Do CES Innovations Awards Matter?

Sorting through the mail, the logo was instantly recognizable. A sphere of orange hovering on a jet black background. The time to enter the annual International CES Innovations Awards competition is upon us once again.

For nearly four decades, this design and engineering honors program has called out the most promising products in the consumer electronics industry, shining the spotlight a bit brighter on select offerings from across the globe. But in an age where awards are a dime a dozen, does an Innovations badge matter?

Having prepared winning entries for the like of Yamaha, Kodak and Turtle Beach over the past 15+ years, I still answer with a resounding yes. Not only does the award attract attention from media and digital enthusiasts prior to the annual CES show, but it also provides recognition for the R&D and design teams who often go overlooked as rapid CE launch cycles fly by. In short, it's all in how you merchandise it.

So how do you win? Drop me a line, and I'll be happy to share some tips and tricks.

Get Out There: Your Brand Beyond the Office

The light turned green, and my car lurched forward with all the others yesterday afternoon. Changing lanes, I looked up to find myself behind a Pepsi truck. Or was it...?

While I could make out the familiar red top of the Pepsi orb, most of it had been plastered over by a bright orange Gatorade logo (which also covered some of the safety tags on the back of the big rig).

Would the good folks at PepsiCo -- Gatorade's parent -- see this as an unforgivable transgression? Probably not. The trucking group was probably doing as it was told from an office hundreds of miles away, using a one-size-fits-all adhesive film.

But at the same time, would the brand managers for both Pepsi and Gatorade have any inkling that, in all likelihood, other trucks across the region or country were displaying the same type of bastardized logo application?

By the same token, does the USAirways marketing team know that its blue and white logo glows hot red at LaGuardia's gate 9 (plus other lovely colors on additional screens, which have long outlived their intended life)?

Never has it been more critical for brand and communications pros to remove themselves from their offices, and get out into the field to see how their products and companies are being represented. I know the arguments against doing so -- travel budgets are being cut, there's too much on the plate already, and that social media provides a good set of alternative eyes and ears.

Without seeing -- experiencing! -- the brand for themselves in its most far-flung places, we can't fully understand where and why inconsistencies might occur. Get out there, and as a bonus, you'll win the respect of colleagues operating in those regions -- the very folks who regularly complain that headquarters knows little about operating in their neck of the woods.

I'm reminded of sitting in San Francisco one evening with the CMO of Kodak's consumer business. The company was in the midst of an identity shift -- a concerted move to digital with a redesigned logo. We'd just been discussing the significant cost to take that on, and how there were so many "legacy" players to reach -- labs, mom-and-pop retailers, and more

At that very moment, the storefront lights of Fisherman's Wharf twinkled on, illuminating the streetscape below. Our eyes both scanned the horizon to see dozens of yellow "KODAK" signs advertising film, instant prints and more -- retailers that weren't even on our radar.

With a deep breath and growing grin, my dining companion -- one of the most brilliant marketers I've ever known -- expressed the situation perfectly: "Well... shit. We have some more work to do."

Enough with the excuses. Get out there, and live your brand in the shoes of your customers.

PAETEC: A Communications Perspective

This morning's announcement of a planned sale of Rochester-headquartered PAETEC Holding Corp. by Windstream Corp. has set off speculation around the community as to what may or may not occur.

Having been a participant in a recent large company deal (Warburg Pincus' acquisition of Bausch & Lomb), the rumors sound familiar. Fair enough -- this type of deal breeds uncertainty and nervousness, and neither Windstream nor PAETEC will be able to immediately calm the waters.

What's likely to emerge from PAETEC in the weeks to come?

1. SILENCE. Until PAETEC issues its proxy statement to shareholders, don't expect any additional, credible details to emerge. Both companies have an obligation to share the same information with all shareholders, so any media interviews, employee meetings, or other on-the-record conversations will only repeat what's already offered up in this morning's news release.

