Can Manischewitz wine and dine new customers?

Monitoring market share is still the first, best gauge of advertising and marketing campaigns for retailers, as brands – established and new — are primarily looking to convert brand loyalists from the competition.

The automotive industry is an obvious example of using advertising to convert customers.  Audi, for instance, made a huge splash over the last year starting with their 2011 SuperBowl ad that directly went after BMW and Mercedes in the luxury car category.

While the strategy of gaining market share is a fundamental part of any business plan, from an advertising perspective it has never been so transparent to customers.  It comes out in the form of clear shots in campaigns like Audi’s, but is also front and center as companies look to expand their offerings into new categories.   The quick service restaurant category shifts constantly depending on what is fashionable in the food world (low carb, low cal, and even Vegan…).

We’re accustomed to restaurants and automotive companies making their appeals to new audience segments, but when a company that is over 100 years old decides to break the mold and expand from a niche product line…it’s hard not to take notice.

Manischewitz is the largest manufacturer of processed kosher foods in the world and is traditionally recognized by the Jewish community for their Kosher offerings such as matzos and gefilte fish.  A recent New York Times article was discussed how the company launched a new campaign to appeal to the non-Jewish community.  Manischewitz has worked with their agency to develop generic ads that focus less on Jewish holidays and more on their tagline “Bringing families to the table since 1888,”repositioning themselves for new product offerings.

While many companies have successfully made this shift there is no question that it is still risky especially for a well established brand.  I immediately think of what was repeated to me throughout grad school ….”just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”   In 2010, Starbucks tested serving alcohol at their stores – but after seeing the results in select stores in Portland OR, Starbucks realized they were getting away from coffee as the core of their brand.

In the automotive example above with Audi, the company was trying to gain market share in the luxury brand category, which wasn’t a stretch from what the company initially stood for.  With the company’s strong reputation in engineering, customers could make that jump with Audi to put it in the same luxury class as Mercedes and BMW.  The key to success of extending market reach is truly in the hands of consumers…it comes down to simply whether the new category is believable.

Print Ad for Manischewitz gravies.

In the case of Manischewitz, the company is looking to evolve its product offering to items such as broths and gravy, which is not too much of a departure — but can they compete with established brands such as Swanson?  While their advertising is not taking on such brands directly, Manischewitz will be advertising in new venues that will put them head to head with competitors.  So the message is generic but their media plan will strategically position the company in a new arena.  The company is set to release 70 new products in 2012, so while their advertising message is not overly aggressive their business plan is. Very soon we’ll see if Manischewitz will really be “bringing families to the table” in 2012.

Top Three High Expectations for Media in 2012

Professional athletes are tremendous at talking about how much more important the present and the future are than the past. Yesterday’s game is over, tomorrow is another opportunity. I’m just going to give it my best shot and God willing, things will work out in the end (thank you, Crash).

In keeping with that sentiment: 2011 is done and dusted, and everything that has passed is prologue to this. The best way to usher in a new era? Set some expectations. And while we’re at it, this being a nice, casual setting, let’s set them early and set them high.

[Note: I limited myself to media-related issues here, but for the record my true #1 expectation is that The Greatest American Hero film goes into production in 2012.  Thus far, TGAH has been a glaring omission from the field of subpar 80s remakes...a travesty.]

Expectation #1: Presidential candidates will master multimedia

In 2008, then-candidate Obama leapt onto the proverbial bucking bronco of social media and rode it into submission. He spoke a new language through all the right channels, creating rallying points through Twitter and Facebook. Where rival candidates literally got lost in Second Life and flailed at other attempts to connect with the online generation, he quite simply hurled new communication tools to the wall and made them stick.

In 2012, look out.

Social Media Math

How does it all add up?

It’s happening – companies in nearly all industries have climbed aboard the social media express.  From creating pages on Twitter and Facebook, to producing blogs and mobile media, and even communicating on Google+, none of us can ignore the impact of online networking. In fact, it’s becoming the new normal even if the tools might change on a weekly basis.

But what’s it all worth? While it’s easy to broadcast news to the world via text, tweet, or ping, demonstrating the value of a social media hit is another story. Digital marketing group Econsultancy reports that many companies still struggle to understand social media ROI. And for public relations firms, ROI is our BAB (bread and butter).  Not to mention 2012′s economic forecast is reportedly “cautious,” meaning every business will be scrutinizing budgets and value as the New Year approaches.

