separate where public relations and other marketing disciplines begin and end these days (because of the Internet), my point rests on the fact that the digital world has created real sales opportunities for companies that leverage PR the right way, where they never existed before.

Drew also tries to provide clarity on the difference between the value of an ad and an editorial article. I agree with his premise that an article tends to be more credible, but I’m not really sure how he came to the scientific number that it’s worth 3 to 10 times more than an ad Regardless, I think this debate should be put to rest for ever. Because it simply isn’t relevant anymore.

Today, communications disciplines (and what their end products create) matter much less than making sure that target consumers are communicated with when they want and how they want it. Again, the Internet creates a real blur between disciplines and the channels we use. The value of an article versus and ad isn’t relevant anymore. Now, we should only care about how a client’s messages might resonate. If that means combining a steady blogging campaign, with hard hitting in-market events, where target media might then write about your product (because they saw it talked about in blogs and through online media buys), so be it.

The latest buzz phrases in our industry are “channel and discipline agnostic.” The premise is spot on. We need to worry less about defending public relations against advertising because we’re all treading on each other’s turf now anyways. The article, by itself, is dead (as is the ad). Reaching the consumer through messages that are indeed in motion are what matter now.   

The Worst Generation?

That’s the often discussed bad rap given to Generation Y workers these days. I’ve listened and taken part in many business leader conversations about this topic. Some complain that their workers have a less developed work ethic than past generations. Others just feel that a real sense of entitlement exists. But, is that really fair?

Yes, says new research that actually yielded data to back up this theory. In a series of studies using surveys that measure psychological entitlement and narcissism, University of New Hampshire management professor Paul Harvey found that Gen Y respondents scored 25 percent higher than respondents ages 40 to 60 and a whopping 50 percent higher than those over 61. In addition, Gen Ys were twice as likely to rank in the top 20 percent in their level of entitlement – what he refers to as the “highly entitled range” – as someone between 40 and 60, and four times more likely than a golden-ager.

In one recent article about this study, Harvey was quoted as saying, “As a group, Gen Yers are characterized by a very inflated sense of self that leads to unrealistic expectations and ultimately chronic disappointment.” He went on to further elaborate, “Making matters worse, today’s 20-somethings have an automatic, knee-jerk reaction to criticism. They often tend to dismiss it, even if they fail miserably at a job… they still think they’re great at it.”

Of course, we all know that there’s another side to this coin. Although entitlement might exist, Gen Yers exhibit a much greater sense of idealism than other generational groups and demonstrate this through a commitment to giving back to our society. Right? Not so, according to another study which will be published in the Journal of Management in September. Co-author Stacy Campbell, an assistant professor of management at Kennesaw State University, says the study revealed “That when it comes to work, the two things Gen Yers care most are a) high salaries and b) lots of leisure time off. “ All of this data comes from an ongoing survey of high school students conducted annually since 1975 by the University of Michigan.

After reading through these studies, the question I asked myself (over and over again) is why? Where exactly does this over blown feeling of privilege come from? I continued to conduct some more research and then also used a little common sense from what I live through on a day to day basis with my kids, to offer up my own subjective conclusions.

For starters, the author who I referenced above (Stacy Campbell) presented up an interesting anecdote. She believes that one symbolic answer can be found in the simple way that children’s songs are reworked. As an example, the words to age old elementary school song “Frere Jacques” have been changed throughout many school systems. Instead, children sing “I am special, I am special” to this familiar tune. Campbell believes that entitlement “gets ingrained in the formative years” because society is so focused on constantly reinforcing to all kids just how great they are. Personally, I think positive reinforcement to children is important. But, I understand her point about how this sometimes unwarranted building of self-esteem can hide the ugly truth that not everyone is great.

In my world, I see other manifestations that have me concerned. When I was a kid, we started to compete in sports and even in our studies at a fairly early age. For example, I can remember as early as fourth grade, the fun addition and subtraction math quizzes our class would take every week. Our teacher would time us to see who finished a 50 question quiz the quickest with the fewest mistakes. The kids who came in first, second and third would receive some type of prize and we’d all have fun going through the exercise. Our sports programs did much of the same by handing out trophies to those teams which typically came in the top four spots in the leagues. A special, larger trophy was always given to the first place team.

I believe that this early competition was important because it created a critical trait needed in life – the will to win. More importantly, it ingrained key attributes in our head, like working hard and playing as a team. Those would be critical factors needed to be able to win.