2. REPETITION. Once the proxy is issued, the companies' communications teams will have little latitude to add color commentary to what's described in its pages. From a legal perspective, this could be viewed as providing an unfair advantage to shareholders not receiving such commentary. Instead, look for the common themes from the proxy to be repeated (in most cases, verbatim).

3. REASSURANCE. While Windstream appears to be focused on PAETEC's "network assets, an expansive fiber infrastructure, and larger data center footprint," the company will also do its best to assuage the fears of PAETEC employees. This will most likely take the form of vague reiterations of the commitment to company culture instead of delving into any specifics. Why? Because if any detail is revealed as to restructuring, staffing levels, etc. that isn't contained in the proxy agreement, the companies will be subject to shareholder suits.

Is this type of environment conducive to a positive workplace environment or community support prior to the deal close? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, there's little wiggle room if the company wants to see the acquisition approved as quickly as possible while keeping litigation to a minimum.

A Deeper Look: the 2011 PRism Best of Show

On a steamy summer's night last month, WROC-TV anchor Kevin Doran approached the microphone at Rochester's Artisan Works, where 150 or so of the region's public relations pros had gathered for the annual industry awards reception.

"And the winner of the 2011 PRism corporate best of show is... Bausch + Lomb and Lions Clubs International Foundation for the Fighting Childhood Blindness: the Pediatric Cataract Initiative."

As one of the co-founders of the Initiative, I was thrilled... for the countless children whose sight would be saved, for their mothers and fathers whose burden may be eased ever so slightly, and for their communities that would one day see those children play a more active role as a sighted adult.

Of course, I was also thrilled for the team behind the Initiative's first 18 months, who largely remained hidden as we focused on the cause. Indulge me as I call them out for some much-deserved recognition in what became a labor of love:

• Jerry Ostrov, Paul Sartori, and Dr. Joe Barr, my co-founders who believed in the cause and had the foresight to take action;
  
  
• Curt Weeden of Business & Non-Profit Strategies, who provided a steady, guiding hand as we encountered the swells and troughs of building a global philanthropic program from the ground up;
  
  
• Sharon Sankes, Kristy Guerra and Elizabeth Murphy, members of my in-house communications and philanthropy team who dove into the weeds as needed;
  
  
• Our dedicated agency partners -- Glenn Clark, Erin DiVincenzo and Peter Germano at Clark CSM in Rochester; Penny Hemming at Penelope Hemming PR in Sydney; and Nicole Ravlin, Ken Liatsos, Alicia DeMartini, and Kristena Morse at PMG PR in Burlington.
  
  
• And of course, our indefatigable partners at Lions Clubs International Foundation, especially Katharine Keller, Nicole Brown, and Phil Albano.

[Click here to download a copy of the program's two-page synopsis. Note this version was prepared for PR News, which has named the Initiative a finalist in its 2011 Platinum Awards.]

Now, a confession... while I was thrilled, the element of surprise had evaporated about 90 minutes earlier. That's when a reporter from the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle had been pointed my way, and began the conversation by stating, "So I've been told you can tell me about the program that's winning best of show."

I'd left B+L a couple months earlier, but -- as no one else from the company had arrived for the pre-awards reception and the journalist was itching to leave -- I was pressed back into service. Once a spokesperson, always a spokesperson (and, as a member of Lions Club myself, I continue to support the program).

So again, congratulations and thanks to all who had the heart, the tenacity and the passion to truly make a difference through this incredible program.

-----------------
Postscript:

Some have asked where the program stands today, given that three of the four co-founders have since left B+L. Thankfully, it continues to serve those in need, living up to the commitment we made from the start -- that our success would be measured not over years, but decades.

Give to Get: Corporate Support for Non-Profits

My friends at the Ad Council of Rochester asked me to pen a few words on corporate philanthropy for its "Over Coffee..." blog. You can find my thoughts here. [Make sure to check out the Chronicle of Philanthropy link at the very bottom for a trends snapshot.]

Glance Back, then Look Ahead

It's a common question when reviewing a data stream from Vocus, Meltwater or other communications data providers -- how did we do?