For years, the call has been out there to make social media a measured part of PR. Regular measurement of circulation and value will give digital networks their place in marketing plans and justification in budgets. Why not make it a goal for 2012? Numerous social media monitoring programs are emerging, both free (Klout, Google Analytics) and fee-based (Radian6) to help us calculate. It’s time to stop speculating about how social media placement measures up, and do the real math.

Extreme Makeover: Public Relations Edition

Why are we here?

The Public Relations Society of America is making over its own definition of “public relations.” Its 1982 version still stands as the official wording, even with a few past attempts to update the look and feel of the profession: “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”  Yikes.

A call for entries from both industry pros and the public has been issued and submissions are being accepted via blog online form (deadline is Friday, December 2).

The results from most PR pros may stand to be the least shocking. After all, we love to manage the message, don’t we?  In our industry, we’re constantly tasked with defining ourselves and our clients, drawing on terms from day-to-day routines and global context. Expect to see familiar friends like “communicate”, “messaging”, “audience”, “media”, “effective”, “convey”.

Most curious, however, may be what non-PR audiences think of us.  Based on an outsider’s view, what is public relations and who are we as its representatives? If opinions are based on fictional depictions from  films and TV, expect terms that either flatter us as savvy trend-setters (“social”, “eloquent”, “notoriety”), or depict us as swaggering spin doctors (“schmooze”, “smear”, “pester”). Or suggestions might illustrate once again that a sizable audience actually has no idea what we do, supporting the notion that the definition of “Public Relations” has been ambiguous for far too long.

The results of the online form will appear in a “word cloud” on the PRSA’s PR Definition blog. While we’ll have fun guessing who submitted what, we may also get served a slice of humble pie.  Feel free to chime in: what IS public relations?

Brand don’t fail me now, or “Why Fenway will be full in April”

Clearly, Dee Snider has had enough of the Red Sox. But that will change.

Ok, ok, I’ll weigh in on the Red Sox, because we absolutely haven’t heard enough about their “epic collapse.”  But maybe instead of focusing on what an outrageous disappointment the 2011 team was and is, we could instead look at the incredible job ownership has done polishing the brand for these exact circumstances.  Yes, let’s do that.

Here is the knee-jerk: the players quit on each other and their fans.  Ownership is out of touch.  Fans are angry and, in the immortal words of Dee Snider, “We’re not going to take it anymore.”

But guess what?  We are.  Or, if me and you and the guy down the hall aren’t, many hundreds of thousands of others are.  Because ownership has done a masterful job of repointing a brand that was previously directed solely at baseball purists; they shaved off some of the hardcore exterior in order to draw in a higher percentage of the young, eager, “see and be seen” demographic (yes, the “pink hats”).

True Red Sox fans know what .406 means, who Jimmie Foxx was, and why the wave is asinine.  Those fans are incensed at the way they’ve been deprioritized by ownership and some may feel the apathy of the current roster reflects that.

None of it matters, because next April the true fan will forgive and hold out hope that the team will rebound and show some grit.  And the apathetic fan will be cheering regardless, either unaware or un-invested in the team’s apparent lack of respect for them and for us.

Therein lies the genius of the club’s foresight and brand execution.  For the past several years, there have been cries that ownership played to both segments – fans tried and true or untested and false, it made no difference.  How could a 40 year Fenway grandstand veteran possibly share a row with Sweet Caroline enthusiasts?  There would have to be a breaking point, right?

Wrong. The law of positive brand says that the deeper, stronger, and wider the brand appeal, the more likely it will hold up under significant stress.

Sox ownership took a century of hardcore history and diluted it with a theme park atmosphere. Idealistically despicable?  Perhaps.  But now they will enjoy that brilliant diversification of their base.  What they’ve built simply cannot be undone by a bad month of play and a worse month of off-field press: when Boston baseball makes its comeback in April, as will the brand.

[Editor’s note: To be clear, none of this means I embrace nonsense like the lightning show that accompanies Jonathan Papelbon’s 9^th inning entrances.  I hate it.  It’s an insult. But I do love baseball, you bastards...]

The paid content experiment: how newspapers are holding on

With more and more free information constantly available at our fingertips, it’s becoming less necessary to pay for it.  Newspapers with plummeting print subscriptions have responded by launching subscription-based websites that put much of their content behind a paywall. Papers are creating cleaner, simplistic sites to enhance the loyal readers’ experience with the online publication. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others have already seen success with this paid content experiment.