Today, I see the exact opposite philosophies being taught to my kids. And, I don’t like it. Kids as old as 10, 11 and 12 years old are involved in some sports teams where no one keeps score, no one loses and everyone is taught that “you are all winners.” In the end, everyone receives a trophy for anything… even if that kid never shows up. Sorry, but that just doesn’t work for me. Sure, I understand that too much competition at an early age can be detrimental. Believe me, I am not one of those fathers that makes sure his kids win at all costs. That’s absurd. But, I truly believe that this “everyone is a winner” principle has gone way too far and now we’re seeing its effect years later in some of our Generation Yers.

For example, in some cases, instead of focusing on whether they are helping to play a role in ensuring that their  company win, there is too much focus on “Why am I not being promoted or making more money?” And, instead of showcasing the necessary skill set to compete successfully in the corporate arena, some simply spend too much time worrying and complaining about why others are ‘winning’ faster than them.

Last Saturday, I gave a speech to business students at Drew University on the topic of leadership in uncertain times. The students there also had to give presentations to us on a specific business each had researched thoroughly. In a fun American Idol format, each had to overcome a specific organizational challenge by convincing us how the business would be turned around to compete more successfully. I loved the day and thought the presentations were smart and insightful and, more importantly, these young adults showed us that they really were ready to compete. Although most of my speech was focused on management leadership, I did take a few minutes at the end to give some thoughts on why “perspiration is just as important as inspiration” in our workforce. I told them that life isn’t fair. And, they shouldn’t expect anything to be handed to them in the business world. I also stated that just as the generations before them had worked extremely hard to rise to their positions, they expected the same from them over the next few years. The students seemed to appreciate my candor.

I really don’t believe it when CEOs tell me that this is the worst generation. And, I certainly see real positive examples at my firm every day that support this. I’d just like to see a little less focus on “me” and a little more care about “we” in the years ahead.

Evaluating GE in the light it deserves

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Last week’s front cover article of BusinessWeek had the headline “Can GE Still Manage?” I can’t imagine any  magazine subscriber not having her attention grabbed by that copy. Cutting to the chase, I considered it a sensationalist way to keep readers turning their pages. But is the headline accurate, even as a leading question? 

I don’t completely fault the editorial staff. Blue-chip institutions across automotive and financial services– long known for unquestionable quality and success– are mired in crises and cover-ups. So every for-profit organization is seen through an increasingly scrutinizing and cynical lens. With respect to GE– to quote the article– we have seen a “hellish decade that cut GE’s value in half.”  Any stakeholder of the company could be unnerved.

In reading the article, I kept waiting for objective comparisons to companies of GE’s size and scope across the same time period. Jack Welch continuously says measurement is in part about relativity–  where you stand vis a vis others. BusinessWeek didn’t do that, at least in this article. So we did. Our research was quick, so feel free to debate the methodology.  But the results are interesting.

One decade ago– in the year 2000, the last full calendar year before Jeff Immelt became CEO– GE stood at #5 on the Fortune 500, posting more in annual profit than any other company on that list.  #1 that year was General Motors. #4 was Ford Motor Company. Numbers 7 and 8? Citigroup and AT&T respectively.  Numbers 16, 17 and 18 were Sears Roebuck, AIG, and Enron. 

In the most recent posting of Fortune 500 companies, GE (the only company mentioned in this blog with the same CEO since 2001) stands at #4, posting double-digit profit gains vs. 10 years ago, though less profit than one oil company and Wal-Mart. General Motors is now #15 on the Fortune 500 with no earnings. The company that was AT&T ten years ago no longer exists. Citigroup at #12 in 2010 lost $1.6 billion on $108 billion in sales.  Sears Roebuck, AIG and Enron can be discussed in another blog (though Enron the Broadway Musical is glowing with preopening buzz.)

The decade from hell has decimated many other companies that were once at or close to GE’s size.  Or perhaps, the mistakes in management at Citigroup, General Motors, Sears Roebuck, AIG and Enron The Broadway Musical caused these companies to decimate during the decade from hell. I am exposed only to information publicly available about GE, therefore far from an expert. Here’s what information is available.  Its leadership position from a revenue standpoint has been relatively stable across manufacturing, consumer goods and financial services. GE brings infrastructural innovation to developing countries like no other enterprise in the world. Annual volume of ecomagination products outpaces 370 companies in the Fortune 500 in total sales.  During this decade from hell– when no company was too big to fail– GE would have long unraveled without immensely talented managers guided by a continuously improving work ethic. One can easily lose sight of this without the very comparison that makes for objective measurement and journalism.  And when BusinessWeek publishes articles headlined “Can GE Still Manage?,” that’s what readers should expect.

