What can your CEO learn from the Obama White House?

Check out my recent post in Social Media Today for "Five Ways Obama Is More Social Than Your CEO."

--Alex Nicholson, Director of New Media, @Alex20001

We all know the stats – over the past decade, network news audience numbers and ratings have continued to dwindle. The three major networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have tried a variety of approaches in order to keep what audience they have and attempt to attract new viewers. The morning shows have shown more staying power, with “The Today Show” continuing to hold the number one ranking; however, hard news in the morning has dwindled, while the length of the shows grows. (Both NBC and ABC have added “the third hour” to their shows, which is mostly dedicated to celebrity news, pop culture and cooking.)

Moving Katie Couric, a morning show superstar on “Today” and the first solo female news anchor, to the “CBS Evening News” in September 2006 did little but further sink the evening news program’s ratings into a solid third place. The retirement of legendary anchors like Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings left NBC and ABC grappling with the gender, age and type of anchor that should replace them. Diane Sawyer’s more recent entre to the 6:30 p.m. slot has sparked some momentum for ABC, thought it’s still difficult to discern what one show offers versus another. The hosts may have different styles – Sawyer is known for communicating greater empathy, while Brian Williams attracts a slightly younger audience – but the formula for evening news has largely been the same. Night after night, everyone leads with the same big story regardless of the channel.

However, times may be changing. For the first time in a decade, evening newscasts have shown a slight gain in audience. One noted change that may have something to do with the ratings increase is in the format – the networks are no longer leading with the same story (gasp!). One channel may lead with a breaking story, another with an in-depth political story or another with an exclusive interview. Whether this is contributing to the slight ratings increase remains to be seen, but the networks appear to be shaking up the formula more than ever before. With the continued proliferation of social media to break news and make stories old within the time span of the evening newscast, it’s a good thing the evening news in particular is revamping its model.

Other interesting changes to keep an eye on both with morning and evening news:

“CBS Morning Show”: Two weeks ago, CBS debuted a new host and content strategy for its third-place morning show. Charlie Rose, a legendary PBS newsman who frankly doesn’t seem well suited to engage the mom audience in the morning, is now hosting what’s being touted as a “harder news” morning show, along with Erica Hill and contributor Gayle King. However, on his first days of the show, Rose didn’t appear to offer any hard hitting news at all – he conducted a relatively fluffy interview with Newt Gingrich – and covered celebrity news in the first hour, which is similar to the third hour of content on competitive shows. Perhaps this will change over time, and it’s too early to criticize the program out of the gate, but it seems CBS’s reformulation is not quite up to snuff yet.

“Rock Center with Brian Williams”: While most primetime newsmagazine programs (remember “20/20,” “Dateline”) have gone by the wayside, Brian Williams and NBC have recently launched a new show that is breathing fresh life into a relatively tired genre. Initial episodes include a mix of breaking news, with some creative content approaches and perspectives, integration of Web/social media content, as well as some light-hearted celebrity interviews or pop culture references. At least initially, the show appears to do a great job of covering breaking news in a fresh way and is integrating social media content that younger audiences should appreciate.

--Heather Breslau, Vice President

This week, Paula Deen revealed a not-so-surprising secret: she has type 2 diabetes. Not surprising because this not-so-fit chef and TV personality has been preaching her love of all things butter since she first graced us with her presence on the Food Network some years ago. And boy, did she grace us. She epitomized southern hospitality – she called us all her friends, she sent us “love and best dishes” and she welcomed us into her home.

Admittedly, I too fell in love with Paula. It was refreshing not to see her scrutinize every morsel of food she put into her mouth. It was refreshing to see that she was comfortable in her own skin, despite being well into her 50s and overweight. It was refreshing to see such a healthy appetite for food – and for life. And so I, along with the rest of America, bought her cookbooks and bakeware. In essence, I bought into her persona (my PR background doesn’t make me immune to marketing tactics, just more aware of them).

Since making the announcement, Paula has been the subject of consumer backlash. Many feel deceived. Many are disappointed that she withheld this news for the last three years. Many feel that she forced her fat-and-sugar-laden recipes upon them and, to some extent, down their throats.

The problem with Paula’s announcement had nothing to do with the timing. It had nothing to do with the recipe of disaster she cooked up for herself (pun intended). Instead, it had everything to do with her motive for making the announcement: a deal with a giant pharmaceutical company named Novo Nordisk, a major manufacturer of diabetes drugs.

It’s no secret that Americans’ trust in corporations is declining, and the pharmaceutical industry is not immune to it. We’re a nation that loves a good David vs. Goliath story – the triumphant little guy (American consumers) against the big giant (corporations). So why is Paula, one of the friendliest faces on television, suddenly aligning herself with the Goliath corporation rather than consumers? That’s the real problem. Right now, it seems like Paula’s only looking out for herself and her pocketbook, not all the friends she made along the way.

What would’ve been more Paula-esque? For one, putting her friendly face on a campaign to educate the public about diabetes could’ve been a step in a positive direction. Second, if Paula admitted the error of her cooking ways and proposed a healthier lifestyle for her and all her “friends,” with the help of a trustworthy and respectable partner (like the American Diabetes Association [ADA], for example) things could have played out a whole lot differently*. Cone’s 2010 Cause Evolution Study found that 81 percent of consumers believe that if a celebrity’s commitment to a cause is authentic, he or she can play a significant role in raising awareness for the issue. Imagine the power of Paula Deen.

