Election 2004: 15,000 journalists and still a dearth of coverage

This is a marketing column, right? So, what's with the political analysis.

Well, in truth, this is not so much about political analysis as an evaluation of what our media coverage (or lack thereof) of our presidential election is doing to the brand known as USA. Tim Rutten, in his LA Times piece on our national political coverage, only covers half of the issue. Rutten starts off with an interesting observation:

"The most serious problem confronting the American news media today is neither creeping political bias nor the tensions between new and old technologies ... [but rather] corporate managers' growing inability to distinguish between the public's interest — fascination with entertainment and celebrity — and the public interest — a deference to the common good."

Rutten's complaint is clear and valid. Big media - specifically the three major television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) have made a business decision with significant editorial and civic implications. By reducing their coverage of the political conventions to no more than an hour a night, they've abdicated coverage of the political process to a patchwork of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and cable networks.

And while I share Rutten's concerns vis a vis domestic coverage of the political process (the last thing we need are uninformed opinions going into November) - he's missed a very important point. There are 15,000 journalists at the DNC this week - and one would assume a similar number of journo's covering the RNC in August. In both cases, the number of journalists covering the story will outnumber the delegates attending.

And not all of those journalists will be Americans.

In fact, what is happening on this country's political horizon is of the utmost importance and interest to people living around the world and their media is here to cover it as well. Embarrassingly so, coverage on many foreign television networks will be much more thorough than what most American's will be seeing on the big television networks that command most of the eyeballs in our country.

Everyone is here from Al Jazeera to the BBC. There are media representatives from as far away as Nepal in attendance.

Apparently, there's just not enough reality television in the world to bring everyone to our level.

But my concern centers around what the implications are for Brand: USA if we're disinterested in our own political conventions while the rest of the world watches and wonders.  What's the signal we're sending?

Much as the contentious situation in Florida in 2000 was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by the world at-large when it happened, I fear we're treading down the same path again in 2004.  It's in our own best interest to be actively engaged and invovled in this election, no matter who's side you're on.  The more engaged the US population is in the electoral process, the stronger the signal we send to the rest of the world that the American people stand behind "our" brand.

And that will count for something.

If you travel abroad, you know that people in other countries are often quick to say that while they don't like America, they like Americans.  What's that mean?  It means they create a clear distinction between what our country does and the people they meet from the USA.  That's understandable.  It's much easier for people to "hate" a nameless, faceless institution rather than a person with whom they can make a one-to-one connection.

The secret to branding success, of course, is to create as much of a personal relationship between the customer and the brand as possible.  In this example, if people from other countries see and can identify with the people in America who stand behind Brand:USA, they're less likely to dismiss concerns, fears, policies or decisions as being unilateral.  And, just as importantly, the more engaged the American public is in creating its brand's promise, the more likely our policies will take these international relationships into consideration.

The end result, I think, will be a brand we can all stand behind.

Later.

15,000 journalists and still a dearth of coverage

It's as important to work ON your business as it is to work IN it.

I can't take credit for the line I've paraphrased and used as a headline. The idea of distinguishing between working on your business and working in it should go to Michael Gerber the author of the E-Myth series of books. But it's such a great concept and it was the first thing that popped into my head when I read this article from today's USA Today.

In fact, this list of business tips compiled by Rhonda Abrams is something that should go in the front of every business leader's daily planner if they want to consistently build their brand's value. Ms. Abram's elaborates on each point in a bit more detail, but let me summarize them for you here:

- Have an "elevator speech" that summarizes your brand's story always at the ready.
- Don't nickel and dime clients.
- If you're giving someone a deal, make sure they know it.
- When on the road, simplify, simplify, simplify.
- Pay your bills on time.
- Diversify your client base.
- Look at your clients' long-term value to your business,
- And don't be afraid to "fire" the unprofitable ones.
- Organize your note-taking with a simple solution that works for you.
- Keep in touch with your best contacts - ON PURPOSE.
- View customer complaints as an opportunity to learn, not just criticism.
- Set time aside for planning.
- Never compete on price alone.
- Do everything with integrity.

She provides more tips than just these - and her travel tips (which I've summarized as "When on the road simplify, simplify, simplify") are things that took me nearly a year to figure out on my own, but for small businesses, start-ups and growing companies who can't afford to throw money around, these are great tips for staying focused, economizing and making it all work.

