Say it ain’t so, O!

The end of the Oprah era as we know it is nigh…!  The maven announced that the final days of her show will come in 2011, but will give way to a whole new world.  As a Boston Globe story notes:

she could have a new and expanded platform on her new 24-hour channel to offer more programming – and endorsements. Her new cable network, named OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network), is expected to launch January 2011

Hmm…so just in time for the  2012 Presidential campaign, she’ll be launching a 24 hour network?  Complete coincidence.

Perhaps Oprah’s team read Jamie Giller’s recent post, and realized she better get a new act together before the “Oprah effect” crumbles around her.

Twitter Drift

The polar bear is Twitter. Get it?

I’m coining a new phrase: Twitter Drift.  Go ahead, everyone start using it…wait….wait….ok, now!

It’s what I’ve been doing – and what by some accounts Twitter itself is doing – when I wander through the application without strategy or a real grasp on its relevance, especially to financial services companies.

Then I ran across this opinion piece on CNBC that wonders about the tool’s longevity.  The down and dirty:

…it seems as though Twitter is running the serious risk of so many dot com deaths that came before it: Trying to identify a market for its service after it’s already in business, rather than identifying an unmet market need and going after it.

The current generation’s Industrial Revolution has really been a Communications Revolution.  We thought flying cars, maybe, or teleportation, but the Big Ideas have been about advancing the way we distribute our message, whether as individuals or companies.  It’s in that light that Twitter seems so right, and yet so aimless.  A 140-word snapshot immediately sent to everyone who cares about what I have to say?  That has to be brilliant.  Somewhere.  Somehow.

But is it? Or given the explosion of like-minded devices and applications, is it simply redundant?  And perhaps most telling, I’m asking these questions three years into the Twitter Age…shouldn’t we know by now?

Jury’s deliberating.  In the meantime, feel free to follow me as I try to figure it out.  Could be entertaining.

Video killed the, eh…reading…thing

Is it just me, or is the confluence of Internet and TV starting to “noise things up” a little more than expected?  I want to like CNN’s new site design, and ESPN’s, and any number of others that  are prioritizing video content.  But I keep finding myself scrolling through the page, struggling to find written content – everything’s in video, everything has volume.

I’m a firm believer that we need to keep advancing media until we find the right delivery mechanisms.  There is great value to online video and podcasts, but are we approaching overkill?  Doesn’t this trend prevent visitors from consuming content at their desks (unless they’re wearing headphones, in which case will we all soon have our ears and eyes locked to our screens for 10 hours a day, with no human interaction – and yes, I’ve seen Wall-e)?  Doesn’t it make it difficult for researchers, which I often am, from referencing valuable sources?  And more apocalyptically speaking, does it signal an inevitable decline in reading on the whole?

I’ll be watching to see if the video gets scaled back, or if I am in fact just a curmudgeony old skeptic.

Does being overly confident make someone less credible?

As a public relations professional, part of my job is to place clients in positions that will earn them both credibility and exposure. However a recent New York Times article cites a study that puts the validity of expert positioning to the test.

According to the study (soon to appear in the Journal of Consumer Research), there is a 15% increase in credibility when a novice expresses certainty and a 14% loss in credibility when an expert expresses certainty.  The author of the paper says “people do a cognitive double take when reviewers’ expertise is mismatched with their level of certainty. ”  I say: hold it right there.  Does this mean that experts should not speak with authority on their areas of expertise?  And that novices who speak with absolute authority gain our trust?

I’m going to dismiss the former outright, but the latter needs a second look.  Take political commentator Rush Limbaugh. According to the Washington Post, Limbaugh has a following that overshadows all other nationally syndicated personalities. Some reports estimate that he has as many as 30 million listeners.  He has never worked in politics, and yet earns at least as much exposure as President Obama on a daily basis.   Calling him a novice would be naive, but he’s also not a veteran of politics.   Despite this, he certainly delivers his message with conviction. Is that delivery what gives him credibility, or does his experience in talk radio and his access to information give him all the expertise he needs? It could be argued that his opinion should be no more valuable than any conservative observer.  But it’s not. It’s given greater credibility.

