Of course you have.

Now it is apparently time for you to learn from it, as you undoubtedly hope to be the next Old Spice-like thing that all the kids are talking about on the internets. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is very unlikely that Old Spice’s success can be replicated by you, or anyone. And I’m not saying that because I think Old Spice’s campaign was some perfect storm that wasn’t meant to take off like it did; it was clearly a well-engineered piece of awesome. And I’m not saying that we’ll never see a wildly popular campaign like this ever again; we will. But it won’t be anything like the Old Spice campaign because we’ve already seen that.

So in the same vein as all these guides to doing what Old Spice did, here is a list of reasons why you won’t create the next internet sensation:

1. You’re trying too hard. Your audience can smell desperation a mile away. The minute you set out to be the next big thing, you lose all sense of what works and what doesn’t for you and your product.

2. You’re not creative. There’s nothing interesting about what you’re saying or how you say it. Flash and sizzle can be nice, but if they’re only there to mask the epic boredom your campaign brings the viewer, it’s more of an incentive for the viewer to switch off.

3. You’re not funny. This may be the most important reason of all. It’s hard to be funny. It’s hard to know what’s going to make people (not just a few people, lots of people) laugh. It’s even harder to be funny in a way that no one else has tried before.

Experts can dissect the reasons why Old Spice’s campaign was a hit; they can talk about influencers and SEO and viral content until they’re blue in the face. But it all comes down to this: Old Spice did something funny, and they did it well, and they did it at the right time, and they did it in the right way, and now because of that, you cannot do what they did. Imitators will bore us at the very best, anger us at the very worst.

Study Old Spice if you like. Learn all you can about their successes. Apply what is relevant to your own work if you can. But don’t worry about creating the next The Man Your Man Could Smell Like. Someone already did that.

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

Sure, it all makes sense. Social media takes time and time is money. So why not stretch your content when and where you can? It ensures continuity of messaging, keeps all of your communication platforms looking fresh and increases touchpoints with your target audience. But at what point does repurposing become synonymous with diluting? Can you post a new spin <gosh I hate that word> on the same news too many times?

In an age where we are taught that people like to receive information on their own terms, it seems logical that we would offer the same news on every platform possible. And that we would tweak the content to fit the medium. While I’m not saying this theory isn’t valid, it has some holes in it.

Spamming If I sign up for a spa’s e-blasts, receive their hard copy newsletter, read about them in my local newspaper and engage with them on Twitter, it would seem that I have an interest in their brand and news. But if I receive the same news item in each communications, let’s say it is an ad for a new line of nail polishes, at what point do I start to feel like I am being spammed? To that end, at what point do I become indifferent or resistant to the spa’s message?

Deleting If a brand consistently sends the same news across all communication platforms, when do people start deleting the content? If I know the e-blast is going to revisit the news I just read about on Twitter, why should I open the e-blast? If there is a pattern of no differentiation or added-value, people will begin deleting or trashing your communications before they even read them. This is wasting time and money.

As we continue to do more with less resources and stretch communication dollars further, we need to remember that regurgitating isn’t repurposing. Without something new and fresh sprinkled in with the mainstream news, repurposing can easily become synonymous with diluting. And diluted news, if distributed frequently enough, may become as valuable as issuing no news at all.

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

Let me put this into a bit more perspective: Say you’re working on a pretty time sensitive client announcement that has a lot of moving parts (e.g. 2-3 parties involved with multiple executives/personalities and many different times zones), which requires you to be both confidential with how closely you hold the client announcement/information and also proactive enough so you obtain the desired outcome from the announcement with a little extra audience reaction thrown in from a good pre-announcement story or two. That’s going to A) require you to be on your toes and ready for anything; and B) Most likely require you to know exactly who you want to go to with this information, and more importantly, who will keep it quiet until everything is finalized.

“But,” you say, “you can’t do that! Companies no longer own their information or announcements, nor do they even own their own brand!”

