This Time, It's Personal

While proper planning is an undeniably critical component of successful brand communications, we are in an age when most professionals and experts subscribe to the belief that “content is king.” This means that the execution of communications plans—like how messages are crafted and delivered—can easily determine the ultimate success of even the most well-designed plans. Following through with creative and interesting content that sparks conversation and builds relationships with consumers is imperative if we aren’t to have our strategic plans regarded as “all bark and no bite” and in order to prove our worth as communications professionals.

Easier said than done, though, right? Absolutely. And to make things even more difficult is the fact that communications strategists have yet to reach a consensus on how to do this “right”—especially when it comes to crafting messages for new social media. One such debate revolves around the effectiveness of brands “acting like people” through their messaging and social interaction with consumers.

This act of humanizing brands isn’t referring to dishonest and unethical measures, but rather transparent attempts to communicate the brand in a manner that is approachable and relatable to people. To be honest, this concept has always seemed like an inherently good idea to me; in fact, I have been preached to about the importance of portraying personality through brand messaging by several class speakers and at just about every industry conference I’ve ever attended. Countless articles have been written on the subject, including a great one I read at Forbes.com by Britt Peterson, Director of Growth Strategy at Cole & Weber United, called It's Time Brands Started Acting More Like People.

I didn’t even know there was support for the opposing side of this issue until coming across an article last week on AdAge.com titled No, Brands Aren't People—and Consumers Don't Want Them to Be by Corey Mull. To defend his stance against the humanization of brands, Mull reached for stats from a CEB study that stated, “only 23% of consumers have brand relationships—and they are already fans of the brand in question. The rest aren't interested in a relationship, regardless of whether they like a brand or not.” Instead of striving for humanity, Mull insists that brands should focus on simplifying noise, achieving long-term goals and staffing effectively.

I’m not so sure I agree with Mull’s position, and I feel that the support for his argument is rather weak. Once I scrolled down to the comments, I soon found that I was not alone in this. Commenter Emmelie De La Cruz of Washington, DC, for one, made this good point: “Brands are not human, but they take on human traits such as honesty, openness and humor. (At least the good ones do.) As consumers in a social era, many want to be able to relate to brands in a similar way that we relate to people.”

As another commenter, Sean Hazell of Toronto, ON, wrote, “Consumers are well aware that brands aren't people.” But this awareness does not necessarily mean that they are not receptive to more “human” communications. I believe that this approach helps brands effectively convey personality, reflect their values and most importantly, make a connection with people. 

Child's Play

This semester marks the beginning of my thesis research, and as I start to sift through the thousands of articles written on the subject of gender representations in advertising and other media, I find that much of it concludes with a negative outlook on the current state of affairs for both sexes. But every once in a while—today being one of those special days—I will come across a piece that’s a bit more optimistic.

The title of an article featured today on AdAge.com asks the question, “Why Do Boys and Girls Have Similar Interests, But Very Different Toys?” In this article, writer Maureen Morrison provides and analyzes data from a recent global study conducted by the agency Marketing Store Worldwide called "The New Definition of Childhood,” in which more than 4,000 children across the world between the ages of six and 12 with access to the Internet were surveyed on the topic of toys.

The study found that the popularity and ownership of traditional gender-specific toys, such as dolls and construction sets, still skewed about how one would guess—with a much higher preference among girls and a much higher preference among boys, respectively. And these results were fairly consistent across the 12 countries involved in the research study.

However, the survey findings also revealed that all around the world, boys and girls are progressively participating in the same activities and sharing in many of the same interests. Electronics and gaming were found to be highly popular among children of either gender, so the unearthing of this information begs Morrison’s question, “why are there still such huge gaps in toys globally? (Morrison, 2012).”

While the article continues to quote marketers who cite poor product development in the toy industry to be at fault for this phenomenon, I felt it failed to also address the lack of evolution in toy advertising over the last few decades. Sure, providing girls with the option to get it in pink sounds like a surefire strategy, but if there is anything I have already learned in my thesis research, it’s that advertising does have a significant effect on the assignment of gender roles—especially at a young age.

So what’s my solution you ask? I do feel that product development is necessary in order to make certain toys appeal to both genders, but advertisements should strive to show both boys and girls at play and finding enjoyment in the experience, instead of the old method of relying on feminine and masculine cues—like a gratuitous presence of pink or a “tough” appearance—to assure each group that their interaction with the toy is socially acceptable.

I say let kids be kids and find their own way in life with what they like. Besides, they have the rest of their lives to feel the pressure of being “men” and “women.” And I say this because sadly, toys are just one in a sea of products that continue to be advertised to genders in an adverse manner. 

Communications Cousins

While I still subscribe to the opinion that advertising and public relations are rather different from each other, I was surprised to discover that their planning processes are actually pretty similar.

