I received a number of responses to my Committing Word Crime post last week, and not all of them in agreement with me.
My columns are designed to do just that – start dialogue and debate - and confirm why it’s so important not just to provide “how-to” advice, but to delve into deeper issues -- like word usage – for us to think about, and think about how this impacts our (PR) industry and what we do.
This particular column came about from frustration and tiredness. I was reading press release and after press release all using similar “positioning” and opening lines… “XYZ, the leader in XYZ, announces it breakthrough leading-edge innovation platform/solution that will transform XXX.” At the same time, a number of clients insisted upon using hyperbole-laden phrases in their messaging and I just threw my hands up. I thought to myself “every company is now a leader, every company displays thought-leadership. Every company is the first to, blah blah, blah. Where’s the creativity, or differentiation folks?”
It is hard to keep coming up with new insights, and that’s exactly why we are seeing the same words used the way they are. It’s also a reflection of the overwhelming speed of our communication cycle and the volume of content that is being created.
What words can we use that will make the most impact? How can we get through all of this content and information?
It is a struggle, to be sure.
But in this discussion, there’s no right or wrong answer. I do believe, however, that through sheer overuse the value of certain words and phrases becomes diminished. Perhaps you also cringe at the words paradigm, synergistic, and out-of-the-box, that were some of 2004-2005’s buzzwords?
The same thing happens each year, and so most likely we’ll revert to the words we used in 1998-1999 next year, as they’ll feel sort of new again?
As one writer said, "language is to be used." I agree. It just should be used creatively and meaningfully.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
In Social Media We Trust?
Marketing companies are now offering a new service: social media coverage in the form of front-page placements on websites like Digg and sponsored tweets from Twitter “power accounts” yielding hundreds of thousands of followers. The cost of this service is cheap and the promised exposure is enticing – but is it all ethical? That is the question asked by Forbes’ Elizabeth Woyke in a recent article, “$240 To Place Story On Digg Front Page: One Marketing Firm’s Pitch,” and it’s not an easy one to answer.
Some have argued against the pay-for-play model that is slowly becoming prevalent across social media networks, but on the other hand, social networks need a way to make money and if companies are transparent in their dealings, is there anything really wrong with this model? As much as social media has been discussed over the past few years, it is still a burgeoning phenomenon. Social media is evolving, and because there is no formal regulation – yet – us marketers are learning and making up the model as we go.
A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
The survival of social media networks is entirely dependent on its users – if there are no users, there is no network. Sites like Digg and Reddit are completely dependent on user-generated content. Meanwhile, companies seeking increased visibility may opt to use PR companies to generate and distribute content on their behalf, or set up a corporate social account in order to share content. Social networks need content and companies want exposure– marketing companies that offer to connect the two are, in a sense, facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship (while charging a fee, of course). Is this not a win-win scenario?
While marketer’s ethical conduct in regards to social media is a topic that is still somewhat new, the issue of pay-for-play in media sponsorships has long been the subject of debate and industry scrutiny. Five years ago, advertisers were faced with considerable pressure as product placements were being written into television and movie scripts. Last year, it was the “Mommy Bloggers” who were called to task failing to be transparent in their product reviews and their “sponsors.”
Relevancy and Transparency
In these dealings, what’s critical is transparency – and relevant, meaningful content. Provided that companies fully disclose that they have sponsored the content, and that the content is useful and interesting, users won’t really care where it is from. The second that consumers believe that they are trying to be swindled by false or inauthentic content, the company’s brand reputation will be shot. Consumers will read sponsored content if it is relevant and engaging – but what they won’t stand for, and shouldn’t stand for, is having their intelligence insulted, free content or not.
What is your view? Do you care if someone has paid to take top-billing on a blog or a social media site if what they are delivering is of use, value or meaning to you?
Some have argued against the pay-for-play model that is slowly becoming prevalent across social media networks, but on the other hand, social networks need a way to make money and if companies are transparent in their dealings, is there anything really wrong with this model? As much as social media has been discussed over the past few years, it is still a burgeoning phenomenon. Social media is evolving, and because there is no formal regulation – yet – us marketers are learning and making up the model as we go.
A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
The survival of social media networks is entirely dependent on its users – if there are no users, there is no network. Sites like Digg and Reddit are completely dependent on user-generated content. Meanwhile, companies seeking increased visibility may opt to use PR companies to generate and distribute content on their behalf, or set up a corporate social account in order to share content. Social networks need content and companies want exposure– marketing companies that offer to connect the two are, in a sense, facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship (while charging a fee, of course). Is this not a win-win scenario?
While marketer’s ethical conduct in regards to social media is a topic that is still somewhat new, the issue of pay-for-play in media sponsorships has long been the subject of debate and industry scrutiny. Five years ago, advertisers were faced with considerable pressure as product placements were being written into television and movie scripts. Last year, it was the “Mommy Bloggers” who were called to task failing to be transparent in their product reviews and their “sponsors.”
Relevancy and Transparency
In these dealings, what’s critical is transparency – and relevant, meaningful content. Provided that companies fully disclose that they have sponsored the content, and that the content is useful and interesting, users won’t really care where it is from. The second that consumers believe that they are trying to be swindled by false or inauthentic content, the company’s brand reputation will be shot. Consumers will read sponsored content if it is relevant and engaging – but what they won’t stand for, and shouldn’t stand for, is having their intelligence insulted, free content or not.
What is your view? Do you care if someone has paid to take top-billing on a blog or a social media site if what they are delivering is of use, value or meaning to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