Now the Boston Globe has jumped on board. One week ago, the Globe launched BostonGlobe.com, an online version of the newspaper that will require readers to subscribe for a fee of $3.99 per week for non-Boston Globe subscribers and free for current print subscribers. This new “paid” website is not to be confused with Boston.com, a free site available to the general public. In fact, The Boston Globe has taken this opportunity to enhance this free site as well, recognizing that each product has two distinct audiences.

Boston.com is much more of an open forum that allows participation and conversation and remains much more local. In contrast, BostonGlobe.com will lend itself more to the avid newspaper reader. “BostonGlobe.com will also offer a cleaner reading experience, without the homepage takeovers or pop-ups used on the free Boston.com.” With this change there is an obvious concern among advertisers — however there is a great opportunity here that was somewhat unavailable with the free website.

With the “paid” website subscription, the BostonGlobe.com will be able to capture a more in-depth picture of their readers.  Information such as household income, level of education, and reading habits can all be tracked, giving advertisers a greater opportunity to target their audience more accurately.  Not to mention, the promise to offer fewer ads to their readers means advertisers are given the opportunity to appeal to readers in a less cluttered atmosphere.  This will certainly overcome the objections that advertisers have with Boston.com about its tendency to over crowd the site with advertising.

Advertising aside, the hidden agenda seems to be to find a strategy to hold paid print subscribers from jumping ship.  Even though Apple claims that no online newspaper should be given away as a free subscription, something tells me that this may at least hold print subscriptions for the meantime.  Time will tell.

Shaken up over the speed of bad information

When the Great East Coast Quake of 2011 nudged the office building here (in MA), I made a quick call to building management to see if it was their doing.  When they denied responsibility, I checked three online news sites and fully expected an explanation.  I was surprised and even a little annoyed to still be in the dark less than 2 minutes after the quake.

Fear not.  Within another 10 minutes, all the news sites had it: I knew where, when, I could see how far the experience ran around my social media circle.  A client even noted that the earthquake gained its own twitter account (@DCEarthquake) by 2:30 pm.

Where does this leave us?  We already have difficulty with a 24 hour news cycle that elongates and extrapolates hard facts until they’re barely recognizable.  Now we have a nearly instantaneous reaction time – a need to get information as events unfold.

This is fine for live broadcasting or tweeting planned events, but when it comes to hard news…I fear we’ve been down this road before.   Raise your hand if you remember the early call of the Presidential election in 2000.  That was a seminal moment for news networks, as they acknowledged that the race to get the news out became more important than getting it right.

We’ve just reached a stage at which social media has become an entrenched part of media overall.  It is not its own practice, or its own medium, or its own industry – it is part of the media overall.  Journalists use it.  Networks use it.  Consumers use it.  Cats, apparently, use it.  At the intersection of all these users is a chaotic ball of yarn (for lack of a better metaphor), and we were just getting to a place where we could identify which threads  are trustworthy and which are entanglements.

Alas and alack, we are back at the beginning.  Now that social media is an accepted flow of information, the emphasis is on speed and wit – both outstanding qualities, but not the cornerstones of journalism.  As we gear up for another election season, I’ll stay wary of the quick feed and keep hope alive for long form knowledge.

Practice makes perfect: managing your online reputation

Just a few years ago, managing my reputation meant making sure I was always looking good and not getting on anyone’s bad side. I knew what others thought of me through gossip, or face-to-face interactions and that was about it. Today, reputation management has taken on a much more significant role not just in personal relationships but in business relationships as well. The root of this growth is due mostly to websites in which customers can post reviews of people, businesses, or services, called review sites. More and more of these websites are popping up online every day and they are quickly becoming a serious concern for business owners.

The issue with these review sites is that businesses cannot “directly” manage the reviews that are submitted to their company pages. What many are saying is that they would like to delete the negative reviews on these pages because they feel that those will tarnish their reputation. However with the nature of the sites being free for all, only explicit or inappropriate comments are able to be deleted. Having attended seminars about reputation management and through personal research on the topic, the overall consensus is that there are two effective strategies for businesses to alleviate this concern.

