In this episode of PRobecast, Justin Martell and Amanda King join me in talking about Facebook’s latest plan to release Timeline to brands, why QR codes haven’t taken off, and AT&T’s latest fee increase.

Facebook to release Timeline for brands – Although the majority of Facebook users don’t approve of Timeline, Facebook will be rolling it out to brands, or fan pages. At the time of the announcement, the company said it would wait to roll out the new feature for brands. David Fischer, VP of Marketing and Business Partnerships, said Timeline for brands would be consistent with the Timeline look, but not an exact copy, of users’ timelines. Numerous polls have reported that most people don’t like the “new Facebook”, but it seems Facebook doesn’t care. What are your thoughts? Should they keep Timeline for brands only?

Why QR Codes won’t last – QR codes seemed to present an accessible and uniform way for people with smart devices to interact with advertising, marketing and media. Those little squares of code seemed to open a world of opportunity and potential. But after using them for a length of time, the perspective shifted a bit. And in many instances, the rewards (received as a result of scanning the code) did not measure up to the effort of the transaction itself. Consider a recent study by comScore, which states that only 14 million American mobile device users have have interacted with a QR code. In essence, less than 5% of the American public has scanned a QR code. So where’s the disconnect? Inadequate technology, lack of education and a perceived dearth of value from QR codes are just three of the reasons mobile barcodes are not clicking with Americans. But it goes deeper than that. Humans are visual animals. We have visceral reactions to images that a QR code can never evoke; what we see is directly linked to our moods, our purchasing habits and our behaviors. It makes sense, then, that a more visual alternative to QR codes would not only be preferable to consumers, but would most likely stimulate more positive responses to their presence. What mobile purchasing technologies do you use, and which do you see as the “clunkiest”, or the ones that won’t last?

AT&T doubles upgrade fees for existing customers – When you get a new phone under an AT&T contract, you pay a one-time $18 upgrade fee, which is allegedly what it costs the company to upgrade your new phone. They’ve raised it to $36, and without a clear explanation, the increased fee will look to consumers like just another way for the company to make money. Last month AT&T reported selling a record number of iPhones during the fourth quarter of 2011, which helped increase revenues to $32.5 billion from $31.4 billion a year ago. However, it posted a $6.7 billion loss, largely stemming from its breakup fee after a collapsed merger with T-Mobile USA.

We didn’t choose a PR Power Ranker this week, because we felt none of them deserved our approval! In reality, we couldn’t agree on which company deserved it.

Who do you think should have won? Or do you agree that none of them were worthy?

The horror of the emerging Sandusky/Paterno/Penn State scandal holds many lessons for PR people and marketers (don’t do PR for fill-in-the-blank.) One which may not seem important now, but which should not be ignored, is the risk of blurring the lines between personal and institutional brands.

Joe Paterno clearly viewed himself as a super-set of the Penn State brand, larger than life and the institution he served, unassailable. In his arrogant, tone-deaf retirement announcement he admonished the University’s Trustees: “At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can.”

The University, which for decades had encouraged the development of Paterno’s brand as a proxy for the institution’s, finally took action. But it was too little, too late – for those boys, for the administration, for the students and alums, perhaps for Penn State.

Of course Penn State isn’t the only organization to ignore the risk of letting its brand ambassador’s power eclipse its core brand. Many consumer brands have been bitten by endorsements – think of Nike and Tiger Woods, Michael Vick and Nike, Michael Jordan and Coca-Cola, and Britney Spears and Pepsi.

While many of the examples above deal with consumer brands, tech companies are not immune. Many hire community managers or social media experts to mediate interactions between users and the company. Community managers are powerful people. They may serve as brand ambassadors, but they also have an investment in maintaining their personal brands. Check the Twitter feeds of community managers and nine times out of 10 you’ll see the individual’s name, not the company they work for. It’s a risk, and an opportunity lost, for the organization, and a diminution of its brand.

Brands are a huge responsibility. They are the lens through which prospects, customers and employees see an organization. They need to be built carefully and maintained scrupulously. To surrender an organization’s brand to a brand ambassador or other proxy is to be blind to risk, and to surrender responsibility.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: brand ambassadors, community managers, Joe Paterno's retirement announcement, Penn State

Share/Save

In this episode of PRobecast, Renatta Siewert joins me in talking about the idea of voting via smartphone, Disney and YouTube’s $10M deal and social media not being one-size fits all.

Voting with a Smartphone – Did you vote on Election Day? A Mashable writer suggested that many people don’t vote because voting is inconvenient. There’s the time limit, the specific locations as to where you can vote – all these things can often be roadblocks and the reasoning behind people not voting. He suggests the idea that smartphones could change all that. With all the apps available, a secure application could be created allowing people to vote directly from their mobile device. With people now being able to purchase things via their smartphones, why not vote?

Disney’s Deal with YouTube – Disney and YouTube have put together a deal to produce co-branded video content. Disney is trying to attract a bigger audience by teaming up with the video giant. On the other hand, YouTube is trying to better their reputation with parents by teaming up with this family-friendly company. Is this a good move for both players? Will we see more companies trying to partner with YouTube?

Social media: Every Channel Doesn’t Need to be Tapped – An article in PRWeek discusses how when it comes to social media, don’t jump in blindly. Companies need to be strategic as to which forms of social channels they decide to join – and have a plan as to what their ultimate goal is. Having a twitter account that isn’t geared towards your target audience is not going to help your presence. Being on Facebook, but not having any information about your company isn’t going to grow your “like”ers. When it comes to social media, brands need to be smart.

Now it’s time for the PRobecast PR Power Ranking – which is when we go around the room and pick the story that we think ranks the highest PR-wise – meaning any aspects of PR could be the reasoning behind the pick. Is it the story itself, good data that was used, what’s getting the most pickup, was it a good PR move the company made, etc.

This week we chose the Disney/YouTube deal as the story that comes out on top. This deal makes perfect sense for both parties, bettering the images of both parties. Disney needs to expand their audience and seem “cooler,” whereas YouTube wants to better its sometimes explicit image with parents concerned about what their children are viewing.

Who do you think should have won?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Disney and YouTube deal, How to use Social Media, Voting via Smartphone

Share/Save