America - a developing nation?

Silicon Valley is an odd part of America. For a start most of the people you tend to meet are transplants from either some other corner of the world or some other part of America. So when you live here you tend to get distorted view of what America is really like. I recently got a good chance to observe 'real' America. Not by visiting another part of it but by leaving it for a while. In the last month I did a trip to Europe and witnessed first hand how the Europeans view America. I think it would be fair to say that America is no longer viewed the way it was when I lived there. America used to be a super power with money to throw at any problem. America used to be a place where everyone had a great standard of living. America used to have people that travelled to Europe for a vacation. Instead, America is a place where the banking industry is in turmoil and the economy is 'challenged.' It is the place where people have suddenly realized that SUVs are a dumb idea for most average motorists. It is a place where tourists now go carrying an extra suitcase so they can restock their wardrobes at a fraction of the cost they would at home. Put simply America has become a place that is cheap to visit and yet has pretty impressive infrastructure. Indeed America is perhaps the first highly sophisticated third world country in the eyes of many. It seems hard to imagine that America has become this in such a short space of time. Ten years ago, the economy here was flying and Wall Street was in charge. Today Wall Street is in hiding and the economy is hardly firing on all cylinders. Indeed if it weren't for the weak dollar then the US economy would likely be in a recession of some magnitude. As it is it is prompting people to buy product and services from here as if this were China or India. Only yesterday VW announced it is to open a manufacturing plant in Tennessee. It did this it was said, because of the weak dollar. All I can say is that they obviously assume America is set to have a weak dollar for some time to come as they are spending $1 Billion on this plant. So I return to my observation that America is perhaps becoming a new class of country. It is clearly 'developed' and yet thanks to a weak dollar is now competing for jobs and contracts shoulder to shoulder with the developing nations. Ten years ago, such a thought would have been impossible to imagine.

Big Oil's problem

For years when you listened to the news it would say Wall Street was up or down based on the performance of one or two big companies, or some new economic statistic such as inflation or employment. Right now the driver of Wall Street is the price of oil. As oil prices rise the market declines - even if Apple releases a new product! As someone who worries a great deal about climate issues, I'm conflicted on the oil issue. The dramatic rise in the price of oil is forcing people and businesses to change their habits which I see as a good thing. Indeed, it makes me wonder why some changes didn't happen sooner. For example I gather airlines which are feeling the pain of the rise in oil prices are taking all manner of steps to make their aircraft lighter - such as only filling the water in the bathrooms of their planes half full. The logic being that most planes land with at least half a tank of water and flying that weight of water around doesn't make sense.

The other side of the problem is that the rising cost of oil is hurting some businesses that can do little in the short term to reduce their pain. It is also hurting the consumer through rising food costs. For those on low or fixed incomes this is real pain. Now of course the oil companies coud agree to increase production to ease the supply and demand problem. This may result in a significant cut in the price of oil, especially since consumers and corporate behaviors are likely to remain as they are now. However, given we are dealing with oil, a product that is difficult, dangerous and expensive to extract - and which has a finite supply, there is really little incentive for them to do this. Big oil knows that in 50 years it will likely be out of business as we all move to alternative sources of energy. If they increase supply that 50 years may be reduced to 40 giving them even less time to re-invent themselves. In other words, I can see little incentive for Big Oil to change its current approach to supplying oil. To my mind, this current pain from rising oil prices will not go away any time soon. Therefore I would rather see governments focus on longer term solutions to this. I would encourage the oil businesses to invest in new forms of energy and even give them tax breaks for doing so. The sooner we can make the switch the better and if we know one thing about Big Oil it is that it is addicted to money.

HP deals with EDS

HP's announcement that is buying EDS has been received poorly by the markets. HP's stock is off 6% while IBM, the company who should be hurt by such a deal, has seen its stock rise. Many of the issues people have raised relate to the poor cultural fit plus the relatively poor margins and growth EDS has been generating in recent years. HP in return is arguing that EDS creates a platform for them to grow large parts of their existing business - an argument the market clearly isn't buying. To me this deal says more about Mark Hurd than it does about anything else. It is hard to argue that he has done a poor job since taking over the helm at HP. The business is stronger by almost every measure. I think he sees EDS as a business he can work similar magic on. I'm pretty sure he sees opportunities to improve the margins as he has at HP and get growth by selling in to his installed HP base. In other words, having done a pretty good job of turning HP around, he now needs something new to challenge him and his team. EDS could well prove a very smart deal. His board has to hope that while he focuses on EDS, someone else is paying equal attention to HP, because you can be certain that the likes of IBM and Sun will see this as a great chance to go after HP's customers.

