I think about fractals and patterns a lot (yes, as those who know me would tell you, I have some odd interests…), and I’ve been thinking about patterns recently as I start to research – in truth, as I start to just think about starting to research - my next book Direct Marketing in the Digital Age which will be released early next year. It’s an update to my 1992 book, Direct Mail, which is out of print. That book, of course, only addressed the old “snail mail” form of direct mail. The new book will address the impact of new technology on direct marketing.

Two key points from my perspective:

1. The basics are going to apply regardless of the delivery mechanism. Effective direct mail requires an attention getting headline (or subject line), compelling copy that addresses target market needs and a clear call to action combined with an easy means for potential customers to place an order.
2. What goes around comes around. While online direct marketing has obviously grown rapidly, I suspect that the old-fashioned form of marketing may at some point make a comeback. It’s a pattern.

Why do I say this? Because marketers are always looking for a way to stand out from the masses as they work to get their messages in front of their target audiences. As more and more consumers experience email fatigue, and more and more email marketing missives end up in junk mail bins, some are turning back to traditional direct mail marketing to take advantage of the much less crowded environment that snail mail provides.

Traditional direct mail still offers not only the opportunity to target very specific market segments. And, unlike other traditional marketing tools, it’s highly measurable. You can determine what works, what doesn’t, and what works better than something else, through various types of testing. It’s very similar to the measurability of online marketing efforts although, admittedly, with not as much granularity. While traditional direct mail marketing is more expensive (you have printing and postage costs that you don’t online), the expense may be (may be) worth it, if it can generate more positive response.

I don’t know if my hypothesis is true, but I strongly suspect that it is, or will be. And, despite my procrastination, I really am looking forward to digging into the research for this book. If you have perspectives, opinions or personal experiences to share, please post them here, or contact me through my web site – www.stratcommunications.com.

Writers are *really* angry about these sites as evidenced by the long threads generated in online forums whenever the topic is raised. Recently, for instance, in a journalism organization’s LinkedIn group, the following comment was posted:

“There are so many sites out there that allow freelancers to compensate their living by writing short, research-driven articles for content sites that turn around and deliver the copy to other Web sites. These sites are providing a lifeline to many struggling journalists between jobs, but what do they mean for the future of real journalism and the dissemination of misinformation?”

It has so far generated 56 responses, most blasting sites like Demand Media. Those of you who frequent online forums know that 56 responses is a *lot* of responses, so clearly it’s a topic that resonates.

I’ve researched and written about these “content farms” for a few publications including Information Today and MediaBistro, and have also written some pieces on the changing trends in the media industry. While I have to admit that my bias when beginning this research was also very negative, I’ve developed a more balanced perspective.

From what I can tell I don’t believe that these sites, regardless of how much content they generate, really represent a threat to traditional journalism, journalists or freelance writers. They simply serve a growing–and massive–demand for content that is not otherwise being met. This generic content meets the needs of certain clients (those looking primarily for web traffic), but not for many, many other clients who are willing to pay for more specific content, based on more detailed research to meet their and their readers’ needs.

There have always been debates about freelancers willing to write “for free” and these “content farm” debates are very similar (although the scale has certainly grown). The fact of the matter is that this is just the way our economy as a whole works. The demand/supply curve will establish a price for services. Freelancers will each need to make decisions about what makes sense for them in terms of who they want to write for and what they want to write about. 

It’s an interesting phenomenon, I think, and I’ve been trying to come up with examples from other industries/settings that would be similar. I haven’t been able to. Generally, when a new need emerges or demand shifts new options are provided by existing or new (entrepreneurial) businesses to meet that need or demand. But we don’t demonize the provider of the new product or service-do we? Although, I suppose, maybe those *working* in the industry might.

• Did those who made their livelihood in the horse and buggy days decry Henry Ford’s attempts to develop a motorized vehicle?
• Did candlemakers feel threatened by the advent of the lightbulb?
• Did workers at AT&T attempt to diminish the value and impact of mobile phone companies?

Maybe. But seems like folly to me. I think that old adage is pertinent here: “Adapt. Migrate. Mutate. Or die.”

I frequent online forums quite regularly to get feedback, to find sources and to engage in conversations. And, I’m admit it, sometimes I just “lurk.” Recently I was gratified to be “just a lurker” in one particular forum on LinkedIn. The vitriole and, IMO, outrageous behavior by one participant who appeared (based only on his photo/profile) to be a “respectful businessman” was absolutely shocking, I thought.

