Meanwhile Back at the Ranch

I am doing my best not to throw stones at Susan Credle from Leo Burnett, who’s interviewed in Forbes.com today, but I really can’t help it.

I’ve never met Ms. Credle, but I respect the heck out of Burnett, so I figure she’s gotta have a lot on the ball.

But I find it curious that she’s defending the status quo at a time when all the big brand shops are making their way to the LaBrea Tar Pits.

Credle says that using Web analysis to target ads based on a given consumer’s behavior casts too small a net, and that the traditional advertising model, which “exposes people to choices” is a better way to build a brand.

She’s right that marketers should not panic during tough economic times, and that the knee-jerk reaction of cutting marketing and advertising always erodes a brand’s cache to the point where some never recover.

But not using all means available to efficiently direct the message toward consumers who are likely to try your product or service (and then leverage their joy to motivate other consumers to do the same) is wasteful and represents the old way of thinking.

There’s a helplessness and an ignorance here that troubles me. If I understand what she’s saying, then the big agencies are clinging to strategies that combine the old “shove it down your throat” branding campaigns with meaningless statistical data to sell stuff as though it’s 1965.

News flash: “Mad Men” is a TV SHOW. Welcome to 2010, people.

Ries & Ries got it right about eight years ago. Advertising is an art form, but it’s lost its usefulness as an effective sales tool. Yes, your TV spot is pretty to look at. Yes, we admire your billion-dollar-buying power and your fancy offices. Yes, I’d much prefer to wear a grey flannel suit than jeans and a T-shirt.

But all that stuff costs money. And to expect the client to pay your agency’s freight for the two account service reps, the art director, copywriter, creative director, media planner, media buyer, producer, director, union talent, etc. that it takes to get your message to the marketplace is living a three-martini dream that doesn’t exist anymore.

I miss those days of excess as much as the next exec. Trust me. I am just old enough to remember the ’80s when we were all living large, and that was a lot more fun than sweating it out in a basement gym and playing “Eye of the Tiger.”

Times change, and Leo’s gotta change, too. Or they could all wind up selling apples.

There’s a crude joke in the PR business:

Q: What do a PR consultant and a call girl have in common?

A: They both get paid by the hour to do unsavory things.

And for the past 20 years, I’ve been keeping timesheets and sending line-item invoices to my clients, most of whom are happy to pay me for the time I’ve invested in publicizing their products and services, writing speeches and position papers or putting out fires during times of crisis.

But I’ve always felt a little bit hollow inside because it is difficult for those of us in the public relations business to truly quantify the results of our labor. And I’ve often scoffed at the mega-agencies in our industry, who (in my opinion) charge exorbitant fees by confusing activity with achievement. (If you’ve ever read a John Grisham novel, you know how those billable hours can really add up for The Firm.)

In my heart, I know that PR delivers a bigger bang for the buck than advertising. After all, who turns on the TV so that he can watch commercials for hours on end? It’s the editorial that people value and a PR pro’s ability to influence an audience through the prism of a trusted, objective third party has enabled tramps like us to earn a living all these years.

But now things have changed.

Fewer people get news and information through the mass media, and even those who do are four to five times more likely to be influenced by the advice of a total stranger than they are to believe your ad, my press release or a story in the local paper.

What’s more, when considering a purchase, prospects will visit your Website or conduct similar research on your products or services before taking the leap and becoming your customer.

With all of that in mind, pay-for-performance can and should become the standard compensation for all marketing communications firms.

Dick Grove, founded of INK, Inc. here in Kansas City back in 1997, based on a pay-for-performance model. I’ve never met Mr. Grove, but I’ve always admired his moxie as his firm charges clients by the impression and not be the hour. He’s still in business, so clearly the strategy works.

But I think we in the PR industry need to go one step further.

If clients are willing to open their books and track and measure their marketing and sales programs, they and their agencies can begin to set standards that will result in true pay-for-performance and benefit agencies and clients alike.