Apple TV and YouTube challenge the norm

Years ago I sat in while a journalist interviewed Bill Gates. A PC was on the desk with Windows running. In most of the windows there were Microsoft applications but in one there was a TV show. I was spell bound. It was like I was watching TV for the first time. My awe struck state came crashing to earth moments later when Bill said: "We've finally been able to turn a $3000 machine into a $200 TV set." His point was clear. Who really needed to have a window on their computer that could show TV channels when in most homes there was already a device that did it much better at a much lower price.

This of course was before the Internet took off and people decided they liked to spend a good portion of their previously allocated TV time surfing the Internet. Web based TV has been very slow in coming but thanks to YouTube efforts to bridge the gap between web surfer and TV watcher seem to be gaining pace. Enter the latest version of Apple TV which, along with all your iTunes and iPhoto content, has a YouTube option that allows you to search and select your favorite content. In effect this turns YouTube into another channel on your TV. Right now most of the content on YouTube is pretty grainy making it a poor relation in the channel stakes. My guess is that this will change. But it also occurs to me that if Apple can effectively turn YouTube into a TV channel, couldn't they also become a natural home for a host of other channels? I'm pretty sure someone could come up with an Internet alternative TV network. One that uses the functionality of the web as well as its obvious distribution benefits. How long before there is an Apple TV Guide?

Missed Opportunity for the BBC

The BBC recently overhauled its website. The sites looks a great deal better and has maintained its interactive nature with visitors able to send in comments on many of the stories. However, I can't help feeling it is an opportunity missed to do something really bold and unusual. For example I'd love it if they'd taken a leaf out of YouTube's book and made it so that when you clicked on a news item, it then automatically made additional suggestions. I'd also appreciate it becoming a truly customizable site. Right now you can customise the home page to some degree, but compared to sites like my.yahoo.com it is... weak. I'd also like to see them accept ratings from users on their content AND to admit to how many people are reading each story in same way as YouTube tracks the number of people that have viewed a clip. In other words I'm saying that I feel the BBC could have used the best features of a number of sites to upgrade its site. I would also LOVED to have seem them embrace blog or even rival content more. For example, they could have created links to host of additional sites for news and perspective. Of course that would have created a lot of work for them BUT it may have resulted in the BBC becoming a wonderful homepage. And let's face it, even in a world where we all use the Internet in a far more sophisticate way than we did even a year ago, we all still love our homepage.

e-petitions are they a resource for PR?

The UK equivalent of the White House, 10 Downing Street, has established an e-petition service enabling UK citizens to create petitions on pretty well anything. Currently over 7000 petitions are active and they cover a multitude of topics. It struck me that these petitions give a glimpse of the topics that are affecting a nation (which should be useful insight for consumer lead businesses). They also potentially create a vehicle to put items on the public agenda far more quickly and cost effectively than would have been the case before the Internet arrived. Of course, scanning the petitions is a pretty manual effort right now but the government has done a pretty good job of breaking down petitions currently active into sections.

Wal-Mart video archive

The WSJ today reported that a small video production company that for years recorded internal meetings and events on Wal-Mart's behalf. Having been dumped by its main customer, it has now decided to offer up the content to anyone who wants to have access. Provided they pay of course. It's apparently a treasure trove for historians and lawyers suing the company. For example one lawyer has paid $15000 to secure copies of video clips on the chance they may be useful in future cases. Wal-Mart not surprisingly is unhappy about this and is considering legal action. The maker of the tapes started working with Wal-Mart in the 1970s and claims he had no contract meaning he owns the content. It made me wonder if this will cause firms to quickly review their contracts to check whether the notes taken by PR staff in meetings become their legal property. We all know that clients tell PR staff information they need to do their jobs that they wouldn't like to see in places like the WSJ. If there is no contract or the contract is poorly written, who knows where that information will end up in time.