So many of the partners and clients I work with get too wrapped up in the daily details and grind of their business - handling clients, vendors and snarly employee situations - that they lose sight of the bigger picture. That's part of the reason I work with folks, sure. But there's a big difference between getting the "30,000 foot view" from an objective consultant and taking it in for yourself.

In fact, if I can get a partner or a client to learn how to see the big picture and spend some quality time working "on" their business instead of "in" it all the time, I'm allowed to do what I do best: adding perspective by questioning assumptions, providing research and outside experiences that may open up new opportunities or help make unexpected (and highly profitable) connections.

Don't take this the wrong way, there is significant value in getting folks to come up for air. But once a partner or a client is comfortable in that position and able to recognize when it's time to get in and out of the business, that's when we're able to really make some progress.

I'm there now with a few clients and will spend a good deal of time next week in planning meetings with one, in particular, where we'll set the table for the next twelve months. I fully expect us to make major strides this coming year. It's our third together and we've been able to improve our year-on-year performance each of the last two years. But like a garden (which is supposed to sleep, creep and then leap by year three), I think we're really going to take off this year.

And we'll never know if we don't get outside the business and take a look from time to time.

Later.

USATODAY.com - Tips, tricks to help business run smoothly

Cause marketing or the exploitation of kids?

Subway commits 20% of it's marketing budget to fighting childhood obesity; but is it a sincere effort or an attempt to jump on the bandwagon?"

You're seeing it happen in a matter of months. Fast food restaurants from McDonald's to Wendy's to Subway are all trying to provide healthy meal alternatives for youngsters and more health-conscious adults. But is this really concern for some newly-defined audience segments or merely an attempt to diffuse consumer backlash to decades of unhealthy food options being foisted on the public over the counter of franchises across the USA?

The Ad Age article we reference here presents a concise review of a brilliantly integrated marketing program, identifying three key front-line changes being made by Subway: a pledge program to encourage children to adopt healthier lifestyles, activity-based toys in kids' meals and sponsorship of the American Heart Association's "Jump Rope for Heart" program.

There are media deals with Nickelodeon, VNR packages served up nationwide and eleven different television spots featuring a "trio of kids who have changed their lives by eating better."

David Lubars, president of Fallon Worldwide - the agency who conceived and produced the spots before their break-up with Subway - makes sure to back away from any child exploitation claims: "You don't want to exploit kids and we just wanted it to be the truth. None of the kids are skinny and we were not promising any miracles." he says in the Ad Age article.

And in that one statement, you see what I think is an important distinction in this campaign. Sure, the effort to fight childhood obesity is laudable - but in the hands of some, it could easily devolve into nothing more than a grab for "high ground" in the battle for mindshare among health-conscious consumers and concerned parents. The fact that both the advertising and PR in this campaign appears to deal with "real" kids, situations and outcomes tells us that Subway has spent a considerable amount of time to craft a careful message that will both build brand value and change attitudes in the process.

I think it's fair to assume that some people will question Subway's motives behind this campaign. After all, this campaign will help reinforce what Subway's marketing VP, Chris Carroll identifies as "a position within the consumers' consciousness that we (Subway) can actually change people's awareness and people's understanding of eating and exercise habits."

By investing nearly $60 million behind this message, Subway will undoubtedly influence people's awareness and understanding of childhood nutrition issues and, I think, should be applauded for bringing it this issue forward. Let's hope those well-meaning advocates who rail against any kind of marketing aimed at children don't try to read more into this than it deserves.

The fact is that in order to change the nutrition landscape for our youth, we're going to have to market to the youth. If we've learned one thing over the past few generations it's that parents either don't want to (or can't) control the eating and consuming habits of their children. No matter what age.

Although it's not fair to lay all the blame at the feet of the parents (as some corporations and marketing types are want to do), it's also not fair to blame only the large companies that found the door to these young consumers left unattended. I believe the only way solutions to several of the problems we have with young people today stand a chance is if we all work together to solve the problem.

Please, no allusions to "It takes a village ..." please. It may not take a village, but I do think it takes - at the very least - a committee. Teachers, parents, civic leaders, advocates, kids and commercial enterprises all need to gather together and work it out. It's not easy or fast - but it does work.

Subway has just asked for a seat at the table. Do you intend to let them in? I know my wife and I will.

Later.

SUBWAY LAUNCHES MASSIVE CHILDHOOD OBESITY CAMPAIGN