Become synonymous with what you do

This is no easy task for companies. As a matter of fact, most hire firms like Peppercom to help them create more visibility for what sets them apart and to ultimately try to build their brand above and beyond category or industry competitors.

Over the last 50 years, I can only think of a handful of companies that have truly become synonymous with the category/service/product they create or represent. To name a few, Kleenex successfully did this with tissues and Google has now accomplished this with Internet search. But, it often takes many years of creating superb customer experiences, exhibiting much desired product/service qualities that competitors don’t posses and spending lots of $$$ on disciplined marketing.

The fact is that most industries or categories simply have too much competition for one company to truly stand out as a brand in this dominant way. Understanding that the odds are long against any organization becoming the next Kleenex or Google, I believe that many companies still have a real opportunity to become more synonymous with what they do. But, they need to recognize creative PR or marketing approaches that can create impactful ways for them to own white spaces that exist (especially when such ideas or opportunities are smacking them right in the face). ADP did exactly that when the opportunity presented itself. Among other offerings, ADP is the largest outsourced payroll company in the country. I’m not sure when it happened, but ADP proudly owns an employment index which showcases the increase/decrease in new jobs created each month. Guess what? Pretty much every media outlet I reviewed either refers to this index or simply profiles it as the official barometer in our marketplace. The tie in is clearly perfect for ADP because it links the brand to employees/jobs. In today’s business environment, tens of millions of eyeballs have seen this index and there’s no doubt it has helped ADP build its brand to become more synonymous with what it does.

I can find lesser known examples, but equally successful in their own right. Ever hear of a company called Prebon Yamane? Probably not, unless you are a Wall Street trader. Prebon Yamane was acquired over a dozen years ago, but it used to be one of the largest wholesale brokers (brokers to traders) on Wall Street. These firms are seen as commodities by their customers and most have very little to speak of that truly sets them apart. But, Prebon Yamane did something very smart. It had been tracking the ups and downs of Federal Fund prices in the industry for years. The information was limited to being used internally at the firm, as well as provided to clients to help their trading efforts. Until, a Wall Street Journal editor conducted a random interview with the firm’s CEO. As a matter of fact, this CEO happened to discuss how important this proprietary information is to clients. Long story made short, it took a few months, but Prebon Yamane’s index soon became the first official “Fed Fund” Index featured two to three times per week on the front page of the 'Marketplace' section of this elite daily newspaper. Aside from creating instant credibility and publicity for the firm, the branding from this index allowed Prebon Yamane to become synonymous with Fed Funds on Wall Street. This was a huge marketing win which cost nothing to arrange.

From time to time, we present clients with these type of branding opportunities. Typically, through one of our white space audits it becomes clear that no one in our client’s industry has taken ownership of a topic, issue or even most/all of the service/product it represents. Yet, I find that in many cases it’s hard to convince clients to move forward with such initiatives. The reasons vary as to why the responses can be negative. Sometimes it’s just about money (even though the investment cost is typically low), but often it’s just because  they are too focused on just delivering solid, yet basic “bread and butter” results for their organization.  

That’s disappointing. Whether it be some type of index, research, award program, unique coalition or simply just taking a proactive, consistent stance on owning a thought leadership topic that no one else is, marketers need to see that three is often very little setting each company apart from the competition. If a real idea comes along to make one’s company even a tiny bit more synonymous with what it does, my advice is to find a way to make it happen.

How will they “Spin” this?

There’s a cool, new club in New York City called Spin. Much like cigar bars and pool clubs took off five to ten years ago, Spin is making a big bet that ping pong will become the next craze among the New York club crowd who are quick to find the newest progressive and creative themed venues. 

Right now, Spin’s near term future looks pretty bright.  I attended a special charity tournament a few weeks back and was a little surprised to see just how packed the place was (on a Monday night.) It was fun to see how dozens of seemingly normal club goers became competitive and talented table tennis players once the jackets and ties came off and the paddles started to swing through the air. Naturally, ping pong isn’t the only activity of choice at this club. The crowd hanging at the chic long bar was just as rowdy as the players they were watching.

I’ve heard from friends that Spin is on fire right now. The place continues to pack ‘em in. That’s not surprising because Spin’s owners were smart enough to catch a rising trend in America… the growth of ping pong as a cultural sport.  And, they’ve created a nice formula to tie it into a real club scene. Unfortunately, it seems that the organization doesn’t understand (or simply doesn’t care) that success can be ephemeral. Especially, when the business is solely based on the fickle and ever changing wants of trendy consumers.