The Ms

For those seeking some light relief from the economy, here's a thought: The 20th Century was the era of innovation. we invented things like we've never done before. Machines of all manner were dremed up, we put men on the moon and we created cures for killer diseases. We also coined names for most of the decades that fitted in this period. We started with the roaring 20's and raced through every succeeding decade to the 90s. Indeed when someone says the 70s today we know they mean the 1970s. These descriptors have been huge for people marketing products. Indeed entire industries have evolved around these decades. This leaves us with a challenge as we start to roll through the 21st century. It simply doesn't work to say the twenty tens, or the twenty seventies for that matter. Any suggestions on this are welcome. Perhaps the naming of the decades and the celebration of them from a marketing perspective will forever be a 20th Century matter. Perhaps someone will coin a new way of branding the decades - The M20s? I know, it's not very good is it?

Bear Market for Bear Stearns

For $234m JP Morgan has bought a bank, Bear Stearns, that was worth $20 billion last year. Either they have got the bargain of the century or Bear Stearns has the equivalent of a football team's worth of rogue traders. It is more likely they have bought this on the cheap, given the support the Fed has also agreed to give, making it a great symbol of how the banking sector is capable of making money even when times are hard.

What I find striking about this deal is that it reminds us how the banking business is built on confidence and how easily that confidence can be destroyed. I'm sure there are some real problems with the Bear Stearns business but I'm also sure there are many assets (not least their real estate in NY) that are worth considerably more than the $2 a share JP Morgan is paying. I'm pretty sure the brains at JP Morgan will be able to clean up the Bear Stearns business, which then only leaves them with a confidence challenge. That is a classic PR challenge that in this instance is going to run right across their sector. It will be fascinating to see how they respond to this in the short term. As a sector they tend to be fierce competitors but if they want to maintain the confidence they need right now they are going to have to work well together and show the world they can weather this storm. It's classic crisis management stuff but for an industry as a whole not just Bear Stearns who at this point are the victim.

It's all the economy's fault

As news about a weak US economy continues to get posted, you can expect businesses to hide poor performance behind this economic curtain. In truth not all businesses that do poorly are suffering from a bad economy. Many are simply suffering from poor management and poor products. Of course if you dominate a market with huge market share then you will feel the effects of a shrinking market more than most in all likelihood. But most companies don't dominate. Most companies have a tiny share of the market. So even if the market is shrinking they could still grow by taking market share away from a competitor. To do that they will of course have to run a better company than the competitor. That may not be easy, especially in an uncertain economy but it's not impossible. So next time you hear a CEO blame the economic climate for worse than expected results you should ask yourself whether it really was the economy or was it that they made some bad calls?

What's Steve Jobs HPA?

In sports, averages and ratings are calculated for everything. Baseball is full of players stats such as RBIs and ERAs. In (American) football, quarterbacks have YPAs and in basketball there are stats on free throws and rebounds to name but a few. I was wondering today whether you could also create stats for business leaders. For example how many of the products Steve Jobs has unveiled in the last few years have gone on to be hits? Put another way, what's his Hits Per Announcement, or HPA, average? If such a score could be calculated it would probably show that Apple's CEO is scoring well. The logical conclusion being that he must be taking performance enhancing drugs and will likely face a grand jury some time in the next year or two, once they've finished with Barry Bonds.

The real economy needs to speak up

Last week WPP's CEO talked about the 'real economy' and how it's actually holding up quite well. The same day, IPG also put out some positive statements following good results. Indeed if you look at the business news in recent weeks there have been a string of relatively positive statements made, albeit with some caveats attached. The only sectors that have continued to spew out bad news have been banking, housing and the some parts of the auto industry. Even retail has seemed pretty robust which lead a Forbes columnist to pick Target as a stock worth buying now that its PE has dropped to around 16. All this suggests that there are two economies playing out right now. Unfortunately only one of them seems to be getting any attention. The 'real economy' as Sir Martin called it seems to get a passing mention, whereas the the mean, ugly one that the banks are wrapped up in seems to get a mountain of coverage. It sounds to me like the real economy needs some marketing support.

Why this recession will be different

There seems little doubt that the US economy is in some form of recession. Whether that recession is impacting all the states and all parts of the economy is another matter. The auto industry seems to be getting hit while tech remains relatively strong. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that modern cars will last decades, whereas computers still seem to need replacing every three or four years. Anyway, that's a whole other subject.

