JetBlue Continues to Differentiate its Brand

With the simple tagline of "If you wouldn't take it on the ground, don't take it in the air", JetBlue has been attempting to differentiate itself from its competitors. The ads which are clearly YouTube-ready are simple and challenge some of the unpopular airline policies which many travellers complain about - simply by transferring them to the random chore of taking a NY taxi or buying a soda. It really makes you think about what we put up with in the air, and JetBlue is positioning itself as the clever and reasonable alternative to the other airlines, in a fun way, using the amusing and totally relatable reactions of real people caught on hidden camera.

Having never travelled on Jet Blue, I really cannot speak to their service but their ads are classic and the Asian guy in the taxi ads is brilliant. My winner today!

How Do You Measure PR?

PR Measurement is critical and not an option!

I have found recently that in doing assignments, with limited word counts, that one of the shortest sections, if not the shortest section is usually the Evaluation and Measurement section. Much goes into the strategy and tactics sections, with details going into the appendices, but the poor Evaluation section suffers.

In real life, it shouldn't and it is the reason I have decided to look at PR measurement, specifically social media in PR measurement for my dissertation. Evaluation is nothing new, but with all the buzz about social media, all the hype and gloss, many people are interested in the question - how do we measure this thing? I am interested in it.

Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs)
have no place in PR measurement

There are still so many nebulous areas where measurement is concerned and not enough standardisation. PR Week recently announced it would not considering AVEs as a measurement criteria for its annual awards. The Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) has also been steadily campaigning to do away with the AVE as a standard for PR measurement.

Evaluation and measurement of PR is nothing new, so why has the PR industry taken so long to make its own mark on evaluating what it does, rather than using metrics from other disciplines as a benchmark? And like my assignments, why do we shy away from research and evaluation, while paying a great deal of attention to tactics? I would think that one would lead to the other and to the other - A to B to C.

And now with social media, which may still come across as fluffy stuff to some senior executives, that we have now really been focusing on proving its value and showing how it can be evaluated, the whole question of measurement of PR in general seems even more critical. The Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles was released in June 2010, and for the PR industry, it is a good first step:

1. Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programme
2. Measuring the effect on outcomes is preferred to measuring outputs
3. The effect on business results can and should be measured where possible
4. Media measurement requires quality and quantity
5. AVEs are not the value of PR
6. Social media can and should be measured
7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

So it is in honour of my abbreviated evaluation sections over the past few months, and out of a genuine interest to see what my peers are doing in real business cases, that I will be pounding the library and the doors of industry to find out, what are we doing, how are we doing it in terms of PR/social media measurement.

Communication Nazis: A Term of "un-Endearment"

A guy I know met me in the mall a couple weekends ago and as he kept me back from perfume shopping, he told me about his plans to visit the UK soon.

Him: Going to help my cousin with his business for a little while. He does exonerations.
Me: (utter bafflement)
Him: You don't know what exonerating is?
Me: (utter bafflement, followed by reflection, then by more bafflement, then more reflection and mind searching: Exonerate means, ummm...to free from blame or guilt, right?)

I was baffled because I knew what I thought exonerating was, but the dude clearly was not in the legal profession, nor was he a P.I. but I could have been wrong!

Him: He digs up dead bodies so they can do autopsies.

It took everything in my physical and mental being to not laugh, and I feigned edification, with an "Ohhhhh". Poor guy was so confident in what he was peddling, and so pleased that he taught me something, that I did not have the heart to tell him the word was exhumation, from the word, exhume. Maybe next time.

As confused as I was during that brief conversation, so too are some of the people we write for. Show of hands if you have started reading something that just went right over your head because it was either chock full of jargon, or just written with the simple objective of baffling you. A gentleman I do not even know this week, accused people like me, communicators working in finance, of being Nazis when it came to communications. Now the dude does not know me or what I do or even how I do it, and calling me a Nazi was not going to get you listed in my good books, but sadly, dude has a general point. Some of these financial documents you pick up in a bank can just turn your grey matter green, and while there is an audience for that hardcore communication, not all clients are the same.