Which leads me to discuss my issues with Spin. For the last three weeks, we’ve tried to book a day time birthday party for my 10 year old son at Spin. (He’s an avid ping pong player.) The responses from the club have ranged from indifference, to rude, to plain idiotic. The women who are functionally charged with booking these types of events have lost our file, given us the wrong email addresses, told us they’d call back and then never did so, and have plain forgotten who we are (after multiple conversations.) I’ve spoken to two other friends who both shared the same type of experience as I.

In my mind, Spin’s staff either doesn’t give a damn, or is so confused and disorganized that they have no idea how to create customer loyalty. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. My belief is that it might happen tomorrow, next month, a year or even two, but Spin will fail if it doesn’t change its modus operandi pretty quickly.

I’m not writing this post to bitch about a business that frustrated me. Spin is but one example of a very real business issue that exists today. Trendy restaurants, clubs and other consumer facing businesses come and go for the reasons I highlighted above. Once that frenzy is over, only the really customer focused, savvy businesses that can provide superior products/services then survive. To do that, these businesses have to focus from the onset on how they can build a solid base of loyal fans who will provide the core sales revenues (to stay afloat) when all the hip and cool early adopters move on to the next trendy theme.

My guess is that the heads of Spin’s management are ‘spinning round and round’ right now in a state of euphoria and confusion. They are probably ecstatic about their new found success and have no idea that it’s time to shake off that feeling that they are conquering the world and start looking at the basics of how to build a business from the ground up. Of course, that all starts with delighting the customer.

Choosing to be great, not big

My business partner gave me a very interesting and unique book the other day called “Small Giants.”The author‘s premise and focus is that growth doesn’t always need to be the most important metric for success. Instead, through telling the story of 14 very special, privately held companies, he shows that success can be viewed through many different lenses in a variety of unique ways.

In fact, each of these 14 companies has consciously decided not to grow their business. Yes, they are all profitable. But, each owner(s) finds gratification in a host of different ways, including: giving back more to the community, having the best product/service available in a smaller business pond, providing the best work environment possible for employees and even innovating to always be better for customers without growing so large that this might not be possible.

One of the fascinating, heart-felt stories focuses on the founder and CEO (Fritz Maytag) of Anchor Brewing, the first micro brewery based in San Francisco. This home grown entrepreneur had started the company making the highest quality beer in the mid 1960s. At that time, micro brewed beer wasn’t known and Anchor had limited demand of about 600 barrels from local restaurants and liquor stores. But, by 1973 demand started to soar because of the products high quality appeal. Anchor was producing 13,000 barrels. Yet, success was a mixed blessing. For the company to keep up with demand, it had to greatly expand by taking on significantly more overhead (new brewery plants), or outsource the actual brewing of the product. The thought of outsourcing his secret formula and taking a chance that quality and taste would be sacrificed created a lot of sleepless nights for Fritz.

Instead, he made the decision not to outsource or expand, but to ration the amount of beer distributed to each customer. Of course, that didn’t make these customers very happy. The loved the beer and instead of receiving more, they now had to deal with half the supply typically sent to them. As time moved on and Fritz saw that demand continued into the 1980s he considered taking the company through an IPO to raise the money needed to grow. That would provide him with his own capital and the business would no doubt be considered a success.  In the end, he followed his heart and backed away from going this route because Fritz believed that growth wasn’t how he viewed success and he never wanted to jeopardize that local, high quality product that created such high demand in the first place. Fritz said, “It occurred to me that you could have a small, prestigious, profitable business, and it would be all right. Like a restaurant. You can stay as you are and have a business that’s rewarding and a source of great pride.”

Anchor’s story is a great one. It made me take a look at Peppercom and ponder whether this philosophy (become great, not big) could work within the public relations and marketing services world. Could it be right for us? There is no doubt that as firms become larger, they tend to lose that higher value touch that clients want and expect. Many also find that it’s much harder for them to maintain that “special sauce” (i.e. innovation, quality, results driven) that made them great in the first place (read the chapter on CitiStorage for more on this topic) as their revenues double and triple in size. These reasons alone should make any agency CEO carefully ponder the risks versus rewards of exponential growth.

In Peppercom’s case, we’ve never been focused on growth for growth’s sake. Our mission has always been to innovate by creating new offerings and new ideas that can help solve our clients’ challenges or take advantage of real opportunities. We believe that if we’re successful in accomplishing that, growth will naturally come with it. That said, I doubt that we could ever become a company that isn’t interested in growth.