What I've been giving thought to is how this period of economic change will differ from the time of the dot com crash. One item really stands out to me and that's stock options. When the dot com market was booming tech companies were giving staff relatively large amounts of stock and lower basic salaries. As a result when the crash happened staff were left with big tax bills on stock that wasn't worth anything and salaries that were artificially low. This made many employees nervous about accepting options as a form of compensation even in companies that had good prospects. Couple this with changes in accounting rules that made the idea of issuing stock options less attractive and you had a situation where companies have been forced to look at more traditional rewards. They have also had to sell people on the idea that the job they were offering would actually be worth taking.

So if we assume that the market does take a beating at stocks drop 15%, the impact on the economy could be quite different. Last time around, those with stock in public companies were trying to sell fast before their tax burdens grew too great. This time around the magnitudes are so different that the rush to sell shouldn't be as dramatic. Also, this time around people are earning higher basic salaries. This has two implications: 1. People are less dependent on stock for compensation so a bad day on the market won't mean as much 2. If companies need to trim costs they shouldn't need to lay as many people off in order to achieve the same cost saving.

As you can probably tell, I'm no economist but I do believe that the relative absence of stock options in the current economy could have a big bearing on how a recession plays out.

No news is bad news

Yahoo! may not want Microsoft to buy them but I suspect they are enjoying the attention the Microsoft offer has brought to the brand. For a while now Yahoo! has been struggling to regain the spotlight from Google. With Microsoft's offer they suddenly have that spotlight albeit for different reasons. I'm curious to see whether this attention translates into increased sales revenues - I suspect it could. If it does, the old saying that: "no news is bad news," may well prove correct.

btw - for those of you that track this blog, you may recall my YouTube measure. Since I last checked (which was back in December) Google's postings have increased from 169,000 to 192,000 (an increase of 13.6%), while Yahoo!'s have increased from 123,000 to 149,000 (an increase of 21%).

Creston spins out of a difficult US market

If you read the latest PR Week UK front page news that Creston has pulled out of the US you may have come to the conclusion that the US was a dangerous place for PR agencies to be right now and that firms such as ours and Huntsworth must be struggling. I’d like to refer back to our recent AGM update where we talked in positive terms about our business here in America and also refer people to Huntsworth’s update where they suggested they too were trading well.

The story inferred that large agencies are going to find it harder if a recession strikes (shocking news) but fails to make a coherent argument as to why – there only real suggestion is that in tough times people go to smaller less expensive firms. As an agency head that has worked through a recession or two I’ll tell you that in recessions clients get cautious, which means they tend to want to work with firms they know will still be there when a recession ends. Equally, better talent tends to also play it safe and opt for agencies that are likely to survive and that tends to be the bigger firms. So as you can see I’m not really following the logic of this news piece.

My next observation is that even having read the following paragraph several times I’m still not sure what it means: “Agencies under the umb¬rellas of mid-sized conglomerates such as Chime, Next Fifteen Group and Huntsworth, which are reliant on central costing, could now find their budgets under close scrutiny from clients, according to analysts.” What exactly is “central costing?” Do they mean that PR budgets are somehow managed centrally by big customers across the globe? If so I suggest they interview a few clients and they’ll soon learn that the vast majority of budgets are set market by market.

My last point is that I’m rather surprised PR Week didn’t contact the midsized holding companies they referred to for a perspective on this news. Perhaps if they had the Creston spin would have been exposed. My hat goes off to Creston though. Let's face it, they did manage to deflect some pretty bad news and suggest that they were now better placed than others to deal with the US. I just wonder who really bought that news.

Is there a link between Green and the economy?

Six months ago Green was everywhere in the media. Major companies were clamoring to be seen as the greenest business with Dell perhaps being one of the most ambitious in this regard. As economic uncertainty has increased Green appears to have slipped from the agenda. It is almost as if Green was a luxury companies and consumers could afford when times were good. Interestingly it has also failed to be a pillar of any of the Presidential nominee campaigns. I find this rather disturbing but not that surprising. This does present a challenge for those of us that believe Green is more than just a convenient way of appealing to certain consumers. The answer, I believe, is in adapting the Green message to suit the market. Right now the message needs to be less about good citizenship and more about how Green can actually help companies be more efficient and reduce costs. For example, companies that adopt advanced video conferencing now in lieu of having staff flying back and forth will be doing the environment a favor but will also be saving huge amounts of staff time and thus increasing productivity. In other words Green needs to think like a business and listen to its customers. If it doesn't I fear it will take a back seat for a while to come.