Well . . . yes and no. Do they have total control over their brand like they did, say 20 years ago? Hell no. But is society at the point now where anybody—you, me, your neighbor—“owns” some piece of the brand in the virtual world? I’d still argue we’re not quite there and we will never be there. And I’d argue even more fervently that as communications and public relations professionals—the very consultants companies rightfully hire to help protect their brands and company reputations—we shouldn’t always be so quick to convince our clients it’s time to “give their brand up” to their Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. audiences.

Because sometimes, the masses, even if they represent a company’s perfect vertical audience, don’t always get the story right, and if we’re so willing to freely give a major announcement away before it’s been fully fleshed out and signed, sealed and delivered, we—PR professionals—risk not only our reputations, but also those of our clients, and ultimately, the sustainability of their businesses.

Getting back to why it does still matter (some . . . some) who you know and how well you know them in the PR world; even with PR 2.0, which I consider myself a practitioner of, you still need to be sure you are certain a brand advocate is trustworthy enough to spread the correct news/announcement/messages to your company’s digital and social media audiences. After all, they (most likely) don’t have editors with a professional obligation to oversee the authenticity and accuracy of their work. (Let’s not get into the whole reporter versus blogger issue for now … different discussion for a different day.)

Ultimately, when push comes to shove in this business, and a client or your boss has asked you to spread the word about some big company news, it’s going to come down to who do you trust? Whether that’s a terrific industry blogger with a great, fervent following, or a mainstream reporter, we all have to make that decision based off our experience and how much risk we’re willing to take. But we shouldn’t be so quick to say we can always trust the brands’ fans and advocates. Would you trust your biggest personal news with your Twitter followers before it’s official?

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

Reuse – So just how bad is your business?

Perhaps it’s my obsession with not using stale content or maybe it’s my love of a new and exceedingly creative ad, but reusing old ads makes me cringe. More accurately, it makes me skeptical. If I were to see a consumer electronics brand recycle an old ad after a few months of not advertising, my thoughts would immediately turn to how bad their business currently is. More importantly, if I buy a product from a company in these implied circumstances, will they be around to provide customer service if I need it?

Reduce – Why not try this?

If the budget is limited, why not advertise less frequently but invest in developing ads that break through the clutter and make a long-lasting impression? I would much prefer to consume a few amazing advertisements than many mediocre or duplicate ads. Yes, frequency of message exposure is key, but there are many lower- and no-cost alternatives that can be used to supplement brand building during an ad hiatus.

Recycle’s Best Friend – Repurpose

While reusing old ads and recycling the exact same content gets a bit irritating for the audience, there is no law against repurposing. Take the 60-second ad and cut it down into a few super short videos for Facebook and YouTube. Take a still of a frame from the tv spot and use it in a print ad. Stick some links to online content in your e-blasts. Get the idea? I only wish some of these ad reusing brands did. You can still have content that looks new without breaking the bank. And this alternative, while not generating unique content, is better than looking desperate and stale.

As marketing and communication budgets continue to shrink, I anticipate that reused and recycled content is here to stay. But what is the cost to the brand? Is it a loss of consumer faith? The perception of nearing extinction? Or, an implied lack of concern for delivering what the audience wants?

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

This new community comes complete with its own hashtag (#Legoclick) and YouTube videos, encourages interaction through Flickr and showcases user photos of some impressive Lego creations.  The question is, is this enough to keep adults engaged?

I raise the question of adults, because LegoClick is intended to be a community of inventors.  Mashable reports it is a community to share visions about new products and toys.  So, are Legos destined to become the new water cooler buzz and lunch hour stress buster?

If creativity strikes, there is an iPhone app for LegoClick, presumably aimed at making this community seamlessly integrate into everyday life like Facebook and Twitter apps.  But is it too much?  Are iPhone users, and other adults, really going to buy into LegoClick?  Or should this be for the 13-18 demographic?  The current Lego users, recent but former Lego users, and other inventive types in this demographic?

While there is something inherently compelling about (potentially) influencing Lego’s product development team, is it enough to get adults to slot contributing creative ideas to Lego into their daily agenda?  Yes, they have extended their efforts to platforms such as Twitter and Flickr which already have a loyal user base, but it that enough to make this work?  If not, what would it take to make LegoClick an instant success?