Now to be honest, when I write for work, I am also learning because I hardly know what these people are talking about when they start to get all technical with the financial terms and jargon. The extent of my money vocab is "pay me" (kidding kidding). But again, it comes down to knowing the audience I am trying to write for - people who are probably just like me or worse, and don't quite get the really hardcore moneyspeak. I am a purist writer at times - anal about spelling, grammar and abbreviations, but over the years I have come to grips with my reality and the reality of the different audiences I have had to communicate with in various roles. So...

1. Think of the audience and not yourself when writing. You may enjoy writing with lots of colloquial terms or use a lot of big words, and that may work for you. It may not work for your audience. And ask yourself, what is it that THEY want to know about this topic, not what I want to write. Don't be so self absorbed that you miss the point of who you're trying to reach. Think of them sitting in front of you, because you are indeed writing directly for them. If you don't approach it this way, you can very easily lose them before they even hit the second sentence.

2. Use simple language. Don't be a Nazi. That is not even a cute term (take note, don't ever use it), so don't force the technical terms down the consciousness of your readers. Sometimes even if the audience is very savvy, simple is still always better. Simple works. Less is more. The writing is clearer and to the point. It was @Trini_Mitz who pointed out an example in a local media article where the journalist used a huge word and then put the meaning in parentheses (brackets). I mean, if you know the word may not be understood, why use it?

3. Be correct. Get both your facts and your language straight. Good articles are well researched and structured, and reflect on you.The dictionary and thesauraus are your friends. Use them. Please.

Please.

3. Don't be daft. If you write for your pleasure, chances are you're writing about something you're passionate and knowledgeable about. However, if you're part of a comms team somewhere in some place where you don't know what the heck they're talking about half the time, wouldn't it be super if you actually started reading and learning about the industry you're now in? Don't let your writing come off as ignorant or fluffy. I still grapple with some of this dry financial stuff, but I read a lot (a lot!) and ask questions if I am not too sure and of course, you can let a subject matter expert review it and contribute. I mean, what's the worse that can happen? You learn something new? The horror!

4. Edit. If your subject matter expert is doing the writing and we know sometimes they can do the whole jargon thing, because they are not thinking like a communicator, then do the needful and apply the first two tips when editing the article cause most times it will need that human touch. Lend YOUR expertise to theirs.

So next time you're writing for Jill or Jack Brown, don't take it for granted that someone out there REALLY wants to read your stuff just because you're writing it. It's a bit more involved than that. Aim for more head nodding as opposed to blank stares of confusion.

Photo credit: http://fysop.wordpress.com

Best Job Ever!!

No, not mine. But can I tell you how much I love these "Best Job Ever" promotions that have been popping up more often lately? They appeal to the littlest hobo in me and besides that, it's a great marketing strategy. How else to get people talking about your brand but to offer them an experience of a lifetime? The most recent BJE is the what CNN referred to as the Honeymoon Tester.

"Wanted: Luxury-loving couples available to globetrot for six months and get paid to test out the most romantic wedding and honeymoon destinations around the world....

...The winners will be asked to blog about their experiences a few times a week "when they can get out of the hammock after sipping a glass of champagne," Meleady said, and write for The Irish Times once a month.They will also be paid 20,000 euros (about $27,000). Hopefuls have until April 7 to apply for the "horrendous assignment" -- as the company teasingly calls it -- which starts mid-May."

This promo was born after the success of the BJE promo put on by Tourism Queensland, which was won by a lucky chap called Ben Southall, who has spent the last few months in isolated bliss, blogging about the wonders of the Islands of the Great Barrier Reef.

Both promos use social media heavily, with applicants being asked to create short videos introducing themselves and saying why they should be chosen. Then there is voting and online mania, and when the winner is selected there is blogging and photo taking and all that great promotional stuff - from the awesome minds and mouths of people NOT directly associated with the promoters. Because let's face it, tourism boards and travel agents are paid to sell and yes, the couples in this case will be paid for their "labour", but who better to sell to couples, than a happy couple? It's not rocket science but the promotions make it all the more exciting and attractive.