It all started with a seemingly innocuous posting about seven months ago:

“What’s the very modern definition of ‘a strategy’?”  It caught my interest because, at the time I came upon the forum, I was doing research for a book on strategic planning and there were numerous responses to this question.

About three months into the conversation, the person I’ll call “angry man” emerged and posted a strongly, but professionally worded, opinion. Then, about a month later, after the conversation continued, but nobody responded to or referenced his comment, he chimed in again with this: “Goddamn claptrap! You have got to be kidding!”

Then somebody had the bad fortune to respond: “Well (name) – if you object to my definition so much, feel free to add your own. ” And, the discussion ensued with the “angry guy” chiming in every other post, most aimed directly at this individual, with such professional comments as:

“WOW! It is astounding! Guys like you don’t even get that you don’t get it! Christ, this is amazing!”

“I find it remarkable (and not in a good way!) how people can talk around an issue! Like I said ti (sic) (name) up there, shut your mouth and think for a Goddamn minute!”

Then a couple of forum posters chimed in to suggest that the “angry guy’s” approach and demeanor was inappropriate, to which he responded:

“Why so sensitive? Feeling challenged, threatened? You two clowns totally miss the point!”

And his vitriole continued with such gems as:

“YOU ARE PATHETIC! Shut your mouth, open your ears and your eyes and think, use your GODDAMN brain! Stop this self-satisfying, self-perpetuating, self-justifying, self-interested circle-jerk!”

 ”Oh (name), you are friggin’ hilarious! Totally clueless, but friggin’ hilarious!”

Then, the person who started the conversation chimed in (about six months later):

” Having initiated this discussion, I feel some obligation to keep it on-topic…I’m sure there are rules that accompany group membership about courtesy and respect. Let’s play in that sandpit.”

Did this end it? Not immediately. “Angry guy” made a few more postings before ultimately either giving up or being banned from the site.

The whole thing has me just awestruck, actually. While I’m sure there’s lots of nasty stuff online, I tend to think that “birds of a feather flock together.” Since most of the forums I’m involved in are business forums, I expect business behavior and respectful, albeit sometimes direct, conversations. In fact, I enjoy a good, heated debate. But, there’s obviously a line. And, I would think that any business professional would be cautious about crossing the line in consideration of the impact it can have on his/her reputation. Apparently, I’m wrong.

Out of curiosity I checked “angry man’s” profile and found that he’s apparently a *past* City Planner from a very large U.S. city. Hmmm, wonder why it’s a *past* position? I can only imagine the nature of the city planning meetings he was involved in… Currently it doesn’t appear he’s doing much of anything but belittling other businesspeople online, a failsafe way to land a great new position, I’m sure.

Assuming he used his real name in these posts, and assuming he’s still looking for a job, he might be interested to know that just entering his name in various search engines will tell me a lot about his personality, ability to interact effectively with others and overall personal style. What kind of impact do you think that will have on his job search? I don’t predict a bright future for “angry man” who is not, by the way (judging by his photo), new to the workforce.

Importantly, the “rules of engagement” in any social setting have not changed. It’s always been inappropriate to use the kind of language this guy used and to interact with people in such a disrespectful manner. What has changed is the impact of these behaviors. In the past, one might have a meltdown at a meeting that a handful of others observed and that they might recall and talk about for some time. But, online, those meltdowns have the potential to be seen and experienced by literally thousands of others – and they don’t go away so easily, if at all.

Takeaway message: Be careful out there.

Why do you need an ad agency?

Just because a business is small does not mean it cannot afford an agency. There’s a bad misconception that ad agencies are too expensive for small companies. But, that’s not true. Working with an outside agency provides a number of advantages:

• Access to solid marketing experience and background that probably doesn’t exist in your small company.
• An “outsider’s” perspective.
• An extensive network of industry contacts – i.e. for production of materials, buying media, etc.
• Freeing up your time to focus on your business.

Selecting an Agency

Following are some practical considerations that you should take into account when selecting an agency to help you with your advertising and marketing needs.

Know what you want

You need to know what you’re looking for, before you can tell if you’ve found it! Identify your objectives in working with an agency. What do you want to accomplish? Are you looking for one-time development of image materials (i.e. logo, letterhead, web site/blog templates, etc.), help in generating media exposure, the development of a campaign, an ongoing relationship? Do you have specific response or sales targets you want to reach?