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

To say the results of the new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation floored me would be an understatement. Learning that young people across the nation are spending an average of about 7.5 hours a day with entertainment media was simply jarring. As if spending more than 53 hours each week with entertainment media weren’t bad enough, the study found that these youth have mastered an art form –  ‘media multitasking.’  By using more than one entertainment medium at a time, they are able to cram 10 hours and 45 minutes worth of media content into those same 7.5 hrs.

While my own youth may have fallen well before the advent of social media, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t adapt latter in life. I’ve embraced Twitter, succumbed to using Facebook, jumped head-first into blogging and dabbled with YouTube. On rare occasion, I even stumble. . .upon, that is. Even keeping my perspective in mind, there is not a shot that I would let my (imaginary) little ankle biters…errr…children, spend nearly one third of their day bonding with entertainment media.

It’s clear that times have changed. That coming home from school and playing outdoors until dusk isn’t the widespread norm. But when did things change so much that we taught children to become dependent on entertainment media?

I’ve seen my fair share of this phenomenon. Elementary school aged children on their cell phones in the grocery store. Teens on cell phones, well…everywhere. Not mention those who bring their Nintendo DS, portable DVD players, iPods and YouTube addictions everywhere with them. And that doesn’t even account for the children who spend all of their spare time in front of a television.

So, as I observe each day, what, to me, seems like the absurd, I wonder if these entertainment media loving youth could drop their addictions. That is to say, can we enable this generation to drop their media dependence. If we took away all of their toys, could they survive without abundant meltdowns and hissy fits?

While I would, undoubtedly, resist a bit if someone took away my Twitter, I could survive without it. I grew up without gaming systems, with strict television viewing rules and with the expectation that I would not be a media-loving couch potato. But today’s 8-18 year olds – I have a hunch their upbringings have little in common with mine. I was actually told to play outside and forbidden from owning a game system.

While Gen Y is undoubtedly media-savvy, is there such a thing as too much media?  Are we doing today’s 8-18 year olds a disservice by allowing them to consume entertainment media in excess?  Will ‘Media Rehab’ be the next reality television phenomenon?  I would love to hear your thoughts.

• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR
• 1 February 2012 : Visiting the Valley Girls: A Lesson in Branding
• 31 January 2012 : Google’s Privacy Issue Isn’t Really an Issue
• 30 January 2012 : Tricks of the Trade: Elevator Etiquette

• I have great respect and admiration for the arsenal of long-standing media relationships PR veterans have built and maintained.
• I willingly admit there is much that I can learn from my superiors’ successes (and, admittedly, from their struggles as well.)

Now that we’ve laid some ground-work. . .or covered my backside, whichever you find more appropriate. . .let’s get to the reason for making myself perfectly clear (other than abiding by the Co-Communications mantra, ‘Make Yourself Perfectly Clear.’) If veterans of the PR industry don’t evolve, can they survive? Or will they die-off like the newspapers we sorely miss?

Who Thinks of These Things

The impetus for this post may surprise you. It stems back to a #PRSA breakfast in Connecticut at the University of Hartford back in April. I was listening to the editors of the East Hartford Gazette, New Britain Herald, and Valley Press discuss the evolution of their industry and how PR pros could help them. It was a great discussion. Until that fateful sentence fell on a silent room and nearly dropped my jaw to the floor.

A woman who professed to having worked in PR for more than two decades stood to ask a question and the first thing she said was the last that I heard:

I never want to hear someone say they are following me.

I was fairly new to Twitter at the time, but I knew the statement didn’t make sense. Did she really think she could survive in PR without embracing social media? Or at least try integrating it into her professional life. I was stumped (and I’m pretty sure I heard @kottavio gasp in horror.)

It’s a New Media World. . .Jump In, or Jump Ship

I may loathe Facebook but I know well-enough that if I can’t claim a minimum of basic proficiency with it, I’m done in this industry. Same with Twitter (which I love, for the record,) YouTube and LinkedIn.