And there are others like 67 Days of Smiles, and even a winery got involved with the "Really Goode Job". What I love about it, and I think most people would love this aspect, is that you get real reviews from real people. It could be anyone. It could be a housewife, a student, your neighbour. It could be you. It is not someone with a marketing degree or someone with years of experience peddling hospitality, and selling dreams. It's the average Joe and Jane. It really changes the way we learn about travel destinations and emphasises the shift from destination websites with canned content, to social networking and user generated content. And as a traveller myself, I appreciate getting the traveller perspective over the canned stuff, and we already talked about my love for Tripadvisor and other such user sites. Not to mention, these promotions give the organisers brilliant marketing exposure. The couples have to promote Ireland and their videos are just the first step. The promotion brings a new audience of people who may never have considered Ireland as a honeymoon destination before. And paying a couple $27,000 vs paying an ad agency God knows how much to sell the destination - you don't need to be a math whiz to know that one is more cost-effective than the other. But it's not even about the money. The creativity of the couples and the personal accounts from the winners are worth their weight in publicity gold.

Hey, if I had seen these early enough, it could have been me! Shucks! Oh well...

This is one of the applicants' videos. I thought it was cute.



Check out the Ultimate Job in Ireland site and vote for your favourite couple.

Refreshing Change, or not?

We, or maybe I should just say, I, don't really do the whole Super Bowl thing here in Trinidad. American football is not my sport, and I really have no interest in making it my sport. However, I can appreciate the media hype around it as I know how sport can galvanise people, emotions, and experiences. Come June 11, the hype around the Super Bowl will be multiplied by 100 as the global football community prepares for the World Cup.

I have been rather interested though in the Pepsi saga. Pepsi made big news when they decided that they would not do the traditional mega million Super Bowl television ads this year but instead focus on Pepsi, Refresh, a $20million corporate social responsibility campaign using social media. I think that's it - a campaign using social media as opposed to a social media campaign cause most of that money is going towards "do-good" organisations and not really into the social media. Well, whatever one wants to call it, I applaud Pepsi. People were a bit skeptical that they would completely depart from what has become a huge deal in American pop culture, as we all remember the Britney Spears ad (well, that's the only one I remember anyway) etc.

But it's not as though Pepsi is building a brand new brand. We all know Pepsi. Geez...who does not know about Pepsi? Pepsi is almost ubiquitous, so did it really hurt them that much? I see greater value in this new thrust because a 30 second spot cannot bring the type of conversations Pepsi is for sure getting now. Sure, they will get convo - but how valuable is that conversation about Ms Brit shaking her bum to the brand, as opposed to talking to customers about the product, and more importantly getting them to talk about causes which are important to them, all while helping to add value to those organisations which need assistance - financial assistance and the publicity to raise awareness about the work they are doing.

The reach of the initiative, coupled with the frequency and depth of the engagement are surely wins for Pepsi. Some suggested that Pepsi could have made a 30 sec ad about the Pepsi Refresh campaign, but I think the publicity they generated when they decided against the ad this year was more than enough advertising. The success of the campaign would lie in how effectively they manage their social media communities, how well they manage those conversations and listen to what people are saying. From what I see so far, it seems to be working for them, and the celebrity interest is also a boon. They ahve already closed off ideas for February which is outstanding and have had the support, interest and participation of Saint Drew Brees, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon and Rihanna, to name a few as part of the programme's Celeb Challenge.

So along with the Saints, and New Orleans (kudos to the city, they needed a boost!), do you think Pepsi is a Super Bowl winner this year?

That GoDaddy.com ad was disturbing and maybe they should re-think doing these ads next year. I honestly and sincerely, not knowing anything about GoDaddy, thought it was a porn site and was confused as to why Danica what's her name was promoting it! But I guess it works for them!