Same destination, different route

It's easy to believe that when the economy changes, so does the mission of a business. The reason it's easy to believe is because it's at least partly true. If the economy changes, so does the economic opportunity... at least in the short term. However, I would argue that looking longer term the goals of a business should remain unchanged. This means if a business is aiming to lead or create a market it should still aim to do so. Of course its timescales may get modified but the destination shouldn't (Unless of course the economy wipes that market off the map!). So if the commercial objectives remain unchanged but the means of achieving them get modified, then I'd also argue that the communications objectives should remain while perhaps the strategies may be reviewed. So as the storm clouds around the US economy continue to build, I'd encourage communications professionals to remind their staff not to take their eye off the prize but instead to look again at the route they may take to get there.

People like good adverts and bad PR

If you search online for 'great' or 'best advertising' you'll find sites such as bestadsever.com and bestadsontv.com. If you search for great or best PR, you'll find very little. Indeed there isn't a site (yet) that collects all the great work done in this area of marketing. There are however a host of sites that collect all the bad work done. One being prdisasters.com. It just goes to show that people love to see talking babies, horses with flatulence and dancing lizards just as much as they like to see CEOs stumbling to handle the media when things go wrong. Maybe PR Week should start a Best PR site and each month upload their winners.

Borderless Communities and Flat Issues Build Global Brands

Global PR is nothing new, nor is the concept of a global economy. However, now for the first time we are seeing what a global economy really means and that in turn is changing PR thanks to what I’d call Flat Issues and borderless communities. In the past a global economy meant new business models and new markets for goods and services. Now it means common attitudes to brands and common fears about issues. Consumers around the developed world pay little attention to where their products are made but they do care about many of the same things. "Are these bananas organic?" "Is Microsoft evil?" "Should America leave Iraq?" Ten years ago I'd theorize that only a small percentage of the issues people cared about in one country were shared with people in another. Today I'd suggest that on any given day almost a third of the issues on people's minds are common across multiple markets.

Now this both poses a challenge and creates an opportunity for anyone trying to build brands. On one level brands need to worry about where input to issues will come from. For example a firm in Sunnyvale CA may well get berated online by someone in Frankfurt, Germany even though they don't officially do business in that country. On the other hand, a brand that is having a tough time in one country may turn to customers in another to help them shift perceptions. This idea isn't new but for the first time people may actually find it works thanks in large part to the rise of social networks/media. Social media offers the chance to break out of a country by country approach to influencing opinions and instead focus on communities with common interests. For brands wanting to take advantage of this they need to know where there is common ground (the flat issues) and understand the scope of a community. This means either doing some research or making an educated guess. I'd of course vote for the former.

So for anyone trying to build a global brand, I'd suggest they start by identifying both the communities that break borders and the flat issues that unite them. That's where the opportunity to take advantage of global markets really lies.

Google's stance is hard to swallow

Google is clearly scared that if Microsoft succeeds in buying Yahoo! it will lose it's dominance in the search/online ad sales business. So it is using the idea that if a deal gets done Microsoft will suddenly become the dominant email and instant messaging player as a way to get the deal called off by antri-trust lawyers. There are few things that make this a hard line to swallow:

1. Microsoft is already the dominant email supplier in the workplace thanks to Outlook. Indeed if you taker the email market as a whole I'm sure Microsoft is way ahead of any rival thanks to Hotmail so this doesn't really change things that much.
2. They are so obviously picking a fight that has nothing to do with the real... fight. The real battle is about online ads. Google has been killing the competition for several years now thanks to the dominance of its search engine. A deal with Yahoo! would simply make Microsoft a real competitor as opposed to a potential competitor.
3. They think it is OK for them to be a dominant player but not Microsoft. In effect they are suggesting that Microsoft's history suggests that if they become dominant in the Internet business then they will treat the Internet just like they did the PC business and that will be a bad thing. I think we all know that even if Microsoft pulled off this deal and even if they then de-throned Google, the governments around the world would be watching them like a hawk. And the governments have been pretty successful in getting their way when they take on Microsoft in court.

Of course you can't blame them for reacting to the deal but judging by the drop in Google's share price (now below $500 for the first time in over six months) it is clear that the market thinks they are running scared. I almost wonder whether they would have been better to play down the deal rather than look as if they are scared by it.

PS - I know Yahoo's name has an exclamation mark after it but Google's Blogger won't allow me to use one in the labels section...