What you want is integrally tied to what you can afford to spend. Establish your budget before developing your list of potential agencies. Depending on the industry you’re in you may be able to obtain information from trade associations about the average advertising/marketing budget (as a percentage of revenue) for your industry.  

Know where to look

Referrals can be the best source of information about qualified agencies to work with. Ask colleagues or business contacts about the experiences they’ve had with various vendors and who they would recommend. This can provide you with a list of “first contact” vendors to start your search. Beyond referrals, there are a number of sources of information about advertising or marketing agencies:

• The Internet
• Competitors
• Companies whose advertising you’ve admired
• Colleagues
• Associations
• Trade publications (i.e. Advertising Age)

Another good source of information is your local media representatives. They work with agencies regularly and may be willing to tell you which agencies have good reputations both in terms of creative ability and administration (i.e. submitting materials on time, paying bills on time, etc.).

Evaluate carefully

Knowing at the outset exactly what you’re looking for is critical. Just as when you’re selecting an employee, you should outline specifically the traits, characteristics and skills that an agency must have to meet your unique needs.

Use the criteria you develop to prescreen the list of potential agencies you’ve developed. Then, once your list is narrowed down, select two or three candidates to interview on a formal basis. When doing your final evaluation use a formalized evaluation form, comparing each agency against the same criteria, in much the same way you would evaluate candidates for employment with your company. This process helps you to maintain objectivity in the evaluation process and helps to ensure that you don’t overlook a key factor. Some factors to consider:

1)      Industry experience. Select an agency that has experience working with businesses in your industry. You’ll benefit from the knowledge they’ve gained working with other industry players and learning from their successes and failures.

2)      Size. Do you want to be a “big fish in a small pond” or a “small fish in a big pond.” There are advantages of working with a large agency – experience, reputation, broad range of expertise and resources. There are also drawbacks. With a smaller budget you may not get as much attention as the larger clients. You may be working with “junior” staff members who are “cutting their teeth” on your account.

3)      Cost. The size of the agency is often directly related to the cost of the agency’s services. Larger agencies have higher overheads and, consequently, may be priced out of your ability to pay. On the other hand, these higher costs are also associated with access to a broad variety of high-level skills and resources.

4)      Capabilities. Ask each agency you evaluate to provide you with work samples (keeping in mind that simply “looking good” is not good enough – it’s results that count!). If possible, visit each agency to see, firsthand, the facilities, staff and resources the agency has to offer. In addition, you’ll want to ask each agency to provide you with information about their capabilities – what can they do for you? You will want the agency to give you specific information on how they will handle your account including, creative, media and production services provided, clients served, what they would do for you and why they’re particularly qualified to assist you. 

5)      References. Ask each agency to provide you with a list of current and former clients. Contact each client and ask for additional referrals. Find out if these clients have been satisfied with the work produced for them. Do clients feel the work done for them was a good value and investment? Did they experience any problems working with the agency?

6)       “Fit.” You have to “like” the people you will be working with. It’s important to know whether the people you’re meeting with are the people who will actually be assigned to your account. If not, ask to meet these people. Consider how well the people you will be working with understand your industry and your company. Do they ask good questions? Do they listen carefully to your responses?  

Advertising and marketing agencies can provide a real boost to your small business by providing you with the expertise and assistance you need to more professionally – and successfully – promote your products and services. But evaluate and select your advertising partner carefully. There are literally thousands of agencies to choose one. Not all are right for you.

Yes, age matters

Not surprisingly, age is a factor. If your product appeals to the 18-34-year-old market, chances are they’re out there and engaged. If however, you’re targeting an older demographic – say 55+ – the news isn’t quite so good. According to research by Edison Research based on telephone surveys of 1753 Americans age 12+, conducted in February, 2010, the 55+ age group represents only about 9 percent of those considered to be habitual social networkers. Even those slightly younger – 45 to 54 – only represent another 9 percent of the social networking crowd. Takeaway? If you’re attempting to connect with the 45 to 55+ demographic, social media may not be your best option!

