I thought y’all might be interested in the following article/blog I wrote for PR NEWSWIRE’s “Investor Uprising” community.

Is it possible for Groupon to issue a deal-of-the-day for its own stock when its IPO comes around? 

Here’s my thought; what do you think?

It pays to read this section of the Wall Street Journal; you never know who you can meet!

As part of my new business strategy, I strive to make relationships with the VC and private equity communities.  While it makes a lot of business sense, we also have a lot in common and have always contended that (one day) a PR shop should go into business with a VC group to not just go after businesses that are worth investing in, but to seek out ways to merchandise the efforts of these investments.

So when I saw the following article in AD AGE this morning about Madison Avenue forming a relationship with VC partners, I got shivers down my spine.  There is hope that my vision could come true.

Investment banks look for return on assets that strengthen financial statements.  PR firms can help leverage assets–both tangible and intangible.  At SMPR, we strive to hit on any innovation buttons we can, for these are the very buttons that trigger asset development.

Anyone who knows me in the PR world has heard my explanation of PR and how it mirrors economics–clients have a supply of information, and it is our job to match the demand of the marketplace with what our clients are supplying.  Our currency is content.  In the VC and PR worlds, content is king.

If any PR folks are doing something like what this article is describing, I would be curious to learn about your feedback.

Will Google's Instant Search be not so instant after all?

Whitney is on a roll these days, so we don’t want to hold her back…

When Google introduced the new Instant Search feature at the end of September, marketers were intrigued to hear that there was a list of words that instant search couldn’t utilize. That was just the beginning.

In a press conference, Google’s reps explained that Google didn’t have a master list of words and phrases that were blacklisted for instant search. Instead, it uses algorithms to distinguish between phrases that are more “family friendly” than others.  What is really interesting is the list of words that have been compiled that aren’t filtered out through this algorithm.  2600 (“The Hacker Quarterly”) has created a page with a list of what phrases are blacklisted and what words and phrases slip through on to instant search (much to some people’s surprise).
It is completely understandable that Google would take action to make sure instant search doesn’t provide little kids with information their young eyes should not see. What is confusing is that it is letting certain words through and blocking other phrases that aren’t all that offensive.

Check out Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit;” that phrase is blocked.  Words that you wouldn’t traditionally utter in public (i.e., “swear words”) are not blocked.  WTF?

Now, this is a brand new feature; in time, the algorithms will hopefully adapt to keep out a wider range of inappropriate words.  What about titles of songs, and names of journalists, like Ms. Slutsky who was present at the press conference. She commented that her name was one of the words that was blocked from instant search.

In a time when people are getting more and more impatient, what will instant search do to those who want answers quickly?  Yes, you can still type in “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and get links to Nirvana and the song. Will there come a day when people are too lazy to enter one more keystroke to search the entire phrase?  Who is to say that Google should be editing what shows up on an instant search anyway?  If we are all educated people using the free and open Internet, we should all understand that you get what you search for.

What will this mean for PR when a practitioner searches using Google?  Let’s say they’re looking for the journalist Ms. Slutsky and prefer using instant search.  Her name wouldn’t appear and a possible connection and opportunity for the client is lost.  As PR practitioners, we will have to look at how popular instant search becomes and how to ensure that our name and our clients’ names don’t get “blacklisted.”

Imagine what that could do to your SEO if everyone became dependent on instant search and the words associated with your product were for some reason blacklisted.

This new invention by Google seems to be a tool whose worth we, as professionals in our field and as a society, will have to weigh as it continues to grow.

One of the great things about PR is that when you find a company that “gets it,” it makes for an easy time to showcase that client.  In nearly all of those cases, these companies have superior people implementing processes that are DRIVEN by the people who designed them.

It sounds so easy, but people drive processes not only to make them work, but to make them smarter.  People drive innovation.  People look for ways to make systems more efficient and effective.  Perhaps all else, the smartest companies out there continuously look for ways to make both the people and the processes better.  This is the way that SMPR strives to showcase its clients, by looking at all of a company’s value drivers.

Which side is more important for good PR, process or people?

But when an outside company comes in and acquires another company–especially one built on people-based assets such as culture and talent–the equilibrium tends to shift.  Sadly, a former SMPR client (Flat Top Grill) has shifted for the worse.

Let’s be clear here–I am not sharing this information intending to spill “sour grapes” about a former client, let alone a former employer (disclosure–I worked for the company more than 10 years ago).  I am, however, sharing this because this company used to be the epicenter of customer experiences and people management, and it has reached an abyss that is so low that I worry that it will never get out.