First, they must encourage happy customers to submit reviews on these sites so that the negative reviews are pushed further down the page. This leaves the newer positive comments residing at the top of search results. The more positive reviews existing on the page, the less significance the negative reviews will have in new customers’ minds. Although the comments of unhappy customers will certainly cause a bit of stress, businesses must embrace the fact that those comments actually make the page appear more legitimate. Consumers have been using the internet long enough to know that there is always one disgruntled customer almost everywhere you go. With that knowledge they tend to distrust sites that are cluttered with sparkling reviews.   

Second, the best way to really maintain a positive online reputation is to respond to the complaints on the review site. There, businesses can offer an explanation for the complaint, offer this person a discount or free service, while also clearly making an effort to establish a close relationship with customers. So in a way, these complaints are actually providing a medium for discussion and giving the business a voice if they choose to participate. It is strongly encouraged to always address complaints in order to set the record straight for any new customers reading these reviews.

Although opening up to the public online may be a scary idea to most businesses, it can be a very positive asset for maintaining a positive reputation. In short, capitalizing on the happy customers and offering explanations or consolation services to those unhappy with your business are the two key strategies for maintaining a positive online reputation. It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but all reviews, whether good or bad, can only benefit in the long run if they are dealt with properly.

YouTube, YouAds…YouKnow?

YouTube’s most recent endeavor has them pitching advertisers to exclusively sponsor YouTube Original Series.  This initiative would take original programming from being solely based on broadcast or cable to be strictly on YouTube…not just repeats or clips. With this idea YouTube would use big stars to draw in advertisers and views to the interactive big screen.  Advertisers get the ability to have an exclusive sponsorship of the program therefore owning advertising property on YouTube.  Exciting, right?

At first glance this seems like a natural progression of television in the digital age, but it’s actually much bigger than simply bringing together TV and the internet.  If this really catches on it would be quite a turn of events for media planners/buyers.  If an advertiser could truly buy interactive television advertising (assuming it has the same popularity as shows we watch today on broadcast or cable), media planners would then be able to utilize the benefits of being online. Selecting the right program and or daypart would evolve into something more…they would be able to target an audience by a certain behavior.

For example, Honda would have the ability to their ads to viewers who recently searched for new or used car online.  Orbitz could utilize remarketing to make sure that 5 days after you booked your flights to Aruba they were running TV ads for hotel or car rentals during your favorite television program. Talk about big brother!  All your interactive behavior would begin to work in synch.

I’m not entirely convinced the general public is willing to allow advertisers to have this much accessibility at the risk of becoming too invasive.  Advertisers, on the other hand, would probably be very interested in seeing this initiative move forward.   Today more and more clients want the ability to measure traditional advertising in the same way that we measure interactive.   As for advertising professionals this would certainly be beneficial to help develop even more targeted media plans to reach the most qualified consumers for their clients.

Could this be the next “big thing”?

America’s Walking City giving up on the T?

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has been in the news quite a bit this week in Boston. The organization, which  serves over 1.15 million riders on an average weekday, has been fending off negative media stories ranging from how it will raise money to pay off its nine figure debt to explanations of how 400 people got stranded on the Red Line this past Tuesday. The battle is nothing new for the MBTA. In 2009, fare hikes had riders angered, complaining of subpar service and outdated fare systems. Two years later, repairs are still needed, debts are due and increased maintenance on buses and subway cars are expected by its riders. With looming costs and not enough income, the Boston Business Journal reported this week that the MBTA is now thinking about selling station naming rights.

But before we see the “Red Sox Kenmore station” or “Panera Bread T stop,” corporate sponsors must analyze the value of such a sponsorship. Would naming rights of a station also include the ability to host marketing campaigns? Placement of original artwork in stations? McDonald’s Arches as the new entrance?

At EZG, we carefully evaluate any partnership before recommending it to a client. Generally speaking, sponsorships mainly focus around awareness and visibility—getting your brand name into the market. Much like a billboard, corporate sponsorships focus on high traffic areas and venues, making them perfect fits for major league sports teams, performing arts centers, and museums. But for the MBTA, who continues to work on its reputation and brand image with the public, they’ve got to show value before they can ask for serious dollars in exchange for a “TD Bank North Station.” And advertisers must see a return on investment in order for it to stick.

According to the website, there are more than 250 million T riders each year. While that may translate into huge exposure for brands, the remaining question is, will corporate sponsors see the value? If riders continue to have bad experiences while on-board, will the sponsorships fall short of expectations?

Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below.