This comes as no surprise to me. In fact, although I’m an avid user of LinkedIn, I recently discovered that one of the groups I’m involved in – Healthcare Executives – is really not all that populated with healthcare executives after all. And, when I think about the healthcare executives I know from the time I spent in the industry and the results of this research, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

But even younger adults are missing

What may be more surprising, though, is the engagement levels of the college market. Each semester in the classes I teach I ask students about their use of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Not surprisingly, most hands go up for Facebook. LinkedIn generally gets no takers. But, surprisingly to me, even Twitter is not widely used. Generally I’ll see one or two hands go up for this one. And, if you consider Edison’s results you’ll see the 18-24 year-old group only represents about 25 percent of those involved in social media.

Who’s out there?

Who are the heaviest users of social media? Well, it depends and, as you might expect, it varies by site. In fact, you may be surprised to find that the “big 3” (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn) represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social media outlets – there are many more.

A study by Royal Pingdom, shows this breakdown. Interestingly, the older demographic is best represented on Classmates.com, while the youngest is most likely to be found on Bebo. Twitter, as my students have demonstrated, really doesn’t have a lot of traction with the college age group, at least not yet.

Some important takeaways for marketers:

• Know your demographic. That has always been the case with the use of any form of media and it continues to hold true with social media.
• Don’t focus only on the “Big 3” social networking tools. Other tools may represent better opportunities for your market.
• Don’t fall prey to popular wisdom – check the data. While Facebook gets a lot of attention, this research at least would suggest that MySpace is still the market leader among the 24 (and under crowd) – with Bebo, holding the lead overall.
• Understand that the playing field is changing. As consumers age, and new social media options emerge, usage patterns will change. It pays to continue to look for up-to-date information on trends.

And finally – the biggest takeaway in my opinion: While it pays to continue monitoring social media and learning about the potential it may hold, don’t feel too out of touch if you’re not yet heavily invested in its use to target your audience. They may not be out there!

I tried to remember the last time I had turned to the phone book or directory listings online to find a number for somebody or something. I can’t remember the last time I looked up a business number. When I need a business number I go to its web site which I find through a Google search. I have, though, looked up personal numbers both in the hard copy book and online. But that’s probably because I’ve been woefully behind the times in terms of capturing and saving numbers on my cell phone.

Curious about other views on the viability of the phone book, I posted some discussion items on a few LinkedIn groups. The responses were overwhelming negative – even disparaging – about the value of phonebooks and the industry as whole. In fact, said a few posters, the industry has basically “committed suicide.” Here are some representative comments:

“I still use them to prop things up, like small children on a seat! It’s quicker to Google.”

“Suicide. ‘Phonebooks’ murdered their print business strategically.”

“I throw mine out and/or recycle. I think it’s just a waste of trees.”

“Funny story, my boyfriend and I just used the latest phone book to help start a fire in our fire pit in the back yard. We don’t read newspapers, it was the only “paper” we had in the house we could live without.”

But, a few traditionalists admit to still using the old phonebook:

“I live in a small town on the fringe of the Dallas area. I keep the smaller local phone book, but I recycled the huge Dallas phone books because they take up so much space.”

“I use my laptop, Blackberry and the phone book. Whichever is handier. Being new to East Lansing (new again after 35 years being gone), I keep the phone book under my car seat. It’s been especially handy for finding service type businesses, restaurants and professional practices on the spur of the moment.”

“I find myself the renegade again. I’m all about online tools in every corner of my life yet I still grab that book under the kitchen counter. Still find it handier more often than not.”

The whole thing makes me extremely curious about why, if virtually nobody uses the phonebook anymore, they continue to be produced and distributed. If they’re no longer effective, then who’s advertising in them – and, again, why? Do businesses, even really big businesses, simply follow the crowd and maintain their phonebook advertising because their competitors are in the book? Is the print listing just a courtesy throw-in received as part of the online buy?

What will the directory publishers do to address this shift in demand? What are they doing? When does the delivery of phonebooks simply stop – and what additional downstream impacts does that have for the printing and postal service industries?

Are you advertising in phone directories? Why? Why not?

Well, who knows? And, without seeing the entire interview to gain some context, it’s difficult to determine whether he was serious or whether there’s some larger point that I, at least, am missing.

It reminds me somewhat of the recent Shirley Sherrod incident in which the Agriculture Department official was forced to resign after making seemingly racist comments  which became viral in abbreviated format before Ms. Sherrod had an opportunity to provide context. And, of course, before many highly educated people who should have known better took actions and made statement I’m sure they now regret.