Both advertising campaign plans and PR plans grow out of the client’s mission statement and overall company goals. The realization of these goals elicits certain business objectives, achievable through strategies carried out via specific tactics. Just like an advertiser can’t simply “have a good idea” for an ad or promotion without it reinforcing the values, goals and business objectives of the client, PR activities must also be supported in the same way.

However, I’m finding that PR planning gets slightly more complicated with its additional consideration of multiple audiences. In my formal advertising education, I have always been taught that the best ad campaigns target a single, defined audience, to whom all communications are directed. While a client can run several campaigns simultaneously appealing to different target audiences, each is a separate planning process among which the key insight will usually significantly differ.

PR planning, though, must address all relevant parties under the umbrella of each objective and communicate to each as appropriate. It’s a slightly different approach in the fact that this process occurs all in one plan. But the more I think about it, the two still are not all that unlike each other.

I suppose the major difference (and the reason I love advertising) is the manner in which it is considered acceptable for each to convey their messages. Devices like hyperbole aren’t necessarily acceptable in the realm of PR communications, and it’s blatantly biased and persuasive techniques like this one that make being an advertising copywriter so much fun. (Not to say you PR people don’t have fun, too! It’s just a different kind of fun.) 

Socially Speaking

While Wednesday’s Strategic PR class was a nervous experience for a few public relations virgins, I must shamefully admit that this was not my first time to be an advertising student curiously experimenting with the subject. However, it has been a while, so I appreciated the brief introduction into PR with which we were all provided.

Some of the slideshow’s information was far from forgotten, as previous professors’ relentless attempts to drill it into my head had proven successful. But interestingly enough, even in just my five years of college, technology has had a dramatic effect on how pretty much everything is done, so it seems that every year, I am learning a new way to do things.

Regarding PR, what I and many others believe to be one of the most influential tools to come about in recent years is social media. And it was a point that Professor Bufkins made during this section of her presentation that got me thinking. She stated that social media platforms—like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and others—have come to have just as much power in conveying important information as traditional media outlets.

While I definitely feel that there has been a positive shift in favor of certain social media vehicles, I wonder if the messages projected via these methods have yet to fully reach the level of credibility in the eyes of the public as something, say, printed in a newspaper. Some still feel that the fact that anyone can publish content online diminishes the effect of even legitimate information accessible online. But then again, this only reinforces the idea that media literacy—especially in the digital arena—is an important responsibility of the general public.

The same way that it is now generally considered common knowledge that a story printed in Star Magazine and that sort are not to be taken very seriously, there is a need for people to become similarly selective in their online media choices for information. I am curious to see how this develops over following years. And hopefully it does; the Internet provides amazing means of information delivery and communication that definitely deserves to see continued growth in the future.

The End is Near

Geez, is the semester over already? It feels like just yesterday that I was dreading coming into this class. I know that seems harsh, but to someone who considers herself to be extremely conscientious, a mandatory course in ethics can initially seem pointless. But I have to say that by the end of it all, this class proved to be indeed valuable, and I am thankful that I was forced to take it.
            
I had taken a course in philosophical ethics back in junior college in 2006, so I was familiar with most of the ethical theories (however, considering the time lapse, a refresher didn’t hurt). In that class we mostly applied these theories to general life situations, which made for some very interesting class debates when we got to topics like assisted suicide and homosexuality. Although in this class the situations to which we applied the theories were more professional, I feel that this kind of study seems more real in the fact that many of the cases we examined will be similar to experiences I will encounter in the real world as an advertiser.
            
I learned, much to my dismay, that a lot more unethical, underhanded behavior occurs in the communications industries today than I would have imagined. This was a bit disheartening, and I hope that I do not someday work for a company that makes some of the more heartless decisions that we have discussed. While most of the cases we looked at were issues of tremendous impact, I know that at the very least, there will be issues of a smaller scale that I will encounter everyday in my professional pursuits. As we joked about in class, I will probably never sit down and make out a Potter’s Box to assess all the facets of the situation, but being familiar with the different methods of ethical evaluation will prove useful in making a decision in which I will be confident.
            
I learned quite a bit form the coursework, too. Although there were times that the case studies seemed like an absolute nightmare, this kind of group writing taught me a lot (mostly that people can’t write). I feel that a group paper is one of the hardest things to do and even harder to do well. Depending on so many different people with different schedules and work habits was nerve-racking at times, but it was satisfying to get all of our ideas together in a cohesive manner in the end. Since I will be starting graduate classes in journalism next spring, it was good practice to write with others and spend hours editing my brains out.
            
I have also enjoyed writing these blogs. I firmly believe that to be able to write conversationally is an important skill to have, and these assignments provided some great practice for just that. While I write my own personal blogs about the craziness behind the service industry and weekly write blog entries for the web development agency for which I work, I liked creating work that was actually graded. This constructive criticism has really helped me to become more aware of some of my more common mistakes, and I truly hope to continue to grow and improve as a writer (thus the grad school immediately following graduation). I enjoyed the challenge of writing in an attempt to meet the rigid standards and from this, have truly learned a good deal about writing just in the course of this class.
            