There's nothing wrong with taking a critical look at past performance. In fact, objective, qualitative measures are overdue in much of the PR world, with many shops and practitioners only having adopted basic tracking (beyond clippings) in recent years.

But a few innovators are looking at the same data set and asking an entirely different question -- what does this mean for the future? They're using the past to look forward.

Is predictive modeling a major step in communications programming? Absolutely.

With the pace and volume at which communications are moving across the world, predictive analytics provide a significant competitive advantage. What does the last day's digital stream say about what will likely transpire tomorrow? Where's the trend line headed of the crisis unfolding before you? Will person X continue to be an influencer on a hot topic next month, or will her star fade?

So the next time you open your browser window and log into your measurement dashboard, take a second look at what you're seeing. That dream of a crystal ball is becoming closer with every passing day.

A Faltering Obligation

Communities have typically benefited from the companies that call them home. I'm not talking about the job creation or impact to the tax base, but philanthropic outreach that over time has become taken for granted.

Unfortunately, that very mindset -- of considering philanthropic giving, whether in dollars or volunteer hours, as a given -- has eroded many corporations' local giving programs. With demand for greater return from investors, charitable giving is a seemingly easy cut to make.

Why not, right? Many executives view a community's reliance on corporate support as unsustainable, and are offended by the entitlement mentality. The fault herein lies with organizations continually extending their hands for grants, yet offering nothing to the company in return in the way of reputation gain.

The good news is that mentality among local non-profits is shifting, bolstered by advocates such as Curt Weeden. They're seeing -- slowly -- the need for the win-win.

The bad news, however, is that corporations are continuing to slide on this front... something Weeden's latest book -- Smart Giving is Good Business -- lays out in exquisite detail.

At the heart of the matter is corporate misunderstanding about the role of philanthropy, and how it can advance business. But at the same time, especially as it applies to local giving, I can't help but wonder if this is tied to a trend among senior executives to be less involved in civic pursuits on a personal level.

Yes, many execs hold multiple local and regional board seats for appearance purposes, but fewer seem to be actively engaged, citing time pressures. Add to that a growing trend of executives who work remotely -- and who never truly affiliate themselves with their adopted communities -- and you have a class of disconnected, socially-unaware leaders.

As a former Fortune 1000 senior executive who had direct oversight for philanthropic pursuits, I experienced the challenge first hand. Peers found it too easy to dismiss grant requests, even those promising a win-win, since they didn't understand the community itself. What suffered were the very organizations that made the community appealing for employees -- visual and performing arts, social assistance, enhanced education and more.

In no uncertain terms, a corporation has a philanthropic obligation to the communities in which it is based. But without meaningful personal involvement from senior business leaders, dollars will continue to be held back.

Have you succeeded or failed in getting your executive team to be personally involved in the community? Share your stories with a comment.

Alternate Pathways

One recent evening, I rounded a corner at home to find my 10-year-old sighing and rolling his eyes. A fourth grade mathematics worksheet lay on the table. "Why," he huffed, "do I have to show my work?"

His protest led me to a movie-like flashback (sans the blurred, wavy visual transition). How many times had I heard those same words from teachers while growing up, or found them scrawled on a returned page (even with the right answer in place)? Like father, like son.

Now Kyle is a kid who doesn't need to work through math problems on the paper in front of him. He's blessed with an analytical mind, and grows frustrated when he has to take extra time to document what he feels should be obvious. He proffers that as long as his outcome is correct -- the goal, after all -- why should the pathway be scrutinized?

His experience mirrors what many of us will face in our professional lives -- managers or peers so focused on specific mechanics that they lose sight of the end game. The reasons are many: they can more easily measure the tactics vs. outcomes, they only know one way of accomplishing the goal, or they're scared of innovative (and possibly better) approaches.

So what can you do? As someone facing a "show your work" manager, build up trust gradually, laying out your paths multiple times over various projects until you've proven yourself. Then again, with some superiors who love to micro-manage, you may have to adapt your own style (or seek an alternative role).