The same argument could be made for Oprah – well known as an expert in nothing, yet an expert in everything. CNBC says Oprah’s talk show is the highest rated of its kind in history. When Oprah endorses a product, book or service, the “Oprah Effect” takes hold and sends companies profits skyrocketing. She’s been named as one of the first visitors to the White House after Obama’s election.  Is this incredible status a result of her vast expertise in political strategy, publishing and product manufacturing?  Or because she delivers her messages with certainty?

Courtesy of www.kerrywaghorn.com, March 14, 2009 THE VOICES - the Barak Obama phenomenon and the Democratic Party triumphs in the November 2008 election create the impression that the right wing of U.S. politics is on life support, yet the most ardent voice of traditional American conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, is more strident and popular than ever. On the other hand, more Liberal commentators such as Oprah Winfrey enjoy undiminished power, public respect and wealth!

Which brings me back to the original point: is it true that experts should appear more tentative and novices seem more certain?  At EZG, our experience has served us very different results than the study suggests.  Multiple thought leadership papers, interviews with top media outlets, and targeted speaking engagements have solidified clients as experts in their industries. We encourage our experts to speak with authority and put their knowledge on the front lines, but have never recommended that a novice pass themselves off as an expert.  This approach has proven extremely effective in increasing exposure, credibility, and trust among our clients’ audiences.

On the flip side, we will continue to see novices who claim they know best and will gain the public spotlight…but someday, somehow, their credibility and brand will be called into question.  Losing that credibility check is the ultimate brand killer.  Rush Limbaugh’s status as voice of the Republican party has already been questioned by RNC leaders, and Oprah may face the same issues when Obama’s time is up.

So weighing the quoted study against first-hand experience, here’s my advice when it comes to gaining credibility— Strunk and White had it right with Rule #17: Omit needless words.  State the facts, without appearing too pompous; talk about what you know; and earn trust by staying true to your strengths.

Local news, local power?

In the wake of last week’s post, had a fascinating talk with a long-time investigative reporter at the Globe.  I let him in on my extremely biased, lofty, conspiracy-theorist view that the NY Times’ purchase of the Globe in the 1990s was a transparent move to remove the Boston paper from the top tier.  Up to that point, the Globe was widely recognized for its financial, national and international reporting, uttered in the same breath as the Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and LA Times.  But soon after the sale, it trended towards more local coverage with more filler from newswires.

To me, this was an outrage.  To the Globe reporter, it was a blessing.  He told me how much more effective he and the editors can be when they stay focused on issues and stories that matter most to readers in the region, without the distraction of keeping tabs on correspondents reporting from pockets around the world.

I still believe that the Globe content has gotten lighter than one might hope.  But at the same time, I’m giving it a read with new eyes…

Times to Boston Globe: “Just Kidding”

The Times Company called off the dogs, retracting its hardline stance on selling the Boston Globe.  This is good, because as we’ve written before Boston is not the Herald’s town.  It’s bad because it disproved my conspiracy theory that the Times Company was gleefully seeking an excuse to shut down the Globe. In the immortal words of Fonzie, “I was wrrrrrrrrrnnnngggg.”

Note: asking the obvious here, but will there ever be a cooler character in television or film than Fonzie?  I submit there will not, can not, and should not be.  Fonzie was the height of cool, and there isn’t a thing that Patrick Dempsey can do about it.

Thought leadership at work – EZG client gains industry recognition

We don’t like to get too deep into our clients’ activities in this space, but it’s hard not to call attention to a great article by Britton Manasco, a believer in thought leadership as the most credible PR strategy and a guest writer for RainToday, a leading professional services marketing newsletter.  Britton did a brilliant writeup on the power of thought leadership, and in the process called out EZG client MFA-Moody, Famiglietti & Andronico for their forward-thinking marketing program.

We take great pride in the fact that together with MFA’s talented internal team, we have over the years built a reservoir of thought leadership that not only supports the CPA firm’s growth goals, but is setting the bar high in the world of professional services marketing.  As Britton writes:

Considering the turbulent state of the economy and trepidation of today’s buyers, the premium on trust is higher than ever…prospects are unlikely to become clients unless a high level of trust has been established, particularly in this economy. By presenting compelling perspectives and backing them up with convincing evidence, thought leaders become trusted authorities and earn the confidence of their prospective clients and other market influencers.