Do I think this will cause irreversible harm to the Paula Deen brand? No, because, if there’s a story the American consumer enjoys more than a David vs. Goliath, it’s the resurrection of a fallen hero. What it will do is make us all a little more skeptical about what goes into our foods and just how much fat we’re willing to let into our lives – even if it comes wrapped in a sugary sweet southern drawl.

--Jenna Walsh, Senior Account Executive

*Note: In later interviews, Paula noted that an undisclosed percentage of her earnings as a spokesperson for Novo Nordisk will be donated to the ADA.

The Penn State child sex abuse scandal has dominated everything from mainstream news headlines, to sports talk shows, to even everyday conversation. The focus of this dialogue has largely been on how much the university has and may continue to suffer as a result of the scandal. But is it possible this crisis could be a potential opportunity for the Penn State brand to emerge better and stronger because of it?

To answer that question, check out "The Business of College Sports" blog for my thoughts on three reputation-management strategies for Penn State to successfully emerge from this crisis.

The Penn State Scandal: Crisis as Opportunity

--Jamie Singer, Senior Account Executive

As communicators, there is obvious fascination with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement – so much so, that it became the focus of several discussion, among many other topics, during last week’s annual PRWeek NEXT Conference. Below are some themes and thoughts that emerged.

Overstock.com CEO and founder Patrick Byrne observed that the OWS movement is leaderless and suffers from a “message vacuum. It needs to get back on message. Right now it is just becoming a pool of discontent.” Janet Rolle, EVP & CMO at CNN, and Terrence Samuel, deputy national political editor from The Washington Post, concur. Rolle pointed out that “[OWS] has no clear definition of the antagonist and no clear message of what they are trying to enact or change.” Samuel observed that the initial story was a “rag-tag gathering of intense grievances but now the story is that it’s not going away.” He posited that it was “better that it wasn’t covered by mainstream media [initially] because that allowed it to become a huge social media frenzy.”

When the topic shifted to information and influence, much discussion naturally centered around online communication. Peter Rojas, co-founder of Gizmodo and gdgt, noted that the Internet has really brought a “democratization of authority and a fragmentation of influence.” This has allowed anyone to access the “collective wisdom of this community.” So, as he explained, even if your friends are not into whatever subject you are, you still have the ability to “tap into actual user experts.” No longer is communication just about reporting, but the online community is “helping people figure out what to buy and how to use it. It is a very positive community, not just fighting it out on news stories.” Yet, Bill Holstein, president of the Overseas Press Club remarked, “the advent of online has brought about a decline in quality and standards.” This is likely central to the fact that consumers now need to see a story four, five or more times before they believe it.

The topic of democratization of information and news was central to the speech by Dan Abrams, legal analyst for ABC News. “Mainstream media no longer dictates what the public gets to see. Consumers have more of a say in the brand now – brands are a democracy, not a dictatorship.” And, CNN’s Rolle agreed. “Brand is the most overused word in the English language. A brand is a tribute that is paid to you by consumers. The emotional relationship between you and consumers is the brand.”

When the future of tablets took over discussions, Gizmodo’s Rojas felt that the tablet’s “place” is still settling out. “While smartphones are ‘out and about’ and laptops are about work, the tablet can be just anywhere. It has people engaging in different ways. For example, tweeting reactions while watching TV, shopping in real time as something is viewed elsewhere.” The long-term challenge as marketers figure out how to capitalize on the tablet is to see where it lands – is it a personal device, like a smartphone, or a shared device, like a PC? Is it more in-home or equally out-of-home? In a similar vein, Duane Bray, a partner at IDEO, observed, “the distinction between online and offline is really going away, consumers don’t think that way anymore.” The tablet will likely contribute greatly to that, as the smartphone already has, allowing simultaneous online and offline interaction. Witness folks tweeting about conferences while attending and following others' comments and threads – online interaction supporting offline activities.

How consumers are being communicated to by brands, and the distinctions between owned, earned and paid media, comprised a good portion of the event. Simon Lowden, CMO of Pepsi Beverages Co., declared to the room of PR professionals that “The 30-second ad is here to stay, but US consumers don’t trust it anymore.” This has contributed to Pepsi looking at its marketing not as TV-centric, but as idea-centric – and not as control, but as collaboration. Sean Cochrane, senior analyst at Forrester Research, reported that “in 2009, 500 billion word-of-mouth impressions were made by people to other people. WOM is now a trackable earned media.” But with the advent of online communication and networks like Twitter, “six percent of adults create 80 percent of conversations; so short-term data needs to be balanced with long-term measurement.” We need to be careful not to rush to judgment when relying solely on very short-term topics and trends.

Where is this all headed? Forrester tells us that mobile is the next big battleground for agencies. But, as yet another form of communication in this increasingly blurred world of online and offline, it only makes sense that public relations and communications professionals take the lead. Carry on!

--Cici Gordon, Senior Brand Strategist