What can we believe? It has always been possible for people to spread mis-truths and half-truths to others. Even before any form of mass media, there was the poster and there were hitching posts where posters could be nailed. But how many people were likely to see these mini-media messages? Today, a single provocative post on Twitter can literally be spread to millions of people before its veracity is ever challenged or verified. Frightening.

I wrote a piece recently on social media and defamation which I thought was very interesting to research, but somewhat frightening in its implications. What is particularly frightening to me is that even after an issue is resolved and “corrected,” all of the incorrect information is still out there somewhere, still waiting to be referenced months – or years – from now by some unsuspecting student, reporter, researcher, or just a curious consumer. How do we really know what’s real?

When I do research for a client or for an article I generally gather information from as many sources as I can and begin to look for commonalities. Those commonalities suggest to me that there’s some validity to the information. And, of course, the source of the information makes a difference too. But, I’m beginning to think that commonality isn’t such a good criteria to use for judging whether or not something is accurate. The Internet makes it easy for information to become common and to be spread quickly to a lot of people who can repeat that information as though it is fact. So common is probably not a good barometer anymore.

It almost makes me wonder if there might not be some validity to Prince’s prediction after all. Once we stop following and believing the masses will we return to a time where we relied on the wisdom of just a few experts? Experts whose credentials were earned from prestigious schools and  carefully conducted scientific research as opposed to the instant authority we now tend to grant to just about anyone who can spin a good yarn and stir up controversy?

Who knows? And, even if they say they know, should we believe them?

It makes me curious about what their defense strategy is going to be, and maybe that’s the point. After all, the trial has been delayed… But, overall, my impression is that the release is pretty damning about the client. It’s a “just the facts” release that is, nevertheless, not very favorable to Peterson.

It leads with a reference to the death of his third wife, and then talks about the disappearance of his fourth wife in 2007. The only somewhat “positive” reference is: “Peterson denies any involvement in either case.”

What was the point in issuing the release I wonder? My husband has an opinion: “Lawyers don’t care if they win or lose, they just want their names out there,” he says. (Our son resembles that remark, by the way.) In this case, I suppose that may be somewhat true – after all the lawyers *do* have a PR firm and they’re using them to issue this release.

I have, of course, heard that old aphorism: “even bad publicity can be good publicity” and sometimes I agree that’s true. In this case, though, I’m struggling to come up with a good reason to distribute such a release. Wish I knew “the rest of the story.”

Can you think of times when you might send a news release like this? Do you have any ideas about the strategy behind this one?

The AdvertisingAge piece notes that healthcare organizations are vying for top position in preparation for the impacts of healthcare reform and that social media is a communication tool that’s being rapidly embraced. Why the concern for position? Because healthcare reform is likely to result in millions of newly insured patients. And healthcare organizations will be increasingly competing for a share of this new market.

In the NPR segment, James Unland, editor of the Journal of Health Care Finance, questioned hospitals’ spending on advertising – especially in a tight economy.  One of his points – media advertising that extends beyond the hospitals’ actual market area. He suggests that public service announcements might be a better choice.

In any industry I think the wise use of marketing dollars – whether spent on advertising or other forms of marketing – is good business. But in healthcare, which is predominantly not-for-profit, it becomes more personal. Consumers feeling that it’s their money that’s being spent on these ads.  Unlike the soft drink industry, for instance, consumers feel they have a right to question the dollars spent on bringing in new customers.  Do they?

Social media is certainly an option to be considered, but the issue is the same. Time is also money. So, we should ask: “What is the value of the time being spent on social media efforts compared to the value attained?” Could that staff time be better spent engaged in other activities such as, as Unland suggests, generating non-paid media exposure for public service-related efforts?

In more rural areas, in particular, where the healthcare players are well known and their images already established, it’s tough to build a case that media campaigns are the right answer. In big cities, maybe… But, as Unland points out, dollars might be better spent wooing doctors who are the ones who drive patients to hospitals in most cases. 

One thing is virtually certain with the advent of healthcare reform. It will drive healthcare costs up for most healthcare consumers. And, as this happens, healthcare organizations will be even more subject to scrutiny from their markets to justify their expenditures – on facilities, on staff and on advertising.

Personally, I think that level of scrutiny is good in any industry. It keeps us all constantly focused on monitoring and measuring the value of the things we do and using our – and their – dollars wisely. What do you think?