Using Google Analytics and related tracking software, marketers today can identify how visitors reach their Websites (via organic search, from social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.), how long the average Web visitor stays, which pages she visits, and whether or not a high percentage of these visitors reach the page where they can say, “I am interested in buying something from you. Here’s my money (or my contact information), let’s please do business together.”

And if we can quantify all of the above, and a client understand the value of a particular business transaction (or better yet, the average lifetime value of its customers), then the agency and client can construct a compensation model in which the agency receives a commission based on its contributions to the client’s bottom line.

Clients will receive better service and be able to truly measure return on investment. Agencies will probably earn more money and receive a more objective evaluation of their work.

This model is not appropriate for all clients or all agencies, but I’d sure love to hear what others think on this issue.

You can’t pass a television screen these days without seeing something about Tiger Woods’ recent driving adventure.

And I’ve read scores of blog posts dispelling the popular crisis communications advice of “tell it all, tell the truth, tell it quick” that I’ve shared with my own clients over the years.

But here’s a contrarian view that I’d like to bounce off you:

It’s not our business to know what happened this past week. Whatever happened is between Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the fire hydrant and possibly the neighbor (assuming Tiger’s SUV caused damage to the neighbor’s tree).

We all know that “news” is everywhere and that Twitter, the Internet and the pandering classes on cable TV will stop at nothing to get us every last sordid detail.

But by stonewalling and refusing to respond to our speculation, Woods is, in effect, telling us that we’re not entitled to know every last detail of his personal life. And I support his decision.

You can play the, “he’s a public figure” card or say that because he’s successfully manipulated the media to amass his fame and fortune, turnabout is fair play.

But perhaps it’s time for someone to say enough is enough. My life is my life and you (the public) don’t get to see everything. Now please go away. Perhaps Woods is that someone.

As a PR professional, I’m not saying he’s right to do so. His image will likely take a hit.

And folks will continue to speculate about Tiger’s alleged extramarital activities and conjure up all manner of lurid stories. I suppose that’s their right. But he’s entitled to his privacy and his dignity, and perhaps it takes a celebrity of his caliber to take such a stand.

I don’t recollect anyone holding Michael Jordan’s gambling against him. And I don’t ever remember Mr. Jordan apologizing for dropping large sums of money at the golf course.

Maybe Mr. Woods will be a Rosa Parks, standing up for decency and respect for others’ privacy.

Or maybe I’m on crack.

I was poking around today and found a number of “listening” products and services that interested me.

With apologies to TechCrunch, here’s a list of handy tools you might want to incorporate when monitoring social media chatter on your company, its products and services:

Viralheat. This service, which costs between $10 and $40 per month, monitors approximately 30 video sharing Websites and Twitter to capture mentions of your brand. It also analyzes Tweets, Re-tweets by sentiment, enabling you to see whether commentary about you is positive, negative or neutral.

Visible Measures. If you’re using online video advertising and viral video to promote your products and services, you might find VM to be a useful service, which I imagine comes with an upscale price tag. Visible Measures offers a wide range of services, including content development and distribution strategies, as well as conducting thorough analyses of more than 150 video-sharing sites.

Social Seek. This is a free service that enables you to monitor mentions of given keyword in blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and events pages. I downloaded the software this morning, but haven’t had much luck so far in generating useful feedback. I’ll keep you posted, but I’d appreciate input from anyone familiar with the software.

People Browsr. If you’re a fan of Tweetdeck for managing your Twitter account, this service may be for you. There are many different ways to use People Browsr, and I won’t bore you with every single application they provide, but their My.PeopleBrowsr.com application works like a Tweetdeck on steroids and enables you to integrate multiple “listening” functions into a single interface.

Three are dozens more technologies out there, including upscale services from Radian6, Infegy and Spiral16, but these four may be useful for your business.

Happy Thanksgiving and happy listening.