I went into lunch at Flat Top Grill’s Loop location because I wanted to see how the company has changed since we stopped working with them.  To be sure, the people who we knew were no longer with the company (not that I expected to see them).  But the product has become so commoditized; what’s worse, the product was so poor, the service was so bad and the people–the very asset we looked to showcase–were so poorly trained and executed that it made me wonder how a company and its culture could sink so fast.

Want proof?

• I had to wait 22 MINUTES for my bowl to be delivered to me (WAY beyond the norm).
• Ingredients are supposed to be mixed together, but in my mouth was the very spoonful of wasabi I spooned in; my mouth was burning hot.
• I would have had water, but my glass wasn’t filled.  I had to run to a bathroom to get water (SERIOUSLY).
• Since when is soy put in beef and chicken?  Oh yeah, as a PRESERVATIVE.  If I wanted soy, I would have asked for tofu.
• As a former Partner (the company’s term for employee), I am entitled a professional courtesy when I dine there; I was asked three different times where I worked, who I was and why I asked for the discount; my bill must have been important to them…
• …but if it was so important, then why did it take all of these people so long to get my bill?  The server’s response–”We’re busy.”  Uh, hello?  Restaurants are SUPPOSED to be busy and you’re supposed to be PREPARED.

Unfortunately, the company has lost touch with the very thing that put the company in growth mode–its people.  Training and systems were tossed aside in favor of processes to save money.  I don’t need to look at their books to know that.  I asked a CEO of a major restaurant group in town what would have happened to his company if any of this had happened.  His response:  “I would be tracking down that customer to get their inputs how we can change things to make things right for him….”

Sadly, I doubt that will happen; Flat Top Grill has lost touch with what was important.  Perhaps one day, they can find what made them successful.

How Labor Is Liberated–WSJ ONLINE

Thanks to one of SMPR’s fine colleagues sending me the following article, I am reminded–perhaps even validated–that traditional models of leadership need to be shown the door.

At SMPR, we tell our clients that the best communication programs are built when leadership does all it can to connect with its lower ranks so that key messages are germinated through an entire chain of command.  Top-down leadership has its place; bottom-up leadership is how smart companies are made.

Perhaps labor being “liberated” means that workers are having a voice, and that managers are listening to them.  Radical concept, eh?

Back in January, I wrote about the number of people who were relying on “the economy” as an excuse for attracting new business. When client make cuts to budgets, they have a crutch to fall back upon–”It’s the economy…” I had hoped to find examples of companies or people who believed the same thing.

Thankfully, I found a great lead. If you haven’t done so, check out the May 2009 issue of INC. and read Joel Spolsky’s “It Isn’t the Economy, Stupid.” It captures much of what I was talking about in January.  No matter the month, no matter the season, no matter the company’s size or acumen, the best companies adapt to address the needs of their customers.

Mr. Spolsky’s article references the demise of Circuit City and its inability to connect with customers.  Can you blame the economy on consumers not buying electronics? Sure. But what about Best Buy? What about Amazon? What about Apple? They sell electronics and are doing OK. These companies have a host of intangible assets like culture, customer-centric systems, strong infrastructure.

Herein lies a lesson for PR practitioners everywhere. SMPR preaches that we care about what clients think as much as what they do.  We know there are ways to make a brand mean something to a customer, but you need a people-first voice to make it work, not a company-first voice.

When you blame the economy, the company is speaking for people.  When people speak on behalf of companies, innovation can take many shapes.

What other ways can a company get around “It’s the economy?”  I’m interested in your feedback.

Social media has become the good-looking girl in high school who everyone wants to call their own.

I saw an article in Advertising Age recently about how ad agencies and other marketers have created these departments dedicated to social media.  Jonah Bloom suggests that they be dismantled; perhaps another approach might be applicable.

Being that this in advertising industry publication, it makes sense that Mr. Bloom discusses the piece from that industry’s vantage point.  But let’s face it–social media is being “claimed” by all agencies, not just those which create advertising.  PR firms, direct marketers, and ad agencies alike are all claiming to do it.  It’s like social media is the hot girl in high school–everyone wants to take her to the prom so they can say, “she’s with me.”

Rather than building towers or knocking towers down, why don’t we take what’s good about the towers and mesh them with the offices and people who have already built towers within their own expertise?

What social media is doing–and where I see the greatest opportunity for its long-term future–is positioning the customer’s voice in front of everyone in a company–not just its marketing department.   The good-looking high school girl might be making the rounds, but she is not going to latch on to just one date; there is value with everyone she is connected with.

Jonah Bloom said it well in his article; consumers are running the biggest recommendation service in the world.  It’s time that we (as marketers) look for ways to collectively embrace these recommendations so that our clients can collectively benefit from them.