So, how do those who have invested decades in an industry that has nearly turned upside-down overnight, acclimate to the new media world of PR circa 2009? Never mind ‘do they.’ Can they?

The good news is that the old rules have relevance in the new world. Relationship building – albeit in the virtual rather than physical world, follow through, strategic planning and results still matter. They’re just slightly different than they used to be.

Face it. Whether it’s a strategy for sending news releases to newspapers or for acquiring followers on Twitter, neither will be successful without a well-thought-out and carefully executed plan that demonstrates a solid understanding of how this isolated act impacts the bigger world.

Despite the relevance of old rules and tools, there is a need for adaptation. (Even I need to adapt. I may be decades younger than those I’m referencing, but I didn’t think I was training for a career in virtual PR during my education.)

It’s tragic, but I think those who choose not to adapt and evolve have no choice but to jump ship. Particularly, in light of those graduating from college with PR degrees that encompass social media education and the volume of reporters transitioning from jobs at print pubs to careers in PR. Both know the value of a strong digital/social product and how it can ultimately inspire the rise (or resurrection) of a dying breed.

Witnesses, Participants and Not-So-Innocent Bystanders

As a member of the PR generation deeply immersed in a social media world, I ask both my peers and superiors, who is the change agent for converting industry veterans to new media dynamos? Should we witness their demise and bear the loveless label of not-so-innocent bystanders? Or are we the change agents, despite our limited base of industry knowledge?

I think we are obligated to be the change agents. We need to learn about building and maintaining media relationships from the pros, and we can gain a lot of knowledge to apply to our social networks. Somebody (us again) needs to look at the ‘old media’ results and devise and implement a strategy for converting them into equally-valued cornerstones of the new media world. It won’t be easy, but it has to be done. And we aren’t all graced with the powers of Samantha to prescribe an instant-fix. (And please don’t tell me that reference predates anyone reading this post. That realization might break me.)

With our mission set, how do we act upon it? Implement it? Or, my favorite part, build the strategic plan for executing it?

In addition to blogging for PR Breakfast Club, I regularly contribute to the Co-Communications blog. To read more of my (hopefully insightful) commentary on related topics, click here.

CT: OK, so who is writing the Kanye West publicity stunt piece?

Cog: I was leaving it to the group to see if we’d even dignify it with a post. If I was TS’s flack, given how it could’ve spun, it would take a lot of convincing (and absinthe) to get me to go along.

TJ: There could be something said for a post on the latest public outbursts in general: Kanye, Serena Williams, that dude during Obama’s speech, I dunno, was he a senator or something? They all have sort of the same anatomy of a PR nightmare.

Jes: Boo Kanye. That upset me so much. Taylor is the sweetest girl EVER.

CT: Wait, what happened with Obama?

Everyone else: Oh, Chris. . . .

Jes: And, TJ, it’s almost impossible to make that kind of thing go away thanks to social media: videos all over YouTube, the blogs going crazy, etc.

Marie: What I want to know is why would anyone get so upset over a music video? I mean, are there even music videos anymore?

Keith: I started to write something last night about a conspiracy behind all of this. Then I was going to write a post about how the advent of social media seems to have drummed up a new new and much more lowly scene of publicity stunts, with MTV already heavily flaunting its kind of weird Twitter graphic (“We’ve had over 150,000 tweets, and the show hasn’t even started!”) Seriously, with all that in mind, and the timing of everything, me thinks at least somebody with MTV and Kanye’s party was involved with this. Maybe not Taylor, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, but definitely someone knew this was going to happen. My whole point is that while most of us now acknowledge that social media has tremendous upsides, we can’t forget that like any medium, it does have its negatives, especially if abused by those who want to use it only for their own good, which it appears Kanye and MTV have now done. In that regard, by using social media to enhance brands and create more transparent and compelling engagements online, we can also do a lot of harm if we begin to abuse and/or don’t understand the full ramifications of the mediums/platforms/networks that we are using.

Damn, I think I just wrote up like half of a post on this . . . oops!

CT: …

Jes: Um.

Cog: Yeah, you sort of did.