Words we live by, work by, and achieve success on our clients’ behalf by.  We now salute MFA with our remaining good hand, as yet unbroken from patting ourselves on our own collective back.

Kindle lessons from future me

I tried.  A purist in many ways, I fought tooth and nail against e-readers in favor of the romantic idealism of the printed page.  I also think baseball is weakened by instant replay and the DH, and that fireplaces should smell like wood, not gas.

The point here is that my desk is piled high with hard copies of the Boston Business Journal, CFO Magazine and any number of trade publications that inform me on the audiences we strive to reach.  They sit for weeks on end, because I’ve read them all online before they reach me in the mail. This is their well-documented business quandary; tangible delivery methods replaced by ease of Internet access.

And while my periodical reading shifted to 90 percent online, my book reading habits became simply nonexistent.  If Present Day Me could visit 1992 Me, I would tell me that a) George Bush has a son, and he’s headed this way, and b) novels take too much energy to buy or borrow, so I will stop/ have stopped reading them.

1992 Me would burst into tears.

And yet, it’s come to this.  I took a look at the Kindle and saw that I could access some 350,000 books and many of the mainstream periodicals and blogs in a lightweight device that is easy on the eyes and looks pretty sharp.

What will this mean for PR and advertising? Its e-reader time will come.  I wrote earlier this year about an e-reader design in concept stage that blew me away.  When e-reader technology breaks away from the Amazon monopoly, content will stream form a variety of sources.  Variety — being the spice of life — is the main ingredient for targeted media.  Variety leads to choice.  Choice leads to segmented audiences.  Segmented audiences lead to directed content…

So my Kindle defection is nothing if not bittersweet.  I will always set aside time to leaf through classic literature on the printed page, but at the same time I need to stay committed to forward momentum.  Best to be prepared for what’s coming.

Hear that, 1992 Me?  (And if you’re still listening, stop with the cassette tapes — you’ll have nowhere to play them someday.)

Welcome to EZG’s world

Are you in luck or what? Ebben Zall Group has just busted onto the scene to bring a fresh perspective to advertising, public relations and media strategies.  We like to write, think, and generally chew on everything media related; as we power through the world on behalf of our clients, we’ll take time out to jot down our observations and opinions.

So, welcome to EZG’s blog, where we’ll entertain, educate and engage you.  We encourage you to take part in the conversation by commenting on anything that jumps out at you, and to subscribe by either clicking here for an e-mail subscription or adding us to your reader (look to the right).

We look forward to your readership and ideas in the coming months…stay tuned for more soon!

Is Jon Stewart Batman? Yes. Yes, he is.

While these things usually play out in the comments section, I wanted to give reader “mensley” a full response to the question he raises on a March post, The mission to save media integrity. He/she/it writes:

It’s been two months, and I have not seen anything from Jon. How long do you suggest we wait?

Has he followed up on the bit from Cramer? Has he checked back in? Or does he fall victim to the “on to the next item” mentality that defines both journalism and our society.

In one way, this mentality will help speed our economic recovery as “the Joneses just got a new car…” and into the next collapse.

Again, I truly enjoy Jon, but wish he would eat his own dog food at times.

Of course I appreciate the sentiment and the comments, but I still disagree and believe I’ve struck on the best way to articulate my perspective.

As with most rational points of debate, this begins and ends with Batman. Let’s consider that Jon Stewart, like Batman, has earned cache among the media that he takes to task. He, like Batman, transitioned from one identity (mild mannered B-star comedian/mild mannered billionaire) to another (mission-driven media skeptic/crusader against evil).

And, like Batman, we forget that he is always on the lookout for travesties of justice. Stewart rattles the cages of media every night with direct jabs, just as Batman takes on petty thieves in alleyways. And when there is a true outrage — be it a financial meltdown of historic proportions or the emergence of a stout, waddling, supervillain — both he and Batman kick it up a notch and blow stuff up in Hi-Def.

The nightly sparring generally flies under the radar; what you’re waiting for is the summer blockbuster. It will come.