Why? Well, employees want to be part of an organization that is dynamic, offering new opportunities for them to grow. And, growth is critical because the reality of our industry is that clients tend to come and go. So, new business efforts need to continually be in motion to replace and add to existing revenues. Yet, there needs to be a greater good beyond becoming a larger entity. Making the workplace environment a real place to learn and excel, giving back to the community and those who need it and trying to create a culture where people do enjoy coming to work are all critical goals at Peppercom.

I highly recommend “Small Giants.” It might not change your thoughts about whether to grow or not. But, it certainly will provide life and business lessons that can make you better.

 

A decade of measurement successes and failures...

Once again, Katie Paine is leading the thought leadership charge on the topic of measurement. She's asking for those in the marketing/PR field to offer up what they believe are the best and worst measurement concepts in the last decade.
 
I'm a guy who believes in measurement. So, here's my two cents on the good bad and ugly of what’s been created and discussed over the last 10 years. (in reverse order, of course):
 
The Ugly
1) Advertising equivalency is as strong as ever - In many PR camps, this is still the case. This concept which began in the stone ages (earned media publicity is compared to the advertising equivalency in space, inches and/or amount of broadcast time), will just never die. It provides zero value. Yet, it costs a lot to analyze. And in the end, marketers have a measurement report that tells them absolutely nothing about how successful their program is. Way to go, industry...
 
2)  Using technology for technology sake - I've watched one vendor after another sprout up with these "magical" offerings. In many cases, these companies have created algorithms, software architecture and lots of complex metrics formulas that are just too damn hard to understand. Sure, some can push data to you in a moment's time. Others can provide scores and analytics of vast digital and media points that could never have been retrieved before. The problem though, is that if we can't really understand what's behind the score, metric or analysis, then how do we know what's being fed to us is even correct?
 
There are too many technologies that can't be verified to provide accurate outputs or outcomes and that scares me.
 
3) The human touch - On this same note, technology has begun to replace the inefficiencies of human labor. In many ways, that's really positive. Where it took hundreds of man hours to collect and tabulate data for a particular media or digital metrics program before, now the right software formulas can do the same work in a half hour. That's amazing… except, let's not forget the value that our professional analysis and insights provide.
 
There isn't a measurement system in existence that can offer up strategic and prescriptive strategies and tactics to tackle the problems or opportunities that became apparent through computerized number crunching. We are moving too quickly into a world where human analysis is being replaced by intelligent software. That is a disaster waiting to happen as we deal with the most pressing corporate topics like reputation and sales. 
 
The Bad
1) One standard to measure all - Much like the consumer technology world is still trying to create one PDA that will do everything for the customer, our PR industry continues to search for one standard that can measure any media, event, trade show, digital program, etc. Maybe we'll find this golden standard. But, I don't understand why that "Holy Grail" is deemed so important.
 
Rather, I think what is critical is that specific metrics are tailored for each client and every campaign based on its individual needs. Might we lose something in cost and efficiency by having various standards? Yes. But, as long as the standard is accurate and clearly measures something that matters, who cares.
 
2) Information overload - We still receive far too many reports, graphs, analysis and reams of wasted paper from measurement specialists. Sorry to be so direct on this. But, I think that many companies providing these reports feel that the more data they hand over, the more value it will seem like they are providing. Very few are actually marketers or public relations professionals though. If they were, they'd also understand how little we care about quantity versus quality.
 
The Good
1) Real time metrics can lead to immediate action – It’s exciting to see that almost any issue, campaign or disaster can be monitored in real time now. This means that as data is pushed to our desk tops, we can immediately make actionable decisions to try and change opinions, push out our messages and/or contain a negative situation. Of course, this leads to an entirely new set of challenges. But, it’s great to see how linked metrics and real time campaigns are now. This will only become that much more powerful.
 
2) Better products make us more sophisticated – There’s no doubt that a number of great offerings exist out there today. I won’t start naming them, but we now have the ability to benchmark competitive programs at a very sophisticated level. Digital analytical tools allow us to figure out exactly who our programs are reaching and what impact they may be having. And, through the integration of creative graphical offerings with back end software, we can provide immensely appealing dashboards which allow clients to see their program’s achievements at a glance.

3) The industry has brought outsiders in...and that's good – Let’s face it. Marketers/PR practitioners are very good at what they do. One of these strengths isn’t the ability to provide real analytical tools and research methodologies that measure campaigns. I think that the industry has done a very good job of reaching outside the profession to bring in those who are professional researchers, statisticians, and just big thinkers. This was a must need to ensure that our offerings are accurate and dig deep into business insights. 

Overall, our industry still has a long way to go. If you have any thoughts on this topic, please fire away.