As droning as the legal stuff towards the end of this semester seemed, there was much with which I was not familiar. Not only did I learn a lot by studying the legal aspects we examined in class, I also learned that there is much more for me to learn in order to be well versed in the industry regulations by which I will have to abide. In order to move forward, one must understand the past, and these regulations are in place because of past mistakes and abuses of freedom. To ensure that I do not unknowingly repeat these mistakes, I now realize that I need to thoroughly understand the legal implications of advertising. I want to work in a way that is not only ethical, but also legal. I would hate to one day be in the midst of a crisis like one of those presented in class simply because of uninformed negligence.
            
As the industry faces a new set of challenges ushered in by the Digital Age and the rise of social media, the rules of privacy, slander and libel are forced to quickly evolve to regulate the relatively new online world. This creates a whole new realm of ethical dilemmas, and as a part of the new generation of communications professionals, I will help in shaping the future of this budding medium. I feel that the knowledge I have acquired in this class has prepared me to direct this medium in a positive direction.
            
While this course sometimes proved stressful, looking back I see that I have truly learned from it in a way that will make me a better and more ethical advertiser. Maybe I just will make a Potter’s Box at work sometime in the future, who knows?

Saving Private Info

I laugh at the fact that there are people who want to argue the issue of privacy on a website where they voluntarily pour out their entire lives online—that’s right, I’m talking about Facebook. I remember the first time I realized that the advertisements on the right side of my Facebook homepage were strangely customized to my personal interests, but instead of the rage and violation many experienced, I felt joy.

            
Granted, this was after I had made a personal commitment to a life in advertising. Some would say my positive response was out of empathy for the profession. While this might have had some kind of effect on my reaction, I honestly feel that I would have felt more or less the same way otherwise. Instead of being presented with ads for hair re-growth miracle products and trips to locations I’d love to visit but could never afford, I was receiving advertisements for tickets to my favorite band’s Dallas tour date and sales at local running-shoe stores. How could this possibly be a bad thing?
            
It turned out there were a good amount of people who did not regard this extraction of personal information to be such a marvelous occurrence. Not only do I defend this marketing mining with its usefulness, but I also would very much like the opportunity to remind these naysayers that the Internet is no place for information they wouldn’t want, or expect, to be public.
            
But alas, there are still those naïve enough to believe in a magical world where the Internet is a safe and secure place. Those poor rubes, I assume they are the same ones who make identity theft a simple task for digital thieves. It’s not that I wouldn’t want a world where this wishful thinking was a reality, but it is simply not possible.
            
I can (sort of) understand how some would regard Facebook’s move to sell off its users’ marketing information as a violation of privacy. There is this kind of perceived safety under the veil of a “private profile,” but still, I would never think that this kind of privacy was extended to the administrators of that site. I would assume that they had the right to access my information, or even sell it, in exchange for providing me and hundreds of millions of others with a free social networking website. I do suppose that I have always been leery of anything “free,” assuming that there always has to be a catch—and there almost always is.
            
The creators of sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others like them did not put the time and effort in creating a site that provides a service free-of-charge to simply bring joy to its users. No, they of course invested their time and money for the same reason most people do—to make money. And to make money, this often implies one of two things: the consumer pays for the content or the advertisers pay for the content. I, for one, still prefer the latter, even if that requires marketers rustling through my personal interests and contacts. I use the word “personal” loosely considering it is information voluntarily posted on an online venue.
            
The Digital Age has certainly altered the idea of privacy. Just the other day I was thinking about how my cell phone is constantly giving away my geographic location and preventing me from ever getting away with the murder of my mortal enemies (Damn!). But at the same time, I no longer waste time driving around lost, I can find local businesses right when I need them and I am even made aware that my friends are at the bar just next door so I can join them instead of continuing to spend the rest of my night alone. (That last one is based on a true story.)
           
While there are compromises to privacy in exchange for a life with this kind of convenience, I personally feel that it is worth it. I love being able to connect with distant family, people I’ve encountered throughout every stage of my life and new contacts halfway around the world that I may never even meet in person. I like having the opportunity to share my life with others and display my interests. If marketers are interested in that information and want to use it for targeting purposes, let them. Advertisements will plague me everywhere anyway, so it might as well be messages that might actually appeal to me. It’s ultimately up to me whether or not I buy the advertised products anyway.
            
It seems as if privacy is now practically limited to what goes on within one’s own head and heart, and the only true gatekeepers to this information is one’s own mouth and hands. It has become a personal responsibility of each person opting into an online presence to control what information is shared and that that is not. I feel that it is time for people to understand that this kind of restraint is the only way to ensure privacy in today’s digitalized world.