More importantly, as leaders, we can build organization and teams where the outcome is more important than a rigidly defined pathway. In these instances, the ideal is not simply showing the work, but discussing and debating techniques (both applied and discarded) in search of more efficient and more effective methodologies.

I was fortunate early in my career to have been taught this lesson. Ever since, the degree to which my teams have consistently amazed me and delighted clients and colleagues with innovative, unconventional approaches has been significant.

So the next time you're ready to be directive, pause for a moment. Instead of "show your work," try "explore your work." What transpires – the outcome and route taken – might surprise you.

The Ethics of Competitive Depositioning

The Burson-Facebook debacle has pointed a spotlight toward a component of the communications industry that few understand, and many don't care to discuss -- competitive depositioning. It can be seen as sully, underhanded and even unethical... the worst type of PR.

But we need to separate competitive depositioning from smear campaigns.

The classic smear, of course, involves running a competitor through the mud, often hiding your own identity and masking the intent (see fig. 1 - Burson). Not only does it violate the industry's ethics guidelines regarding clear identification of a sponsoring organization, but it also often results in backlash.

Depositioning, on the other hand, seeks to openly call into question claims made or actions taken by competitors. In essence, it is part of a check-and-balance process that ultimately keeps the marketplace more honest.

For instance, when I was leading communications strategy development for Kodak's cost-play entry into the home inkjet printer market, one competitor loomed large -- Hewlett-Packard. Now for anyone who has ever bought an inkjet cartridge, you know the pain that surges through your body at checkout. How much did that tiny piece of plastic just cost?

We struck early and often at HP's "value" pricing models, whether by poking fun at the outrageous cost of their inks, developing ink cost calculators, or asking journalists to investigate the issue of their own accord. Our role was not to provide the answers, but to place questions into the marketplace that would lead consumers to discover the truth themselves. And yes, we always identified ourselves as Kodak.

Burson and Facebook fell short by turning to the cloak and dagger routine. Challenging Social Circle's privacy was not at issue (although I personally believe it to be not all that threatening), but in the manner in which it was conducted.

Let's hope this black eye for Burson will be a warning call to shady practices elsewhere. But at the same time, let's not throw away a valuable approach -- competitive depositioning -- that has the power to shape a marketplace for the better.

Twitter: The Great SM Proxy

Studying the room after a few minutes, it was clear that a few people were lost. The speech had been billed as a view into the future of social media, and the speaker had not spent nearly any time discussing Twitter.

Perfect! The audience – a group of communications executives from the cable and broadcasting industry gathered on Manhattan’s Upper East Side -- was exactly where I’d hoped. My unorthodox approach had made them question what they believed to be good and true, that Twitter WAS the future.

It’s easy to become all consumed by the ubiquitous nature of Twitter, believing it is setting the tone for the future of digital communications and conversation. In some ways, it is, but it’s unwise to overlook the myriad start-ups rolling out cutting-edge SM applications, whether GeoIQ for location-intelligence visualization, Klout for influence scoring or Hearsay for corporate SM compliance.

“Wait,” you protest. “Services such as those rely on a few digital media platforms for their content. Without Twitter, they wouldn’t exist.” Not necessarily.

A recent report pegged Twitter usage at just eight percent of the U.S. population, so its ubiquity may be more a mindset of “in the know” communications professionals than reality. That’s dangerous. Not because being Twitter-conversant isn’t important, but because of how many practitioners are treating the service: as the only game in town.

What about Hyves in the Netherlands? Or Renren in China? Wait, is Orkut still going strong in Brazil? As much as we think the world is global, localized services – even in the digital universe – can and often do win out.

Therein lay the secret. Look to Twitter as a proxy, not the be-all-end-all. Applications only pulling in and crunching Twitter content streams will soon be doing the same for other platforms (JitterJam, recently acquired by Meltwater, is a good example).

And when that occurs, where will you be? Will you have built programs and campaigns so specific to Twitter that you’ll be forced to continue down that path, or will you expand your line of sight to an even richer flow of information from additional sources?